eta cna hed a ge) 8 otek. vn Med mney nin ese weag fe a ate aber.) Lede tata eda eit ol ite Pins ener She Naoto beth ek Conn ait all serbia ap oitd He trai ae f Vaso Seg Se he Meet ok es om ol “4 Dede Vonarl Misben aibgere Whe Metre Fe tborlonte a Tivaatoct Meurer te Vet He Mota MA ne ma he Caw aite Phe Hite Rak mid a AW ad nod oath oe ‘ i eas » heit Vegetent i eee Datel ven Teak + pee ey ry My ap yd } ihe ee HATE A nies Noa Lh ise Batt Me ok eden ea ale ttedl % uw UE ea) On ae \ Dae 8 “43 oe a Ein Mo be A Rt $4 hele Paes hg a ten ciated Fo gomtomaay Ui andes Ae Te] qe tle veel eate § wh *aMe faite biG Nat a vase ietards dither Paes ee ry tet ribet Nat he Pugh NM salen Oulernd yea tet Heteea ho Me dls fongat eat tale ch 3 dei tate yiats! ete , n r iat houtesners ieee sd Pca raat fodenee te apt te ined delat oe Abt bale Od mtg et benadtees qs Bete att Yorbe beeen Hs greta obese 42 the . i ‘ figecltatiapest rears} abet set te ger adres A Haat a Is 6 spemthait teh Ny i tae mie 43 aga taal idede Soo. yey BE a ted oer 4 Daud eer inegs Mele ida ay idandA ot ou ! VEE! RPT) RERUN titet cereal Me lapla taut ae eae tell eae yi nqauen en : 4 ae alae alisat: TASH inet ste pets Wet badge tphad tae echt ards 4 snd ge Teens lailglh yg aot: fay tanrgutey stings a4 Syed er vit (grins Megtasteonn Heh hs ‘edad 4ie a2 4G en aged fried Louth e teg” Get . iD Ve neg PAE yee a Weasds aaa ry Sand mesisdienly ’ Ca yey Gog Shea oO ee Pepe yy! fale va seidelbd ine tae pape fees ier: ae ie ‘ peut Ante bien neg ae Sie eiean 1a + «ah? haunt be Sands 5 gine, sata ele i saute este 4 state ie we er ers oe ah ent dose 16 Cres rt Ne CRY Che aa ee ¢ Hm dase aie ‘y va Le iatgedect= ecswe test fit v Mig ist tegeas gta CG tio Cheti cial it tude ais day as ¥ Peon ts ae qi UM yt ta eh ges Ve au gy cas ate ag aD se a Deus ea 1 ae t " tat ida we saad sy Pe bes teas sews ‘ ise saat MV wt “4 Pyne bata’ ails tabs Phen ate ay ‘ f sawed hen ancy i qat ne Asawadliansennaad Aeasadirasyent cones y His fa Fasdad Wai Baus sey dabedgae Asgud tean ad aged Pte tot ieatn site is “ aa ss ins preety " vice ieee oh ae “ aneey y Names why teeth i ieee i ie ei nH cee Aahewata tat i sieh is i ou al J a ibe esancaiin ei ehedid os , pee THe ‘ orreeren be ao shines h tihag Fat eaten aries wit 0 panieat ue genni via ao ae igen Be rm hb errr ai tants aheingin ae sihe nt ane (and ett +H a ais} a ; rat ees! aia tates athe 1s ates ee 1) seta fhe Tl yeerket® a ai Hin = i - a i ia st ty pity sate eitedeedy ole vate maeagees ae Ve rtabat ane mone pau then tate a ue yeas aaa, ear “Although this act has been in force twenty-five years,” he said, “during which time the attention of Congress has been repeatedly called in the most urgent manner to the unlawful disposition of the pub- lic timber lands made possible by it, the act still stands on the statute book, a monument to the wastefulness and the injustice of our national land policy.” Hansbrough agreed with Gibson as to the need of repeal, but he feared that, unless another law were passed providing for the sale of timber, the repeal of the Timber and Stone Act would simply | be playing into the hands of big timber owners, who would find their own holdings advanced in value by the limitation of the supply of timber available for the market. Hansbrough even asserted that an » 31S. 370, S. 932; 58 Cong. 1 sess.: S. 4916, S. 5054; 58 Cong. 2 sess. 32S. Report 1535; 58 Cong. 2 sess. 33 Cong. Rec., Mar. 17, 1904, 3376. It has been stated that Thomas B. Walker appeared before the House Committee on Public Lands, and that as a result of his influence only two members of the committee voted for the bill. Walker, it will be remembered, used the Timber and Stone Act a great deal in the acquisition of lands, and no doubt was opposed to any repeal of the law or any provision which would interfere with its use. (Proceedings, Am. Forestry Congress, Jan. 1905, 339.) 34 §. 5168; 58 Cong. 2 sess. 35 Cong. Rec., Mar. 24, 1904, 3606. THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 231 organization of the lumber interests, with headquarters in Washing- ton, was working hard for the repeal of the law.** Dubois of Idaho feared that the scrip holders would be the chief beneficiaries of a repeal of some of the land laws. As he explained: “The great trouble with us in the West is not the land laws. The great difficulty that we encounter now is the scripping of land. . . . Almost all of this scrip is owned by the railroad corporations. The difficulty that we encounter is the danger from the scripping of these lands by the railroad corporations or by people who buy the scrip from them. . . . I am suspicious sometimes that the owners of this scrip are pressing for the repeal of these beneficent land laws. It is apparent that if all the land laws, except the homestead, were repealed and the commutation clause of the Homestead Act done away with, the scrip would become vastly more valuable.” Without a doubt Dubois was honest, and even fairly accu- rate, in his description of the scrip situation in the West. Newlands of Nevada favored the repeal of the act,** although he devoted most of his attention to the matter of irrigation. Clark of Wyoming was very desirous that nothing should be done to “interfere with the development of the West”’; and, like Dubois, he declared that an insistent lobby of scrip holders was the main influence behind the bill.** “‘Never in the history of public land legislation,” he asserted, “thas there been such a determined and such an insistent lobby as has been behind this proposition for the last three years to repeal the land laws of the United States. It is no secret that they have a bureau established here in this city for that purpose. It is no secret that they maintain a weekly organ of publication devoted to this and to this alone. It is no secret that one of the greatest of these holders boasted -in a public speech at a banquet within the last two months that his company alone had contributed $25,000 to this propaganda.” Like Newlands, Clark was more interested in other matters than in the Timber and Stone Act, but he evidently did not favor its repeal. Senator Warren opposed absolute repeal of the act unless some other law were passed, permitting the sale of timber.*° 36 Cong. Rec., Mar. 25, 3662, 3663, 3665, 3666. 37 Tbid., 3668, 3669. 38 Tbid., Mar. 31, 4032. 39 [bid., Apr. 2, 4144. During these discussions frequent reference was made, by 232 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY It thus appeared that, while a few of the western men actively opposed the repeal of the Timber and Stone Act, others asserted that they were merely opposed to repeal unless another law for the sale of timber could be secured in its place. But most of the men, even in the latter class, probably did not want the act repealed, because they could never have been persuaded to vote for a general timber sale law to take its place. That had been demonstrated in Congress over and over again. Whenever a timber sale bill came up, most of the western men began to talk about the injustice that would be done to the “poor settlers” and miners, if they had to buy the timber they wanted. Furthermore, many of the men, even from other sections of the coun- try, had shown entire inability to see the logic of selling the timber without the land. Thus there was little likelihood that Congress would provide for the sale of timber in the public domain, and therefore little likelihood that any considerable number of western men could be brought to favor the repeal of the Timber and Stone Act. No doubt if the issue had been presented squarely, it would have been strongly opposed by such men as Teller, Clark, and Fulton, and it is hardly likely that it would have received a favorable vote. It is true that the bill introduced by Quarles, accomplishing somewhat the same end, had passed the Senate, but in that case the sop of an addition to the reclamation fund had been used to secure the support of the West. Hansbrough and others, to the good old days when Teller was Secretary of the Interior, and to the later administration of Cornelius N. Bliss; and it was stated that Teller was the only secretary in many years who “knew anything about the public land system from practical experiences,” while Bliss was referred to as a “oreat executive officer” who never became “hysterical over alleged land frauds.” The inference was, of course, that Hitchcock was hysterical in his enforcement of the land laws. Hitchcock was doing some of his best work in the prosecution of land and timber thieves at this time, and these criticisms were wholly baseless. It seems that throughout the history of the public lands, the honesty and efficiency of offi- cials in the Land Department were in no way so accurately indicated as by the amount of criticism they received at the hands of politicians from the West. As Pinchot once expressed it: “It is the honorable distinction of the Forest Service that it has been more constantly, more violently and more bitterly attacked by the representatives of the special interests in recent years than any other government bureau. The attacks have increased in violence and bitterness just in proportion as the service has offered effective opposition to predatory wealth. The more success- ful we have been in preventing land grabbing and the absorption of water power by the special interests, the more ingenious, the more devious, and the more dangerous these attacks have become.” (Cong. Rec., Jan. 6, 1910, 336.) THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 233 Perhaps, after all, it is not so important to speculate upon what might have happened, as it is to note what really did happen. After several days of debate, the bill was referred to the Committee on Public Lands, and it never emerged from that committee.*° THE SUSPENSION OF TIMBER AND STONE ENTRIES IN 1906 For several years, there seemed to be very little interest in the Timber and Stone Act. In 1905, Lacey, who had changed his mind in regard to this act, brought in a bill for its repeal, but the bill was never reported.** In 1906, the action of Roosevelt and Hitchcock in suspending the issue of all patents under this and other public land laws,” immediately aroused a spirited discussion in Congress. In January, 1907, Senator Carter of Montana introduced a resolution into the Senate to compel the issue of patents in all cases where there was no evidence of fraud,** and somewhat later made a long and stir- ring speech against the “harsh, cruel and oppressive” order of the secretary, and against Hitchcock personally. “For the last six years sensational reports of evil doings in the public land states have been emanating from the Interior Department from day to day, so sweep- ing in their scope as to create the impression in other sections that the entire western population is, and has been, engaged in a veritable saturnalia of criminal conspiracy, fraud, and perjury, over the whole broad surface of the public domain,” said Carter. “Since 1901 insidi- ous interviews and boisterous proclamations have passed from the Interior Department to the public press, reflecting upon all those seeking title to the public domain. The words ‘grafters,’ ‘land grab- bers,’ ‘conspirators,’ ‘looters of the public domain,’ and like terms have become a part of the vernacular of the secretary’s office in refer- ring to public land entrymen of all kinds. The routine work of the Land Service has been pillaged in quest of items for publication, re- flecting on individuals and communities. The slightest irregularity savoring of scandal or possible sensation has been diligently ex- ploited. . . . Everyone was indicted and no acquittals were ever 40 Cong. Rec., Apr. 12, 1904, 4672. 41H. R. 3019; 59 Cong. 1 sess. 42S. Doc. 141; 59 Cong. 2 sess. 43 Cong. Rec., Jan. 9, 1907, 804. 234 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY recorded in these scandalous reports. The exploitation of evil reports has been a conspicuous feature of the present secretary’s administra- tion. Fraud has been constantly and vociferously shouted from the house tops. . . . On the assumption that our settlers are land thieves in the main, the most odious, oppressive, and exasperating treatment has been meted out to them in numerous cases for the last five or six years. . . . Should some morbid delinquent pay nightly visits to the dens of vice and make morning calls at the police courts in all your splendid eastern cities, and then announce to the world from day to day with loud acclaim, that crime and moral leprosy overwhelmed you all, he would, at his pitiable best, play in your field the part the Sec- retary of the Interior and his cohorts have played as regards the people of the public land states for the last six years.” Carter laid the entire responsibility for the “indefensible” order upon Secretary Hitchcock rather than upon Roosevelt, who “had been deceived and alarmed” by the reports of the secretary. “The President and all others misled by the crusade of misrepresentation,” he declared, “are clearly free from responsibility.” Later the same day, Heyburn arose in the Senate and undertook to show by a citation of authorities that the President had no legal power to issue the order staying the issue of patents, and to prove further that the President’s concern at the “extremely unsatisfactory condition of the public land laws”*? was without foundation. “Those laws are older than the public experience of any man in this body,” he said.*° “There is slight ground for complaining of the land laws. There never was a more perfect system of settlement, the build- ing up of states, conceived by mortal man than is embodied in these land laws.” This of course referred to the land laws generally, but Heyburn specifically approved of the Timber and Stone Act, although he considered that the 160 acres which could be taken up under its provisions was too much. Senator Heyburn was not contented with discussing the issues 44 Cong. Rec., Jan. 30, 1907, 1934 et seq. Carter, like Heyburn at other times, even entered the field of magazine writing in his fight against the reserves. (Independent, 60, 667: Leshe’s Weekly, Oct. 27, 1910.) 45S. Doc. 141; 59 Cong. 2 sess. 46 Cong. Rec., Jan. 30, 1907, 1960. 47 [bid., 2019. THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 235 involved, but wandered off into a criticism of the “vicious system of forest reserves,’’*® and fell into some rather obvious inconsistencies in that discussion. He made much fun of the National Forestry Asso- ciation, asserting that a vice-president of that organization (Fred- erick Weyerhaeuser) owned more land that had been obtained by fraud than any other man in the United States.*® At this point, Smoot of Utah suggested that such holdings as Weyerhaeuser’s were impos- sible where forest reserves had been established, and Newlands pre- dicted that if the timber lands in forest reserves were ever thrown open to entry under the Timber and Stone Act, they would very soon be taken up by wealthy timbermen. Unquestionably the result which Newlands foresaw would have followed the opening up of the forest reserves, but Heyburn denied it. He said that if the Timber and Stone Act were enforced, as it “easily could be,” fraud and concentration of ownership would not follow. At almost every point, Heyburn, like Fulton, Carter, Mondell, Teller, and some other western anti-conservationists on similar occa- sions, took about the most illogical attitude possible.*® He affected a great antipathy for the great lumber monopolies, and yet, on almost every question, he played into their hands. Had his views always pre- vailed, there is no doubt that practically all of the timber lands of the West would now be in the hands of large timber companies. The preservation of a portion of the public timber lands from the grasp of speculators and timber companies has been due to two things: the creation of the forest reserves, and the enforcement of the public land laws. To both of these, Heyburn was unalterably opposed. He never missed an opportunity to attack the forest reserves, and when Roose- velt and Hitchcock began a vigorous enforcement of the land laws, Heyburn immediately flew to arms. On the other hand, one of the best tools in the hands of the timber companies was the Timber and Stone Act. Heyburn approved of that act. It is true that he opposed the Forest Lieu Act, a really injurious statute, but instead of directing 48 Cong. Rec., Jan. 30, 1907, 2021. 49 [bid., 2200. 50 For an exposition of Heyburn’s methods in debate, see Forestry and Irriga- tion, Aug., 1908, 445-447. It has been asserted that he did not have the support even of the press in his own section of the country, but it is doubtful if this is true. (Forestry and Irrigation, Sept., 1906, 394.) 236 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY his efforts toward the repeal of the act itself, he aimed most of his venom at the forest reserves. No doubt Roosevelt’s order of withdrawal and tthe opposition aroused by it were among the influences which caused the abolition of the President’s power to set aside reserves, but otherwise no result accrued from these rather extended debates. The Timber and Stone Act was not touched.”* Within a year or two after this, almost all of the public times lands of any value outside of the forest reserves had been taken up,” so that the question of repealing the Timber and Stone Act was of small and constantly decreasing importance. Most of the efforts in that direction did not seek repeal of the act itself, but merely aimed to provide for the sale of timber without the land. Representative Reeder of Kansas introduced a bill in 1908 for this purpose, but the main object of his measure, as of the bill which had passed the Senate several years before,’* was not to protect the public timber lands, but to secure an addition to the reclamation fund.* In 1910, Senator Nelson of Minnesota, in response to a special message from President Taft, introduced nine bills relating to the public land laws, one of them providing for the sale of timber,’ but nothing ever came of this bill. Gronna of North Dakota introduced a similar measure into the House, and later one into the. Senate, but neither was reported.”° SALE OF BURNED TIMBER In 1910, the question of timber sales came before Congress in a new way. The summer of 1910 was very hot and dry, and terrible forest 51 It is worthy of note that Roosevelt did not hide behind his secretary on this occasion, but took upon himself the responsibility of defending the order of with- drawal and the general policy of the administration. “I wish to express my utter and complete dissent from the statements that have been made as to there being but a minimum of fraud in the actual working of our present land laws,” he said in a special message to Congress a few days after these debates. He went further to show by tables that in four districts selected for consideration, 2300 cases had been examined and in over half of them the law had not been complied with. (S. Doc. 310; 59 Cong. 2 sess.) 52 Report, Land Office, 1909, 21. 53S. 5054; 58 Cong. 2 sess. 54H. R. 21140; 60 Cong. I sess. 55 S. 5489; 61 Cong. 2 sess. 56 H. R. 23698; 61 Cong. 2 sess.: S. 1586; 62 Cong. 1 sess. THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 237 fires in the West burned over vast areas of timber land. The burned timber would of course only rot if not disposed of, and agitation soon arose for a law permitting the sale of such timber. Bills were brought into Congress by several representatives from the public land states— Mondell, Pray of Montana, and Robinson of Arkansas ;*’ and in 19138, after the burned timber had been given time to rot, a law was finally secured authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to sell at public auction any timber outside of the national forests killed or damaged by forest fires.°* This is as far as Congress ever went in the sale of timber on the general public domain. The Timber and Stone Act is still on the Federal statute books; and the Secretary of the Interior reported 575 timber and stone entries patented in 1916. TIMBER SALES WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE AUTHORIZATION Congress thus never authorized the sale of timber, except burned timber, on the unreserved lands ;”* but in 1898, the Department of the Interior attempted such sales, under the Permit Act of 1891.°° The Permit Act merely authorized the issue of free timber permits, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior should provide.** A “regulation” requiring payment for this “free” timber seems hardly included within the meaning of the law, yet the secretary acted on the theory that this was permissible, and a few small sales were made.” After two or three years’ experience with this system, however, the department awakened to the ultra vires character of the business, and the regulation providing for sales was repealed.** Thus the history of the Timber and Stone Act after 1891 was in almost every respect like the history of that act im the previous period. It was a means of gross frauds, resulting in the concentration of tim- ber ownership in the hands of speculators and large timber companies ; its iniquitous effects were constantly brought to the attention of Con- gress, and Congress, in response to repeated recommendations for its 57H. R. 29711; 61 Cong. 3 sess.: H. R. 8783, H. R. 4695, H. R. 11475; 62 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 24266; 62 Cong. 2 sess. 58 Stat. 37, 1015. 59 See however, Stat. 30, 414. 60 “Tiand Decisions,” 26, 399, 404. 61 Stat. 26, 1093, 1094. 62 Reports, Land Office; 1898, 101; 1899, 127; 1900, 107. 63 Report, Land Office, 1901, 98. 238 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY repeal, merely extended its evil provisions. It will now be necessary to return to the consideration of the free timber acts, and follow out their history after 1891. THE FREE TIMBER ACTS AGAIN It will be recalled that, in the General Revision Act of 1891, Con- gress had left the Free Timber Act of 1878 untouched, and had passed another more generous free timber act, known as the Permit Act, which provided free timber on the entire public domain, in Colorado, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska, and the gold and silver regions of Nevada and Utah, not only for min- ing, agricultural, and domestic purposes, but also for manufactur- ing.°* Thus after 1891, there were two acts providing free timber on the public domain. In the years after 1891, just as before, the Free Timber Act of 1878 continued to serve as the means whereby large corporations, lumber dealers, and railroad contractors cut timber for all sorts of purposes. The evils arising under the law would not have been very serious had it been possible to confine the cutting to mineral lands; but lumbermen, and even courts and juries, naturally showed a ten- dency to construe the law very liberally. The true interpretation, as already pointed out, limited the application of the act to land con- taining mineral in sufficient quantity to “justify expenditure for its extraction, and known to be so.’ The bias of some of the western courts is well illustrated by the instructions given a jury in an Idaho case ten years after the Supreme Court of the United States an- nounced the true interpretation. The Idaho court construed the act to allow the cutting of “all timber in the neighborhocd of mines, or within such distances from them as to make it convenient for their use, whether mineral is actually found in the ground or not.” These instructions also included as mineral “all ground or country of such character, and so situated with reference to other lands known to contain mines, that miners would prospect it with the expectation of finding mines.”*° Such a construction as this was a license to cut practically all of the unreserved timber in the vicinity. 64 Stat. 26, 1093, 1099. Cross Reference, pp. 68-70. 65 Davis vs. Weibold; 139 U. S., 507, 519. 66 Quoted in Report, Land Office, 1901, 97. THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 239 Many examples might be given to show the extent of the abuses under this act. The Old Dominion Copper Mining and Smelting Com- pany of Arizona, for instance, cut several million feet of lumber in 1900 and 1901 from land never proved to be mineral.” A company in the Black Hills of South Dakota built and for years operated a rail- way extending nearly forty miles into the public domain, for the pur- pose of bringing lumber and fuel to its mines, from land never shown to be mineral; and, according to reports, shipped millions of feet of lumber to Omaha for sale there.** It has been claimed that, owing to a rule of the Department of the Interior granting permits to cut dead and down timber, large areas were burned over year after year in order to kill the timber, that railroads followed the paths of such fires, building merely to accommodate the traffic in burned timber; that sawmills were built and a supply of material provided for them by systematic burning.” The Permit Act was at first perhaps even more destructive in its effects than the Free Timber Act, because its provisions were more extravagantly liberal. By allowing free timber for manufacturing pur- poses, it practically gave away, subject to the regulations of the Sec- retary of the Interior, for all purposes except export, as much lumber as anyone happened to want to take. In the first six years of its opera- tion, nearly 3800 permits were issued, granting to mining and lumber companies about 300,000,000 feet of lumber. Some of the grantees— notably the Big Blackfoot Millmg Company, the Bitter Root Devel- opment Company, and the Anaconda Mining Company—secured per- mits at different times to cut many million feet.‘? The Anaconda Min- ing Company for years consumed an annual average of probably more | than 250,000 cords of wood and 40,000,000 feet of lumber, and sup- plied not only its mines and smelters with timber cut from the public lands, but established lumber yards in different towns, where not less than 50,000,000 feet of timber was sold annually.” Part of this timber was secured under the provisions of the Permit Act. 67 Quoted in Report, Land Office, 1901, 97, 98. 68S. Doc., 105; 55 Cong. 1 sess. 69 Proceedings, Society of Am. Foresters, Nov., 1905, 59. 70 Report, Land Office, 1897, 76. 71 [bid., 77. In 1900, the Secretary of the Interior adopted regulations prohibit- ing the use of free timber for smelting purposes. (“Land Decisions,” 29, 571, 572.) 240 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY The clause providing for regulation by the Secretary of the Inte- rior seems to have been of little avail at first, but in 1898, Secretary Bliss adopted regulations which greatly restricted the abuses arising under the law. The policy of granting permits to millmen for large quantities of timber was abandoned, permits were restricted to the use of settlers, and the amount of timber given was limited to $100 worth annually.” This policy immediately resulted in a great reduc- tion in the number of permits sought. Thus in 1898, only thirty-six permits were asked for, whereas six years before, 425 applications had been received.” The two free timber acts together always constituted an agency most destructive of the public timber, however, and their evil effects were pointed out by the officers of the Department of the Interior, by the committee of the National Academy of Sciences,’* and in 1910, by President Taft in a special message to Congress.’” Almost every annual report of the Secretary of the Interior and of the Commis- sioner of the Land Office called for the modification or repeal of one or both of these acts. The response of Congress to these repeated complaints and recommendations was about the same as had been its response to complaints regarding the Timber and Stone Act. FURTHER EXTENSION OF FREE TIMBER PRIVILEGES A total repeal of all free timber privileges was hardly to be ex- pected, or even desired, for the free timber acts provided the only way by which settlers could get timber from the unreserved public lands. A repeal of all such provisions would have called for some law authoriz- ing the sale of timber; and even had sale been authorized, it would probably have been unwise to abolish all free timber privileges. Such action would certainly have aroused great opposition in the West, and the conservation cause might have suffered a serious check. The pro- vision granting free timber for manufacturing purposes, however, should certainly have been abolished. The fact that Secretary Bliss’ regulations of 1898, restricting permits to settlers, resulted in so 72 Report, Land Office, 1898, 100, 101. 73 Report, Land Office; 1893, 77; 1895, 85; 1898, 100. 74S, Doc., 105; 55 Cong. 1 sess. 75 Cong. Rec., Jan. 17, 1910, 682. THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 241 greatly reducing the number of applications, indicates that settlers were not the main beneficiaries under the free timber acts. The Permit Act of 1891 had not been in operation a year before certain members of Congress undertook to extend its provisions to other states, and in April, 1892, Delegate Smith of Arizona brought in a bill to extend the provisions of the act to Arizona and New Mex- ico.’° This bill was favorably reported in the House, passed both houses without a word of opposition, and was signed by President Harrison.” In the next year, Senator Squire of Washington intro- duced a bill extending the Free Timber Act to eastern Oregon, but it was not reported.”* In 1894, Representative Houk of Tennessee intro- duced another free timber act, applying to the entire public domain, but it also failed in committee.’* For several years, the question re- ceived little attention, but in 1900, an effort was made in both houses of Congress to secure free timber for the coast states by means of an extension of the Permit Act. Moody of Oregon introduced the meas- ure into the House, and Senator Simon of the same state brought it up in the Senate.*® The House bill was never reported, but the Senate bili passed both houses without opposition,** and became a law on March 8, 1901.°*? It was the Oregon delegation in Congress that was always most anxious for the further extension of free timber privileges. Nearly all of the bills introduced after the year 1900 were fathered by men from that state; and the extension of the Permit Act in 1901 was not enough to satisfy these men, for efforts were very soon resumed to secure still further free timber privileges for the coast states. In 1903, Representative Williamson of Oregon introduced two bills to amend the Free Timber Act.** The next year, Senator Mitchell of that state brought up a bill to provide free timber for Oregon, Washington, and California.** Senator Fulton reported it favorably from the Com- 76 H. R. 8268; 52 Cong. 1 sess. 77 H. Report 1379; 52 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 8268; 52 Cong. 2 sess.: Stat. 27, 444, 78S. 612; 53 Cong. 1 sess. 79H. R. 7818; 53 Cong. 2 sess.: Cong. Rec., Vol. 26, p. 8328. 80 H. R. 8065, S. 2866; 56 Cong. 1 sess. 81 Cong. Rec., Mar. 19, 1900, 3036; Mar. 2, 1901, 3481. 82 Stat. 31, 1436. 83 H. R. 8143, H. R. 8144; 58 Cong. 2 sess. 84S. 2994; 58 Cong. 2 sess. 242 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY mittee on Public Lands, and it passed the Senate without comment,” but never came up in the House. The next year, Senator Fulton intro- duced a bill into the Senate to extend the Free Timber Act to the coast states, but it was never considered.** From 1905 to the present time, little effort has ever been made to secure a further extension of free timber privileges. UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORTS TO CURTAIL FREE TIMBER PRIVILEGES It seems strange that while extension of free timber acts was thus secured in every case without any opposition or comment, several bills were introduced into Congress to restrict the provisions of these very acts. In 1894, Representative McRae of Arkansas introduced a bill “To prevent the free use of timber on the public lands, and to revoke all permits heretofore granted.”*' This bill, amended so as to abolish only the provision allowing free.timber for manufacturing purposes, was favorably reported by the House Committee on Public Lands,” and in spite of the opposition of Coffeen of Wyoming and Bell of Colorado, who saw in it great hardship for the millmen, passed the House.** It never came up in the Senate, however. For several years, McRae made persistent attempts to secure some modification of the free timber acts, but without success.°° On March 2, 1900, Secretary Hitchcock sent a bill to the Speaker of the House and to the President of the Senate,** but it was not reported in either chamber. The next year, Jenkins of Wisconsin introduced a bill of similar nature, which likewise failed of a report.” The question of free timber received no attention for nearly ten years after this, and when, at the request of President Taft in 1910, Senator Nelson brought in a bill to regulate timber disposal,”* almost all of the timber of unreserved lands was gone, and the failure of this 85 §. Report 1364; Cong. Rec., Apr. 19, 1904, 5080. 86S. 268; 59 Cong. 1 sess. 87 H. R. 7854; 53 Cong. 2 sess. 88 H. Report 1400. 89 Cong. Rec., Dec. 5, 1894, 52-57. 90H. R. 40; 54 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 4090, H. R. 10878; 55 Cong. 2 sess.: H. R. 1032; 56 Cong. 1 sess. 91H. R. 10405, S. 3498; 56 Cong. 1 sess. 92H. R. 4371; 57 Cong. 1 sess. 93 §. 5489; 61 Cong. 2 sess. THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 243 bill was not of very serious consequence. The two free timber acts, like the Timber and Stone Act, had outlived the forests which it was their function to destroy, and, like the Timber and Stone Act, they are both on the statute books today, reminders of a discreditable chapter in the congressional history of the public lands. CONSERVATION ACTIVITY IN CONGRESS: INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS FOR TIMBER PROTECTION Congress did not in all ways do as badly as in regard to the Timber and Stone and the free timber acts. During the same time that the provisions of these acts were being extended, some real advances were made in other directions. In the first place, appropria- tions for the prevention of timber depredations and fraudulent entries, although during several years considerably reduced, were ultimately greatly increased, as the following table clearly shows: Year Appropriation Year Appropriation94 1891 $ 120,000 1904 $ 250,000 1892 120,000 1905 250,000 1893 140,000 1906 250,000 1894 60,000 1907 250,000 1895 90,000 1908 500,000 1896 90,000 1909 1,000,000 1897 90,000 1910 750,000 1898 = 110,000 onan 650,000 1899 110,000 1912 500,000 1900 125,000 1913 500,000 1901 125,000 1914 4'75,000 1902 150,000 1915 — 4'75,000 1903 185,000 1916 475,000 Previous to 1896 or 1897, protection against timber depredations was always somewhat ineffectual. The committee of the National 94 Compiled from the Statutes at Large. These figures do not include deficiency _ appropriations, of which there were several during this time. The decrease of appro- priations in 1893 was due, perhaps partly to Democratic economy, and partly to the crisis of that year, which greatly reduced the demand for land and timber and so permitted a reduction in the fund for protection. The increase in appropriations in later years was certainly due in considerable measure to the influence of Roosevelt, Hitchcock, and Pinchot. 244 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY Academy of Sciences estimated in 1897 that in the preceding decade over 11,000,000,000 feet of timber had been illegally taken from the public domain,”’ and the committee gave figures showing that during that time the government sued for over $26,000,000 and recovered something over $1,000,000—about 4 per cent of the amount sued for. In the late nineties and thereafter, however, a considerable increase in efficiency is indicated. Thus, in 1895, a total of about $47,000 was recovered for timber trespasses,’® while in the next year, over $182,000 was recovered. In 1909, with the appropriation of $1,000,- 000, 216 special agents were employed, and nearly $350,000 was recovered for various acts of fraud and trespass.*’ In 1911, 386 civil suits were instituted for frauds and trespass, largely on timber lands, and of these, 8304 were won, while 124 criminal convictions were secured, and 47 prison sentences imposed.” It is not to be supposed that the greater number of cases reported, suits instituted, and the greater amount of money recovered, in later years, was due to a greater amount of fraud and trespass committed, for without doubt land frauds decreased pretty generally throughout the period under consideration. The larger appropriations were resulting in more effi- cient enforcement of the laws; and then, of course, Hitchcock, Pinchot, and Roosevelt injected a new spirit into public land administration. OTHER HELPFUL LEGISLATION Congress did more than merely appropriate money. In the first place, as pointed out in connection with the forest reserves, a law was passed in 1897 imposing a heavy penalty for setting out fires on the public domain.” This law was secured, it may be noted, in spite of the opposition of Congressman Bailey of Texas and Little of Arkansas, Bailey being opposed to the heavy penalty—a fine of not more than $5000, or imprisonment for not over two years—while Little opposed 95 S. Doc. 105; 55 Cong. 1 sess., 33, 34. George F. Schwartz, of the United States Forest Service, estimated in 1909 that the government prosecutions then pending involved a total value of over $114,000,000. (Report, National Conservation Com- mission, II, 396-399.) 96S. Doc. 105; 55 Cong. 1 sess., 33, 34. 97 Report, Land Office, 1912, 11. 98 [bid. 99 Stat. 29, 594. THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 245 Federal jurisdiction in such matters.*’° The amendment of this law in 1900 has been discussed in the preceding chapter.*”* The laws of 1897 and 1900 applied to reserved and unreserved lands alike. In 1906, a law was passed forbidding the boxing of trees on the public domain to get pitch, turpentine, etc.*°? This of course applied mainly to the southern states, where the lack of such a law had already resulted in the destruction of great forests of yellow pine. In yet another matter, Congress voted for conservation, by passing, in 1903, a law permitting registers and receivers to compel the attend- ance of needed witnesses.*°* Such a law had been needed by the depart- ment for nearly twenty years, and even when finally secured, it was somewhat defective in not permitting the registers also to require witnesses to produce papers, books, and documents ;** yet it was of considerable value in the enforcement of the public land laws. Several much needed laws have never yet been secured from Con- gress. The great timber frauds of 1908, 1904, and 1905 brought out prominently the need for a law specifically providing for the punish- ment of persons who fraudulently obtained, or attempted to obtain, title to public lands. Many of the indictments in the Oregon frauds were for conspiracy to defraud the government; and conspiracy was often difficult to prove, even where the facts clearly showed fraud. In 1905, Commissioner Richards sent to Congress a bill providing a heavy fine for any attempt to gain title fraudulently, with the urgent request that it be passed ; but nothing was ever done with it,**° and no such law has ever been passed. Another item of legislation which has been much needed is an amend- ment of the law regarding perjury. Section 5392 of the Revised Stat- utes provided that every person falsely swearing under an oath admin- 100 Cong. Rec., June 10, 1896, 6395, 6396. An interesting forest fire measure was introduced about this time by Shafroth of Colorado, providing for the clearance of fire lanes 1000 feet wide at intervals of five or ten miles. This bill was favorably reported in the House, but Commissioner Hermann considered it impracticable, and it did not pass. (H. R. 9124, H. Report 1976; 54 Cong. 1 sess.: Cong. Rec., Dec. 9, 1896, 53. See also H. R. 832, H. R. 9123; 54 Cong. 1 sess.) 101 Stat. 31, 169. 102 Stat. 34, 208. 103 Stat. 32, 790. 104 Report, Land Office, 1911, 43. 105 H. Doc. 214; 59 Cong. 1 sess. 246 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY istered, “in any case in which the laws of the United States authorize ~ an oath to be administered,” should be guilty of perjury. In the exe- cution of the public land laws, it was often necessary that certain facts be established by oaths which were not specifically required by the laws of the United States, but were required by department regula- tions or orders, oaths essentially necessary in disposing of the public lands. It was repeatedly held that a charge of perjury could not be based upon an affidavit required only by departmental regulations,’” and in 1905, the Commissioner of the Land Office urged upon Congress the amendment of this section, but such an amendment has not been made. During the past thirty years or more, a great many efforts have been made in Congress to secure grants of land to various states for forestry purposes, but, as previously stated, these attempts were of little importance as indications of an interest in forest conservation. In 1904, 20,000 acres of land were granted to Minnesota, and two years later, a similar grant was made to Wisconsin. Since then there have been several efforts to secure grants for forestry purposes, but, except for the grant of some small islands to Wisconsin, no results have accrued from these efforts.**” RAILWAY LAND GRANTS ONCE MORE The land grant forfeitures hitherto referred to were for failure to build the road. In 1907 and 1908, however, the land grant question came up from a new angle—the failure to comply with the conditions regarding the sale of granted lands—the chief offender in this respect being the Oregon & California Railroad Company, now owned by the Southern Pacific. In the grants to this road, a provision had been inserted, requiring the lands to be sold to settlers in tracts not exceed- ing 160 acres, at not more than $2.50 per acre.*** Even as early as- 1872, according to the Attorney-General, the Oregon & California 106 Report, Sec. of Int., 1905, 339. 107 Stat. 33, 536; 34, 517; 37, 324: S. 1438, H. R. 7096; 61 Cong. 1 sess.: S. 6247, S. 7902; 61 Cong. 2 sess.: S. 5076; 62 Cong. 2 sess. A bill introduced by Senator Dixon of Montana passed the Senate in 1912, granting $7500 a year to state univer- sities in the forest reserve states for the training of forest rangers. This bill, how- ever, never came up in the House. (S. 5076; 62 Cong. 2 sess.) 108 Stat. 14, 239; 15, 80; 16, 47, 94. THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 24:7 Railroad violated these provisions, in some instances selling land at prices largely in excess of $2.50 per acre, and in quantities exceeding 1000 acres to each purchaser; but the worst violations came after 1890, after the Southern Pacific system had secured control of these lands.*”® One of the first things the Southern Pacific did was to organ- ize an effective land department, employing land examiners and timber cruisers to ascertain and appraise the value of each tract of land con- tained in the grant. About this time, some of the experienced timber- men of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota learned the value of the Oregon timber lands, and the railroad company was quick to see its opportunity to profit by selling to these timbermen in large tracts. Late in the year 1902, the Southern Pacific adopted a new policy, and permanently withdrew all of its lands from sale. There then re- mained in its hands approximately 2,000,000 acres of the old Oregon & California grant, besides 300,000 acres claimed but not patented. After having disposed of approximately 800,000 acres, most of it in violation of the terms of the grants, the Southern Pacific resolved upon the plan of asserting a permanent estate in the remainder. Vari- ous excuses for this step were given. The San Francisco five was used as an excuse for some time, the railway explaining that the records of the company had been destroyed, and with them its information con- cerning its holdings. In March, 1907, however, the attention of the United States Department of Justice was called to the state of affairs, and an investigation was made, which showed that a total of over 800,000 acres had been sold at an average price of about $5.50— nearly double the price provided in the granting act—and that, of this total of over 800,000 acres, only 127,418 acres had been sold according to the limitations provided by the act.**® The Coos Bay Wagon Road grant,’** now practically all held by the Southern Ore- gon Company, had been made subject to conditions similar to those imposed upon the Oregon & California, and similar violations were alleged to have occurred.” Early in the year 1908, a Senate resolution introduced by Tillman 109 S. Doc. 279; 60 Cong. 1 sess. 110 [bid., 9. 111 Stat. 15, 340. 112 “Tumber Industry,” I, 251. 248 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY of South Carolina was adopted, calling upon the President for infor- mation in regard to the alleged violations, and asking what action the Department of Justice had taken.*”* In accordance with this resolu- tion, a representative of the Department of Justice was sent to Ore- gon to make a complete investigation of the subject, and a report was soon made to Congress, asserting the truth of the charges against the railroad. At the same time that Tillman introduced the resolution call- ing for information, he also introduced a joint resolution directing the Attorney-General to enforce compliance with the conditions of the grant, and restore the lands to the public domain.*** In the Senate, the latter resolution was opposed by Gallinger of New Hampshire, Teller of Colorado, and Foraker of Ohio, on the avowed grounds that con- gressional action was unnecessary to give the Department of Justice the right to forfeit,**? but the resolution was adopted without any serious difficulty." In the House, Fordney of Michigan was much concerned about the timbermen who had bought lands from the rail- roads, and he offered an amendment providing that the resolution - should not apply to purchasers who had received patents.*™ The reso- lution itself threatened no injustice to innocent purchasers, and Ford- ney’s amendment was merely an attempt to defeat the measure, for any amendment would probably have been fatal; but in spite of the efforts of Fordney and Denby of Michigan, Jenkins of Wisconsin, Smith of Iowa, and Keifer of Ohio, Fordney’s amendment failed, and the resolution was adopted by a vote of 247 to 8. About forty-four representatives had been voting with Fordney on his amendment, but in the final vote on the original resolution all but eight of them ran for cover."** The Tillman resolution directed the Attorney-General to institute suits, and determine the rights of the United States in regard to the 113 §, Doc. 279; 60 Cong. 1 sess.: Cong. Rec., Feb. 3, 1908, 1449. 114 Cong. Rec., Jan. 31, 1908, 1367. 115 [bid., Feb. 18, 1908, 2111-2114. 116 [bid., 2277. 117 Cong. Rec., Apr. 22, 1908, 5093. Fordney was interested in the lumber busi- ness in Washington, and this probably explains his attitude in this matter. (Cong. Rec., Apr. 18, 1916, 6397.) For a reference to his work for a lumber tariff when the Payne-Aldrich tariff bill was before Congress, see “Lumber Industry,” IV, 65. 118 Cong. Rec., Apr. 23, 5122-5139. THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 249 grants to the Central Pacific, the Coos Bay Wagon Road, and the Portland, Astoria & McMinville Railroad;**® and four years later Congress passed another act, ratifying and confirming all claims of forfeiture which had been asserted by the Attorney-General.*”° To the government suit for a general forfeiture of the unsold por- tions of the grant, the Southern Pacific entered a demurrer, but the Federal District Court of Oregon overruled the demurrer, sustaining the government in its contention that the grant was ‘“‘on condition subsequent,” and thus forfeitable if the condition were broken.*** The railroad company of course appealed from this decision, and on June 21, 1915, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a decision, reversing the decision of the lower court. The Supreme Court denied the government the decree of forfeiture asked for, on the ground that the condition imposed upon the railroad company regard- ing the disposal of lands to settlers was not a condition subsequent, as the lower court had held, but was a covenant, and that therefore the remedy for the breach of the condition was not forfeiture, but an injunction against further violations of the covenant. This seemed a somewhat inadequate remedy, but it did not prejudice any other suits, rights, or other remedies which the government might have by law or under the joint resolution of April 30, 1908, or under the act of August 20, 1912. The railroad company was enjoined, it may be noted, not only from selling in violation of the conditions imposed in the granting act, but from disposing of the lands in any way, until Congress should have a reasonable opportunity to provide for their disposition. Thus the entire matter was thrown back upon Congress.*”” In April, 1916, Congress took up the question of the disposition of these lands, and, after a few days of spirited debate, succeeded in passing a law which is a fitting climax to the long list of blunders dealing with the public forest lands. THE ACT OF 1916 This law provides, in the first place, that the Secretary of the Interior, codperating with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall classify 119 Stat. 14, 239; 15, 80; 15, 340; 16, 47; 16, 94; 35, 571. 120 Stat. 37, 320. 121186 Fed. Rep., 861, 923. 122 35 Sup. Ct. Rep., 908, 926. 250 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY the lands into power-site lands, timber lands, and agricultural lands; and provides different rules for the disposition of each class. Power- site lands are to be retained by the government. Timber lands are to be stripped of their timber, and then are to fall into class three as agricultural lands. The timber is to be sold by the Secretary of the Interior, in codperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, under such plans and regulations as he may consider wise, as rapidly as “reasonable prices”’ can be secured in a “normal market.” All lands other than power-site and timber are to be classed as agricultural, and these are to be disposed of under the law applying to land released from national forests, $2.50 being charged for the land, except for cleared timber lands, which are given free of all charge. No commu- tation is permitted. The main fund arising from the sale of timber and lands is to be disposed of as follows: first, the Southern Pacific is to receive an amount sufficient to bring its receipts up to the $2.50 per acre intended in the original granting act; second, 25 per cent of the remainder is to go to the state of Oregon for an irreducible school fund; third, another 25 per cent is to go to the various counties involved, for roads and highways; fourth, 40 per cent is to go to the reclamation fund, for the reclamation of arid lands; and, finally, 10 per cent drips into the United States treasury. In several ways this statute was unwisely drawn. In the first place, it proceeds on the assumption that all of the lands involved are agri- cultural lands, or will become such as soon as the timber is removed, while all the evidence available indicates that many of the timber lands, perhaps most of them, are rough mountain sides that will never be fit for cultivation. There is no provision that. looks to the reforesta- tion of these natural forest lands. There is no recognition of the possibility that they may grow another crop of timber. i In the disposition of the fund arising, the provisions are unduly generous to the state of Oregon. Half of the fund goes direct to the state or to the counties in which the lands are situated, while 40 per cent more goes to the reclamation fund, and on this fund Oregon will probably have some priority of claim. Only 10 per cent is to go to the United States treasury, although $100,000 had to be appropriated immediately for the expenses of classifying the lands. In its generosity THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 251 to the state of Oregon, this act contrasts with the general law relating to public land sales, which gives only 5 per cent to the states in which the lands are situated. It was explained by the Oregon delegation in Congress that this was only justice, since the Southern Pacific, by refusing to sell to “settlers,” had greatly “interfered with the devel- opment of the state”; and the Federal government had been party to the wrong by failing to assert its right to forfeit the grant. It is unnecessary to dwell much upon the logic of this position, but a gov- ernment investigator, reporting on these lands, stated that for a long time the railroad company was unable to get $2.50 per acre for what were then almost valueless timber lands, and that, since they were mainly forest lands, they could never have been taken up by settlers anyhow. Several men in Congress, even several from the West, as well as the House committee reporting the bill, complained that the act was too generous to the state of Oregon; and former Speaker Joe Cannon offered an amendment cutting off the 40 per cent to the reclamation fund and turning it into the United States treasury, but this amendment was lost. Representative Sinnot of Oregon complained that his state was not even getting enough out of the deal. It seems to have been necessary to treat Oregon very generously in order to get the bill through Congress promptly. The court decision had given Congress six months to provide for the disposition of the lands, and it was necessary to legislate without delay. The question naturally emerges, Why were not these lands placed in a forest reserve? That would have been the logical procedure, and it doubtless was the policy favored by most of the government officials ; but it seems that the Oregon delegation in Congress was strongly opposed to any such disposition of the lands, and probably they repre- sented the attitude of the people of the state. The Oregon State Land Grant Conference, which met at Salem in September, 1915, expressed “unalterable opposition” to any further increase of forest reserves in Oregon. A government investigator who was sent out to look over the lands asserted that this conference was not representative of the people as a whole; but the Oregon senators and representatives, who may be assumed to have sounded out public opinion, seem to have been generally hostile to the inclusion of more lands in reserves. It was suggested by Representative Johnson of Washington that the lands 252 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY would ultimately be included in reserves anyhow, and this seems a reasonable guess. Lands which have been cleared and found unfit for agriculture will need to be reforested, and the state of Oregon will probably be willing that this should be done at Federal expense, through inclusion in a national forest reserve. The value of timber involved here has probably been exaggerated in many discussions of the matter. Government officials have estimated that there is a total of some 70,000,000,000 feet of timber here; but it is doubtful if anything like $50,000,000, or perhaps even $30,000,- 000, will ever be realized from the sale of the timber or of the lands. Certainly it will be a long time before any such sum can be realized, for there are vast resources of timber to the north in Washington, and to the south in California, which are more accessible to the market than much of this timber.*** THE NORTHERN PACIFIC LANDS The facts in regard to the Northern Pacific grant were somewhat different from those regarding the Southern Pacific, being compli- cated with the various mortgages on that road. The act of 1870, authorizing the Northern Pacific to issue mortgage bonds, had pro- vided that all lands not sold or subject to the mortgage, at the expira- tion of five years after the completion of the entire road, should be disposed of to settlers at not over $2.50 per acre; but it also pro- vided that in case of foreclosure, mortgaged lands might be sold at public auction, in tracts not larger than a section.** At the fore- closure of 1875, the lands, being mostly unpatented, were not sold. At the foreclosure of all later mortgages in 1896, all patented lands were sold at public auction; but the new railway was reported in every instance the highest bidder,” and in 1910, the Northern Pacific still held nearly 10,000,000 acres of land, over 3,000,000 of which was timbered. It had sold vast tracts to the Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, 900,000 acres being thus disposed of in one block in 1900 at $6 per acre.*”° 123 H. R. 14864; 64 Cong. 1 sess.: Stat. 39, 218 et seq. 124 Stat. 16, 379. 125 “Lumber Industry,” I, 235. 126 [bid., 236, 237. THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 253 As a result of the government suit against the Oregon & California, a large number of persons settled on the railroad lands involved, and also on the Northern Pacific lands in southwestern Washington, evi- dently with the idea that the act of 1870'* gave them the privilege of buying at $2.50 per acre. The case of one of these settlers was brought before the Land Office, and there the decision was against the claimant,’** on the ground that the real issue as to the effect of the conditions in the law of 1870, regarding sale to settlers, was a question for the courts. It is of course established by a long line of decisions that Congress alone, rather than individual settlers, would have the right to challenge the railroad company for non-performance of the condition. 127 Stat. 16, 379. 128 “T.and Decisions,” 38, 77. CHAPTER VIII HOSTILITY TO THE NATIONAL FORESTS IN RECENT YEARS: OPPOSITION TO THE GENERAL POLICY OF RESERVATION Hostiniry toward the national forests, in recent years, has arisen from somewhat the same causes that were operative in earlier times; yet it will be appropriate at this point to note briefly the various grounds of opposition. These grounds of hostility may be classified into: first, those which rest on the assumption that the policy of reservation is fundamentally wrong in principle; and second, those which pertain not so much to the general policy of reservation as to the manner in which the Forest Service has carried out that policy.’ OPPOSITION TO THE GENERAL POLICY OF RESERVATION: INTER- FERENCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WEST The general policy of reservation has been opposed for various reasons, but probably no reason has been advanced more frequently than that this policy “interferes with the development of the West.” This line of reasoning, as old as the forest reserves, is still heard fre- quently in Congress. Some western senators have been wont to en- large upon the “civilization” the western people have built up—a civilization which would of course have been impossible “if Mr. Pinchot’s system of managing the forests had existed.” Representa- tive Johnson of Washington once complained that the people of his state were “literally being conserved out of existence.” There has been a general argument that the “farmer, the home builder, the tiller of the soil,” rather than the “coyote and the panther and the bear,” are the real “foundation of our growth and development.” As a west- ern writer in the North American Review (191, 474) once expressed it: 1 For a good statement of the reasons for opposition to the reserves, see memo- rials of western states presented in Congress. Cong. Rec., Dec. 5, 1907, 167; Apr. 28, 1909, 1567; May 14, 1909, 2019. HOSTILITY TONATIONAL FORESTS 255 “The forest reserve system hampers all forms of industrial develop- ment. We have an area larger than many a European kingdom put to its lowest instead of its highest economic use. We have a policy which is an absolute reversal of more than one hundred years of national habit and tradition; a policy which holds barrenness a blessing, and settlement a sin; which fines, instead of encouraging, the man who would develop a natural resource.” In the anti-conservation attack of 1912, there was much complaint about the emigration of settlers to Canada, which was claimed to be due to the greater liberality of the Canadian settlement laws. Senator Borah was particularly anxious that something be done to make the laws of the United States so liberal that settlers would no longer have to go to Canada to secure homes. Senator Smoot of Utah very properly pointed out, however, that in many respects the Canadian land laws are less generous than those of the United States.” Without a doubt, many of the complaints about the interference with the development of the West were made in all earnestness and good faith; but in general they were based upon a narrow view of the interests of the country as a whole, often on a short-sighted view of the development of the West itself. q INCLUSION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS In no way has the reservation policy “interfered as much with the development of the West,” perhaps, as by the inclusion of agricultural lands within the forest reserves. This has of course been a cause of western hostility since the very beginning of the reservation policy. Representative Taylor of Colorado once asserted that the opposition of the West was directed largely at the “conservation of sage brush, cactus, and buffalo grass.””° As indicated in a previous chapter, an act was passed in 1906 pro- viding that the Secretary of Agriculture might examine and segregate any lands within forest reserves which were chiefly valuable for agri- culture and might be so used without injury to the forest reserves. Since this law left the opening of lands to the discretion of the Secre- 2Cong. Rec., Feb. 26, 1909, 3222, 3223, 3226; Feb. 1, 1910, 1353; May 19, 1910, 6521; May 14, 1912, 6397; Mar. 10, 1914, 4637; 63 Cong. 1 sess., Appendix, 465: No. Am. Rev., Apr., 1910: Independent, 68, 697. 3 Cong. Rec., Feb. 1, 1910, 1352. 256 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY tary of Agriculture, however, it was always far from satisfactory to many people in the West, who thought the reserves should be open to anyone wishing to try to make a home there—who thought the decision as to what was agricultural lands should rest, not with the Secretary of Agriculture, but with the entryman himself. As Senator Heyburn once stated it: “It is not within the power of the bureau to determine whether a man can make a farm out of a particular piece of land. If the land is agricultural land, the only man who can deter- mine that is the man who is willing to go there and devote his energies to making it a home and expend his effort in an attempt to do so.” Representative Rucker of Colorado expressed the idea in similar lan- guage: “The man who wants a home, who perhaps has spent the most of his days upon the farm, acquainted with soils, a long resident of the West, knowing the adaptability at different altitudes for a given kind of a crop, and willing to take his chances, is met with a denial of his right by some youngster just from the city, or college life, and is curtly informed the land is not suitable for agricultural pursuits.”* EFFORTS TO ELIMINATE AGRICULTURAL LANDS: THE NELSON AMENDMENT Within the past decade, repeated efforts have been made to secure some modification in the law of 1906. The appropriations of 1912 were held up several weeks by a disagreement between the two houses, largely on the question of agricultural lands in the national forests. No sooner had the appropriation bill been brought up in the House than Representative Hawley of Oregon launched a determined attack on the Forest Service, for inflicting so many hardships on the “set- tlers” whose “almost incredible heroism, toil, and suffermg” had brought civilization into the West. Martin of South Dakota suspected that the Forest Service often appropriated the residences of home- steaders for ranger stations, and offered an amendment to prevent that. Three of the Colorado delegation, with Dies of Texas, Booher of Missouri, and Fitzgerald of New York, expressed their disapproval of the reserves on various grounds, while Mondell veered around to a very fair and reasonable attitude, although still somewhat hostile. After considerable debate the appropriation bill got past the House 4 Cong. Rec., Feb. 10, 1911, 2291. HOSTILITY TONATIONAL FORESTS 257 without serious mutilation, but in the Senate a more decided hostility was immediately manifest. Senator Heyburn promptly assumed his familiar role, supported of course by his colleague Borah, and by other western men, and also by men from farther east—Cummins of Iowa and Gallinger of New Hampshire. One of the chief objects of criticism in these debates was the inclusion within national forests of agricultural and other non-timbered lands. After several days of debate, Senator Nelson of Minnesota arose with an amendment directing and requiring the Secretary of Agri- culture to select, classify, and segregate as soon as practicable, all lands within the boundaries of natural forests that were fit for agri- cultural purposes, and opening such lands to settlement under the homestead laws. Senator Nelson’s amendment aimed a very severe blow at the forest reserves. In the first place, it directed and required the Secretary of Agriculture to segregate the lands, thus leaving him no discretion in the matter. In the second place, it provided for the elimination of all lands suitable and fit for agricultural purposes. 'The Forest Home- stead Act of 1906 had provided for the elimination of lands chiefly valuable for agriculture which might be so used without injury to the forest reserve, and which were not needed for public purposes. Nel- son’s amendment provided for the opening of agricultural lands irre- spective of their value for other purposes, or of the need for them for public use. Thus heavily timbered lands of only a slight value for agri- culture would have been opened up to exploitation under this amend- ment, even though the value of the timber might have been ten times greater than the agricultural value of the soil when cleared. Such a provision as that would inevitably have resulted in gross frauds. Entrymen would merely have taken up claims and sold them to large timber owners, and the “poor settlers” would have built no “homes” after all. Also it should be noted that all ranger stations or other plots necessary to the efficient management of the forests would have been opened up under this provision, if they possessed even a slight value for agriculture. Thus the Nelson amendment was calculated to do immense injury to the national forests, perhaps to overthrow the entire reservation policy, and the American Forestry Association sent a vigorous peti- 258 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY tion against it ; but it was accepted in the Senate with little opposition. The House, however, refused to accede to it, and the bill went to a conference committee, which, in its report, left out the worst features of the amendment. The Senate, by a vote of 36 to 27, refused to accept the conference report, as did the House also, and the bill went back to the conference committee a second time, but the second report again refused to accede to the Senate amendment; in fact, it was further from the Senate view than the first report had been, but after some debate the Senate finally adopted the report. The House conferees received felicitations for ‘“outgeneraling”’ the Senate members of the committee. The amendment, as finally passed, directed and required the Secretary of Agriculture to segregate all lands that “might be opened to settlement and entry under the homestead laws applicable to the national forests.” ““Homestead laws applicable to the national forests” meant, of course, the Forest Homestead Law of 1906, so that there was really no change in the law, except that the duty of the Secretary of Agriculture to open up lands was now mandatory. The sum of $25,000 was appropriated to cover the expense of opening these lands, and each year since 1912, $100,000 has been provided for this purpose. Thus the national forests successfully weathered the storm of 1912. There have been other attacks since, but it seems likely that this com- plaint regarding agricultural lands will gradually disappear. As a result of the appropriations mentioned above, a total of about 15,000,- 000 acres has been eliminated—by no means all strictly agricultural lands. Nearly 6,000,000 acres have been eliminated from the Chugach National Forest alone. JUSTICE OF THE COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE INCLUSION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS The fact that some agricultural lands have been eliminated from the national forests indicates that there was some basis for complaint. It is certain, however, that the great majority of “settlers” who told such pitiful tales of hardships endured in trying to build their homes in the forests, were not bona fide settlers at all, but merely entrymen — who were trying to get possession of timber, mineral deposits, power sites, or other natural resources, with no intention of building homes. HOSTILITY TONATIONAL FORESTS = 259 Careful investigation of 116 perfected homestead claims in Idaho and eastern Washington disclosed the fact that, of the timbered claims, about one half of 1 per cent were later reduced to cultivation. Another investigation of 160 claims in Idaho revealed 100 claims with no lands susceptible of cultivation, 40 or 50 claims with about five acres each which might be cultivated after the timber was removed, 20 claims with an average of 10 acres, and only 10 claims with an average of 40 to 80 acres of cultivable lands. A careful study of 95 timbered homesteads in the Kaniksu National Forest showed that only 1.34 per cent of the cultivable land had been put to agricultural use. A similar examination of 71 claims in the Clearwater National Forest of Idaho showed that only slightly over 1 per cent of the claims had been cultivated. Of a total of 12,380 acres in certain contested claims in the Northwest, only 47 acres were found to be under cultivation— less than four tenths of 1 per cent.” Almost all of the heavily timbered land, of course, found its way into the hands of lumber companies. Figures were obtained on nine townships in Idaho adjacent to the St. Joe National Forest, and it was found that, of 264 homesteads patented, 208 passed to lumber companies within three years after patent was issued, and nearly all the rest were being held for speculation. In another township in the same state, investigation of 100 patented homesteads revealed the fact that, although in many cases patent had only recently been issued, 70 of the homesteads had passed to lumber companies. At the earnest solicitation of some of the Washington delegation in Congress, over 400,000 acres of land were eliminated from the Olympic National Forest in Washington, on the ground that it was agricultural land. The land thus eliminated for agricultural use was largely taken up under the Timber and Stone Act, which required oath that the land is “valuable chiefly for timber but not fit for agri- culture”; and ten years later the total area in cultivation was only 570 acres.° Many other examples might be given to show that very many of the efforts to secure the elimination of alleged agricultural lands were not made in good faith at all, but were really attempts to secure valuable timber, minerals, or other resources. 5 Report, Forester, 1914, 2, 3, 4. 6 “Lumber Industry,” I, 267: Cong. Rec., June 17, 1913, 2061. 260 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY Some of the appeals made in Congress in behalf of the “settlers” were so maudlin as to be even highly ridiculous. Representative Johnson of Washington once read a letter in the House purporting to be from one of these settlers : “Brother Johnson, while we are slowly starving to death the work of conservation goes on. We have no Christmas, we have no New Years, and are getting old before our time because of no money and no way of getting employment to earn money. We have no hope. Me have nothing to look forward to but the visit of the forest ranger.” Although the charge has been rale repeatedly that the Forest Service has been hostile to settlers within the national forests, and has tried to put unnecessary impediments in the way of settlement, it seems doubtful if this has often been true. A Federal bureau would naturally be slow in its action upon claims and would perhaps require considerable “‘red tape” in applications. A few of the officials have been arbitrary, some have been ignorant of local conditions and needs, but there is no reason why the Forest Service should be generally hostile to settlers in the reserves. Settlers on or near a national forest, under a proper administrative policy, help both its protection and development. The greatest single task of the government is to prevent forest fires, and the force organized for this purpose is recruited largely from those living in or near the forest. Settlers are also a help in locating fires, and by means of telephone connections are able to report quickly to the forest officers.® THE QUESTION OF RANGER STATIONS The charge has often been made that the Forest Service uses con- siderable areas of valuable agricultural lands for ranger stations. Senator Heyburn was particularly bitter about this, and on sundry occasions voiced his sentiments in no uncertain terms. Representative 7 Cong. Rec., Mar. 10, 1914, 4637. 8 On agricultural lands in the forest reserves, see H. R. 18960; 62 Cong. 2 sess.: Stat. 34, 233; 37, 287, 842; 38, 429, 1099; 39, 460: dm. Forestry, Aug., 1912, 527, 536; Sept., 1912, 585: Report, Sec. of Agr., 1909, 3773 1911, 352; 1912, 481; 1916, 160: Report, Forester, 1914, 2, 3, 4: Report, Land Office, 1906, 43; 1907, 21: Agr. Yearbook, 1914, 70 et seq. See also H. R. 14053; 58 Cong. 2 sess.: S. 519; 60 Cong. 1 sess.: H. J. Res. 54; 62 Cong. 1 sess.: S. 7203; 62 Cong. 2 sess. For opposition to the national forests in Arkansas, see H. R. 18889, H. R. 20683, H. R. 20684, H. Res. 314, H. Res. 332, H. Res. 491; 61 Cong. 2 sess.: H. R. 6149; 63 Cong. 1 sess.: soa Cong. 1 sess., Appendix, pp. 893 et seq.: S. Doc. 783; 62 Cong. 2 sess. HOSTILITY TONATIONAL FORESTS 261 Martin of Colorado likewise regarded this as one of the worst abuses of the reservation policy, and in the debates on the Agricultural Ap- propriation Bill of 1911, as a slap at the Forest Service, he offered an amendment reducing the cost of rangers’ cabins from $650 to $500— a figure which Mondell thought was still 50 per cent too high. This was a favorite method of attack upon the reserves, and almost every year some effort was made to cut down the cost of rangers’ cabins, or to impose some restriction on their construction or use. In 1912, Representative Martin of South Dakota secured an amendment for- bidding the Forest Service to use the residences of homesteaders for ranger stations.” The Forest Service has denied that there is any real justification for complaints regarding the appropriation of administrative sites. In response to a Senate resolution in 1913, demanding information on this point, Secretary of Agriculture James Wilson made a report showing that in the state of Washington, with about 10,000,000 acres of national forests, 424 administrative sites had been withdrawn, with a total area of about 40,000 acres, and of this total only 272 acres were under cultivation. Over 80 per cent of the area of these adminis- trative sites was reported to be under heavy timber or permanently unsuited to agriculture by climate or soil.*” It is of course sometimes necessary for the Forest Service to use sites for administrative pur- poses which are not absolutely worthless for agriculture. Successful protection of the forests requires not only an adequate force, but a well-placed force of rangers. Furthermore, since ranger stations must be placed where forest officers can either actually live with their fami- les throughout the greater part of the year, or make headquarters during the summer months with sufficient feed for their saddle and pack horses, it is necessary to select for this class of sites areas which furnish a fair pasture. The Forest Service must obviously provide for its own needs; but it does not displace settlers already in possession, or reject applications for the listing of land in order to take the land for public purposes.** 9 Cong. Rec., Mar. 8, 1910, 2891; Feb. 4, 1911, 1957, 1958; Mar. 7, 1912, 2982: Stat. 37, 280. 10S. Doc. 1075; 62 Cong. 3 sess. 11 Report, Sec. of Agr., 1912, 487. 262 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY GRAZING IN THE NATIONAL FORESTS The grazing lands included in the national forests have continued to claim considerable attention, just as in the earlier period, although it is probable that the hostility arising from this cause has decreased considerably in recent years. Some of the western men have always insisted that the Forest Service has no right to make any charge at all for grazing. As Representative Taylor of Colorado once (1910) expressed it: “It has been one of the important rights and privileges of the settlers of every state in this Union for a hundred years to use, free of charge, the public domain for the grazing of their stock, and why should not our cattle be allowed to eat government grass which would otherwise go to waste? It did not cost Uncle Sam a dollar, and why should the government, now for the first time in a century, inflict a tax upon the people of the West for the grazing of that grass?” Mondell, in similar vein, pointed out that the charge for grazing had never been specifically authorized by Congress. To those who denied the right of the government to exact any charge at all for grazing, even a very small charge would seem too high; and there has been much complaint that the fees are too high; but as a matter of fact they have been only about one third as high as the fees charged by private owners in the same districts. Within the past few years, there has been some complaint in Congress because this charge was so low, and the Forest Service made plans for a “revi- sion upward,” but later abandoned them because of the war. In time, the grazing fees should be raised, because, at their present figure, the demand for grazing privileges on most of the forests far exceeds the carrying capacity, and the granting of privileges necessarily involves discrimination in favor of certain applicants. The Forest Service has sometimes been accused of discriminating in favor of large owners. Mondell claimed in 1910 that it was the rich and powerful men in the National Live Stock Association who were most friendly to the Forest Service; that they were given permits while small men were denied; and that big sheepmen often got control of large areas by having each sheep herder file application for a per- mit. Representative Rucker of Colorado has expressed similar views.” 12 Cong. Rec., Feb. 1, 1910, 1352. 13 Cong. Rec., Feb. 1, 1910, 1338, 1339; Feb. 10, 1911, 2291. HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 263 Mondell claimed that thorough grazing of the forest reserves was the best of all safeguards against the spread of forest fires, and that the Forest Service, by interfering with grazing, had actually in some cases increased the fire hazard. His theory was that under the manage- ment of the forest reserves previous to 1910, the grasses grew year after year, died, and finally formed a mat through which fire, under a wind, ran with great rapidity.** Doubtless there has been occasional justification for the criticism of the management of grazing lands, but in general the control of such lands by the Forest Service has resulted in a great improvement in range conditions. Previously, overstocking had caused the destruc- tion of some ranges, and in many regions a decrease in carrying capac- ity. Perhaps the greatest evil was the “transient” or “tramp” herds of sheep, usually bands of sheep being driven from distant ranges to points of shipment, or being driven between summer and winter ranges, which were often long distances apart and sometimes located in differ- ent states. These bands just drifted around in search of good feeding grounds and camped wherever such areas were found, often grazing the land far too close. This and other evils the Forest Service has now under fair control. The criticism that the Forest Service has favored the large cattlemen and sheepmen has certainly not been valid. The policy of the service has been to favor the smaller owners. It was once explained in Congress that, in disagreements between the stockmen and the Forest Service, the wealthier stockmen could hire adequate counsel to look after their business, and were less likely to cherish any grievance; but the Forest Service has tried to promote the organiza- tion of local livestock associations, and through these associations the smaller owners are able to secure somewhat the same service as the larger owners. These associations assist, not only in the settlement of disputes, but in the salting of stock, in the improvement of breeds of cattle, and in many other ways. One of the great advantages arising from government control of ranges has been the prevention of the range “wars”—the quarrels among grazers, particularly the deadly feuds that were waged between the sheepmen and the cattlemen.*° As to what is really the attitude of the majority of the stockmen 14 Cong. Rec., Feb. 2, 1911, 1855. 15 Forest Bul. 62, 1905, p. 17. 264 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY toward government regulation, the evidence is somewhat conflicting. The Public Lands Commission of 1903 sent out 1400 inquiries to stockmen, asking their views on this, and 1090 of the replies received were favorable to government control, while only 183 were opposed. In the opinion of the writer, however, this does not represent accurately the attitude of the stockmen toward such control as the Forest Ser- vice has exercised—a control that involves the exaction of a fee for grazing. The complaints of various western men in Congress, and other evidence as well, indicate that many of the stockmen are still opposed ; and probably when the grazing fees are raised to something approximating a commercial level, this opposition will become even stronger.*® Some stockmen, it is true, feel that the inclusion of grazing lands within the national forests is an advantage to grazers, because it protects them against the encroachments of settlers. This rests upon the assumption that the national forests are closed to settlement, an assumption that is valid at least as far as fraudulent settlement is concerned. Some of the reserves being closed to sheep, it is natural that many cattlemen in those districts should look favorably upon the system which protects them from their bitterest enemies. It has been claimed that practically all of the cattlemen in some sections are strongly favorable to the reserves. MINING IN THE NATIONAL FORESTS Complaints that the national forests interfere with mining develop- ment have not been as common as in an earlier period, yet they are still heard occasionally. The contention is that it is difficult to say, in the early stages of a mining claim, whether it is going to be a success or a failure, and that no mining prospector cares to search for minerals, knowing that his work and his judgment have to be sub- mitted to some forester to determine their validity. It has been claimed that prospectors have tended to leave the forest reserves, because of the exactions of the Forest Service. It is doubtful whether the Forest Service has discouraged legiti- mate mining industry. The discouragement has generally been placed in the way of a wrong use of the mining laws, and extravagant use of the timber resources; and that is the reason for many of the com- 16 Forest Bul. 62, p. 24. HOS LLL TY tO NATIONAL FORESTS 265 plaints. Senator Smoot of Utah called attention in 1909 to numerous attempts that had been made to gain title to timber lands in the West through the mining laws; and Senator Flint of California asserted that several million dollars worth of timber in his state would have been taken up in this way, had it not been for the vigilance of the Forest Service. In 1908, the Commissioner of the Land Office decided adversely on a number of placer mining locations in the Plumas National Forest, made by H. H. Yard and the North California Mining Company. These locations covered timber worth several mil- lion dollars. In one instance a large livestock company, in order to establish a complete monopoly of the surrounding range, proceeded to put mining locations and mill sites upon all the watering places, with the exception of two or three which were covered by scrip location. No mineral development was attempted on any of these claims. The locations were upon formations containing no mineral showing what- ever, and the alleged development work consisted of tunneling and trenching for the diversion of water, and in the building of corrals, tanks, and pipe lines for the handling and watering of the cattle. In this way, waterholes were secured which gave control of approximately 500,000 acres of valuable range. In another instance, a certain sheep owner located a mining claim covering a spring and some abandoned placer diggings, and applied for a patent, claiming as his $500 worth of development the work done by those who had abandoned the claim, and work done by some Chinamen who had occasionally worked the claim when they couldn’t find anything else to do. The sheep owner was trying in this way to get control of the only water supply for a considerable area. In still another instance, certain individuals made application for the patenting of some placer locations, alleging the existence of valu- able minerals. Investigation showed no mineral at all except a sort of shale, which the locators alleged had some value for cement making. In the application, the locators alleged $1500 worth of work, and investigation showed that all the work that had been performed was in grading for driyeways and for building locations, and that it actually amounted to less than $300. It appeared also that the locators had incorporated a company for the exploitation and sale of building sites for summer homes, this location being in the moun- 266 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY tains, directly on an electric car line leading from a city of consider- able size. Along the Grand Cafion there are many mining claims, locations made years ago, ostensibly for mineral, but in reality cover- ing portions of the cafion rim and trails in such a way as to give the claimants the right to exact a charge upon the traveling public.” Attempts on the part of power companies to procure title to power sites by locating mining claims have been fairly numerous. Thus abuses of the mining laws have been much the same in recent years as in earlier periods, except that, with the increasing vigilance of the government, such abuses are undoubtedly much less frequent than formerly. Most locations are made in good faith; in fact, certain officials have estimated that four fifths of the locations are bona fide. The man who engages in mining as a legitimate, permanent indus- try has no serious grounds for complaint against the national forests or the Forest Service. He is not limited as to the time within which he must apply for patent, but is at liberty to develop the ground and extract the mineral to any extent, subject only to the mining laws of the state. The miner has no trouble in applying for patent under the mining laws if the ground is chiefly valuable for minerals. The one who has trouble is the man who tries to secure, under cover of the mining laws, a town site, a summer resort, valuable timber land, a water power site, watering places in the desert, or mineral springs in the mountains; or the man who tries to capitalize a worthless hole in the ground, and sell mining stock to the gullible public. There is one way in which the Forest Service has perhaps retarded the development of mining in the reserves, and that is by restricting the use of timber for mining purposes. In an earlier period, miners took vast quantities of timber absolutely free of cost, and under such cir- cumstances could of course develop their mines very cheaply and rapidly. However, as Pinchot has pointed out, the Forest Service, by its conservation policy, provides the only practicable future supply of timber for mining, and so provides best for its long-time develop- ment.”® 17 Am. Forestry, Apr., 1917, 225 et seq.: Report, Forester, 1914, 3. 18 See Cong. Rec., Feb. 26, 1909, 3040; Mar. 8, 1910, 2893; Mar. 1, 1911, 3772; Mar. 12, 1914, 4752, 4753: Forest Bul. 67, 13: Report, Sec. of Agr., 1908, 415; 1912, 475: Report, Forester, 1914, 3. HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS = 267 WATER POWER DEVELOPMENT IN THE NATIONAL FORESTS Agricultural, grazing, and mineral lands are not the only natural resources that the national forests have been accused of ‘bottling up.” There has recently been a great deal of complaint that the national forests included many valuable water power sites and that the policy of the Forest Service was so exacting as to prevent adequate develop- ment of these resources. It is estimated that there is within the national forests approximately 12,000,000 horse power which can be developed from natural streamflow, and that this amount can be increased very greatly by the construction of storage reservoirs. The act of 1891, providing for the creation of forest reserves, made no provision for the development of power. One of the sections of that act, however, provided that rights of way across the reserves might be granted for irrigation purposes; and seven years later, this was expanded to include the development of power, providing it was “‘sub- sidiary to the main purpose of irrigation.” In 1901, this proviso was removed, and the Secretary of the Interior was authorized to permit the use of rights of way through the public lands and reserves for electric plants. Under this act, the permit must be approved by the chief officer of the department concerned, and might be revoked by the Secretary of the Interior at his discretion. This is still the law on the subject, although a section was added in 1911, authorizing the issue of permits for rights of way, for not to exceed fifty years. The issue of such permits is, however, still at the discretion of the Secre- tary having jurisdiction over the land.” Under the regulations adopted by the Forest Service in 1910, a certain charge was exacted of those who used power sites, and this has of course aroused some opposition: Representative Martin of Colorado spoke of the “dog-in-the-manger” policy of the government in charging this rental. ““The proposition of the government is this,” he said, in discussing the agricultural appropriation bill of 1912: * ‘Tt is true we do not own the water in the stream, but we happen to own the land bordering the stream, land that is probably not worth farming. We happen to own the only desirable and available place 19 Stat. 26, 1101; 28, 635; 29, 120; 30, 404; 31, 790; 33, 628; 34, 163; 36, 847, 1253. See also Opinions, Atty.-Gen., 25, 470; 26, 421; and Proceedings, Society of Am. Foresters, Apr., 1913, 5 et seq. 268 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY: along this stream anywhere to build a dam and reservoir and create power. Now, we will not let you buy this land. There is no price on it. You can not condemn or buy it. We will lease it to you for a period of years, and will not simply charge you a rental for the land, but we will impose a charge that will be equivalent to a tax upon the value of your plant and the proceeds of your entire business.’ ”*? In some- what similar vein, Representative Taylor of Colorado complained of the effort of the government to get water power companies to pay royalties into the Federal treasury, pointing out that the Kast. was not paying any royalty for the use of its water.” There has been much dissatisfaction also with that provision of the law which authorizes the revocation of permits at the discretion of the government. It is urged that on account of this clause, it is very difficult to obtain capital for development. Water power development is said to have cost many capitalists their fortunes, even when the terms were most liberal, and the restrictive policy of the government is claimed to have made the field even more uncertain. There is a large element of justice in the complaints of western men regarding the water power situation. It is easy to see how they would resent the payment of rentals to the government. As far as conserva- tion is concerned, it appears that the speedy development of water power resources would be an excellent means of conserving other resources, furnishing electric power for railways and for other pur- poses, and thus saving the coal and oil and wood which are now used as fuel. This would greatly decrease the number of forest fires also, since a large proportion of such fires are started by locomotives, and so would conserve the supply of timber. It might easily seem that the government should encourage the development of water power in every way possible, instead of imposing a tax upon it. In answer to this, however, Forest Service officials argue that it is not unreasonable to impose some charge for the use of a valuable natural resource, and point out that by requiring the payment of this charge, and by requiring development to be made within a reasonable time, they have been able to keep better control of the water power situation, and keep out speculators who otherwise would have appro- 20 Cong. Rec., Mar. 7, 1912, 2991. 21 Cong. Rec., Mar. 2, 1911, 4016. HOSTILITY TONATIONAL FORESTS 269 priated sites, perhaps held them out of use, merely with the intention of selling at an advance to someone who really wished to develop. The Forest Service claims that its policy results in some cases in more rapid development than would otherwise occur, by preventing specu- lators from getting control and holding sites out of use. The provision giving the Secretary of Agriculture power to revoke water power permits is clearly one that.is open to criticism. It is true that permits for projects of more than 100 horse power total capacity are usually for fifty years, but they may specify a shorter time or may be indeterminate, and permits for projects of 100 horse power or less are always issued for indeterminate periods, subject to revo- cation by the Secretary of Agriculture. Also, in order that the inter- ests of consumers of power may be protected, permittees are required to abide by reasonable regulation of rates and of service by the state, or, if the state does not exercise such regulation, by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is easy to suppose that under such restrictions as these, the water power resources in national forests would not present a very attractive field for the investment of capital; and yet the Forest Ser- vice claims that water power development has proceeded much faster in the West than in the East, that the development per capita of the western states in 1912 was two and one half times as great as in other parts of the country, that there is even a “considerable overdevelop- ment in nearly all the power centers of the western states, California, Oregon, and Washington in particular showing installations far in excess of maximum demands.” The water power question is still unsettled, and it is not the pur- pose of this book to point out any solution. The present situation is certainly not satisfactory in all respects. On the other hand, it must be noted that the present situation is vastly better than it would be if the Forest Service had not guarded the power sites very carefully, for the government can still turn these over to private exploitation at any time it sees fit, while it would have very serious difficulty regain- ing control if it had once given up its title. It is not so important that the matter should be settled immediately as it is that it should be settled wisely, for it involves the interests of future generations.” 22 Report, Sec. of Agr., 1916, 173 et seq.; 1912, 527: Forest Service, Use Book, 270 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY- One thing is certain, at any rate, and that is that if it had not been for the aggressive and persistent efforts of Pinchot, many of the water power resources of the country would now be under control of a few powerful interests, and might present a far more difficult problem than they do. Pinchot’s interest extended not only to water power in the national forests, but also to water power development on navigable streams elsewhere. He had a vision of the future importance of elec- tricity in the West. “Let us suppose a man in a western town,” he wrote in 1908, “in a region without coal, rising on a cold morning, a few years hence, when invention and enterprise have brought to pass the things which we can already foresee as coming in the application of electricity. He turns on the electric light made from water power ; his breakfast is cooked on an electric stove heated by the power of the streams; his morning newspaper is printed on a press moved by the electricity from the streams; he goes to his office in a trolley car moved by electricity from the same source. The desk upon which he writes his letters, the merchandise which he sells, the crops which he raises, will have been brought to him or will be taken to market from him in a freight car moved by electricity. His wife will run her sewing machine or her churn, and factories will turn their shafts and wheels by the same power. In every activity of his life that man and his family and his neighbors will have to pay toll to those who have been able to monopolize the great motive power of electricity made from water power, if that monopoly is allowed to become established.””* WITHDRAWAL OF OTHER RESOURCES Hostility to the reservation policy was increased by the temporary withdrawal of lands, not only timber lands, but coal, oil, and gas, power sites, and public watering places. Roosevelt inaugurated the policy of withdrawing land pending the enactment of further legisla- tion for its best use, and considerable areas were thus withdrawn at the time Taft became president. Taft questioned the legality of this 1915, 123 et seq.: Cong. Rec., 60 Cong. 1 sess., p. 167; 61 Cong. 3 sess., 1856, 3771; 62 Cong. 2 sess., 2991, Appendix, 591 et seq.; 63 Cong. 1 sess., 1974; 64 Cong. 1 sess., 6388, 6391: No. Am. Review, 191, 472; Apr., 1910. See also the Report of the Com- missioner of Corporations on Water Power Development in the United States, 1912; and Senate Doc. 274; 62 Cong. 2 sess. 23 Farmers’ Bul. 327. HOSTILITY TONATIONAL FORESTS 271 action, but instead of restoring the land to the public domain, he secured from Congress in 1910 an act specifically authorizing such withdrawals. The effect of this legislation, it later developed, was to restrict rather than enlarge the authority of the President, for the Supreme Court later held that previous legal authority was sufficient. In June, 1916, the total withdrawals amounted to nearly 50,000,000 acres, of which 45,935,954 acres were coal and oil lands, 2,352,652 acres were power sites, and 193,272 acres were public water reserves. Naturally this policy brought various interests, other than the timber interests, into a position of hostility to the reservation policy.™* OPPOSITION TO SAVING FOR POSTERITY An argument that interference with the immediate development of the West might yet be a good thing for posterity, has not appealed to some of the western men, for some of them have not been at all con- cerned about the interests of posterity. As Senator Teller said in Congress a decade ago: “I do not believe there is either a moral or any other claim upon me to postpone the use of what nature has given me, so that the next generation or generations yet unborn may have an opportunity to get what I myself ought to get.” DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE WEST A great many complaints have always been made that the West is being denied the same advantages the East had in an earlier period. As Senator Carter once expressed it: “The state of Maine and the state of Illinois and Iowa and Missouri and Wisconsin enjoyed, through the operation of the laws that have heretofore obtained within their respective boundaries, the full benefit of the natural resources the great Creator had placed there; but these states of the Rocky Mountains and the western slope, where nature presents the hardest conditions settlers have ever faced on this continent, must conduct their local affairs subject to a tribute to the Federal government upon the natural resources within their borders.””* Representative Martin 24 Stat. 36, 583, 847, 855; 37, 497: Report, Sec. of Int., 1916, Vol. L, 174, 510: “Land Decisions,” 37, 277; 41, 528: Wilcox vs. Jackson; 38 U. S., 498: Wolsey vs. Chapman; 101 U. S., 755. 25 Cong. Rec., Feb. 26, 1909, 3226. ~ 26 Cong. Rec., Feb. 26, 1909, 3245. 272 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY of Colorado observed that “the less public domain and the less natural resources a member [of Congress] has in his state, the more enthusi- astic he is about conservation.” In similar humor, Representative Taylor of the same state denied that the land and resources of the West are the common property of the people of the country. “Those resources,” he announced in Congress, “are the property of the peo- ple who go there and develop them. If you want a share of them, come out to our country and help us reclaim the forest and the desert land and develop the water power. We will extend to you a hearty greeting, and you are welcome to your share of it. But you have no right to remain cosily in the East and put a tax upon our industry in trying to build up those great western states.””’ As to the logic of this plea, it can only be said that the proper policy for the government is not so much a question of abstract “jus- tice,” as of expediency. The fact that the East exploited its lands without restriction is no reason why the West should do the same thing, unless the results have demonstrated the wisdom of that policy. As far as agricultural lands are concerned, results have justified the policy the government pursued, but as to natural forest lands, coal, oil, gas, and mineral lands, perhaps also power sites, it seems that the _ government should have adopted the policy of reservation at the start. The fact that the country adopted an unwise policy with respect to such lands at the time the eastern states were being settled is no reason for clinging to that policy after its evil effects have become apparent. OPPOSITION TO GAME PRESERVATION A few of the western men evinced considerable hostility toward the work of the government in game preservation. Several big game pre- serves have been established outside the national forests, under the jurisdiction of the Biological Survey, and three have been created, by special act of Congress, within the national forests. The Forest Ser- vice is also trying to protect certain kinds of wild game in the other national forests. Senator Heyburn was particularly indignant about this policy. “It was suggested here,” he complained, “that the gov- ernment had great game preserves, and that the beautiful deer might be preserved from destruction. I would rather have one Alderney cow 27 Cong. Rec., Apr. 7, 1910, 4376; Mar. 2, 1911, 4017. HOSTILITY TONATIONAL FORESTS = 278 than all the herds of deer that you could put upon acres of ground. I have no doubt that the beautiful spotted fawns would look more beau- tiful to our friends from the East, when they come out there, but they perhaps would not care a snap about seeing the western people driv- ing up the lowing kine. They would rather see them shooting deer ; but we are talking about practical life and practical government and practical things, and we are substituting cities for forests; we are trading off the timber for civilization, and you come out there and undertake to stay our hand!’ Senator Borah complained of the elk crowding the sheep out of the reserves. Governor Richards of Wyo- ming suggested that the West wanted “to raise agricultural products, not wolves, bear, and other game for the purpose of making Wyoming a game preserve for eastern sportsmen.””* There is room for a difference of opinion as to the advisability of establishing extensive game preserves; but it is to be noted that the movement for the preservation of our wild life has made a great deal of headway in the past decade, and almost no session of Congress passes without a number of bills being introduced for the establish- ment of such preserves. LOSS OF TAXING POWER Few arguments against the reservation policy have been urged as often as the argument that it causes a serious loss in the taxing power of the states and local units in the West, and, by reducing the number of taxpayers, throws a heavy burden on the few who reside in or near the forest reserves. It was as a compensation for this loss in taxing power that the Agricultural Appropriation Bill of 1906 provided for the payment of 10 per cent of the revenues from national forests to the various states and territories, for the benefit of the public schools and roads of the counties in which the reserves were situated. This was not satis- factory to the West, however, and in 1908, the amount was raised to 25 per cent; but even 25 per cent was not enough, and repeated efforts have been made since to have this further increased. A very determined effort was made in 1910 to amend the Agricul- 28 Cong. Rec., Mar. 7, 1910, 2845; May 15, 1912, 6485: No. Am. Review, 177, 217: Cross Reference, pp. 302-305. 274 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY tural Appropriation Bill to increase this contribution from 25 to 35 per cent. The amendment was added in the Senate Committee on Agri- culture and Forestry, and passed the Senate without difficulty, but the House, taking its usual stand, refused to agree to it. Representative Mann of Illinois immediately opposed this “thold up,” as he called it, on the ground that 10 per cent of the annual revenue of any business was a very large per cent. “Doubtless there are cases where it is a difficult thing to maintain schools without the help of the general gov- ernment,” he said, “‘but we gave them school lands for the purpose of maintaining schools, which are neither needed nor maintained. We build the roads in these forest reserves, as a general proposition. .. . There is not a farmer in any forest reserve state that would not think he was being robbed at the point of a pistol if he had to pay 35 per cent of his gross receipts as taxes. It is expected that we shall pay to the states 35 per cent of the value of the timber which we sell, after we have let it grow, after we have kept the fires out, after we have protected it for a long time at national expense. I have never seen a proposition which seemed to me so rank in the way of giving prefer- ence to one part of the country over another.” Morse of Wisconsin pointed out how unjust such a provision would be in its application to the Appalachian forests, where the government was already buying the lands for more than they were worth. Stanley of Kentucky declared that this attempt to “mulct the national treas- ury,” if it were “proposed as a matter of substantive law instead of being done by subterfuge,” would not get twenty votes in the House. Other men were almost equally outspoken in their opposition—Hitch- cock of Nebraska, Keifer of Ohio, Tawney of Minnesota, and Payne of New York. Scott of Kansas, who had the appropriation bill in charge, was strongly opposed to the amendment, but stated that it was the belief of the House conferees that it would be impossible to get the Senate to agree to the conference report unless the increase were allowed. Many of the western congressmen rallied to the support of this proposition. Englebright of California mentioned one county in Cali- fornia in which the government forest reserve included $50,000,000 worth of property, yet had sold only $445 worth of timber and so had turned over only $100 to the state in lieu of taxes. Martin and Rucker HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS = 275 of Colorado argued that 35 per cent was not enough, since the other states had got all. As Martin expressed it, “We regard it in the light of having returned to us 35 per cent of what you have first taken away from us.” Appealing to Payne of New York, he continued: “Your state has had the benefit of its public domain and all its resources, and now you propose to take away all that remains of the public domain in our state, its water power, its coal lands, its oil lands, its phosphate lands, and everything else, and turn them over to a Federal bureau to milk them perpetually as a source of Federal profit.” Martin of South Dakota enlarged on the “burden of maintaining order” in the reserves, which, of course, was saddled on the states. Taylor of Colorado called upon Congress to “give the pioneer settlers of the West a fair share of the hard earned fees they are paying into this forest refund, and let them build their roads, maintain their schools, educate their children and build up the West as you have the East.” Mondell claimed that the localities should have a return somewhere near what they would receive if the lands were in private ownership and taxed, and pointed out that it was the people of the West who paid the grazing fees, and, in fact, all the revenues of the forests. Hawley of Oregon argued that since the people living-near the forest reserves were of great assistance in fighting fire, they ought to be compensated by a larger percentage of the forest reserve receipts. Even one eastern man, Sulzer of New York, expressed sympathy with the claims of the West. In spite of the efforts of these men, the House absolutely refused to accede to the 35 per cent amendment, and sent it back to a conference committee twice. The conference committee was long unable to come to any agreement. The House conferees—Scott of Kansas, Cocks of New York, and Lamb of Virginia—stood out for the elimination of this amendment, and the Senate conferees—Dolliver of Iowa, Warren of Wyoming, and Money of Mississippi—insisted upon its retention. After considerable wrangling, the Senate finally receded from its amendment.*® This attempt of the western men to secure more of the national receipts for schools ‘and roads thus failed, but that did not stop the complaints, nor the efforts to secure a larger share of the revenues. 29 See debates on H. R. 18162; 61 Cong. 2 sess. 276 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY Considerable complaint was made because the roads built through the forests were inadequate, some men claiming that western communi- ties often had to bear the cost of building these roads, since the gov- ernment did not do it, and some roads were necessary to preserve ade- quate communication with the rest of the world. In 1912, the Senate inserted an amendment to the Agricultural Appropriation Bill, pro- viding that in addition to the 25 per cent for roads and schools in the counties where the national forests were located, another 25 per cent should be used to build roads and trails in the national forests them- selves. The House refused to agree with this, but finally 10 per cent was secured for this purpose. Efforts have been made since to get this increased but thus far without success. In 1916, however, Congress appropriated $10,000,000 for the construction of roads in the national forests, $1,000,000 to be available each year for ten years.*° JUSTICE OF COMPLAINTS REGARDING LOSS OF TAXING POWER The question as to the justice of the complaints regarding the loss of taxing power, and the consequent excessive burden of maintaining schools and roads, etc., is not free of difficulty. Senator Heyburn once claimed that in one county in Idaho the taxes paid by private citizens amounted to $190,000, while the government contribution was only $767.87, although the government owned two thirds of the property in the county. “In that county,” he said, “the men who are there to represent the government receive, first, the benefit of the law that affects them in their personal and property rights. They receive, next, ~ the benefit of the local law, the state law, that protects these forests from fire. The state of Idaho did thus, pursuant to the laws of the state of Idaho, expend $10 where the government expends $1 in the protec- tion of the government’s timber. Upon that vast area, and that re- serve is nearly twice as large as some of the states of the United States, there is just as much and the same necessity for protection of the law administered at the expense of the state and counties as there is elsewhere. There are post offices, villages, public schools, and other 30S. Report 696; 62 Cong. 2 sess.: Cong. Rec., May 30, 1912, 7411; Feb. 10, 1913, 9957; Feb. 27, 1913, 4137; Mar. 10, 1914, 4629: Stat. 37, 288. See also H. R. 81, H. R. 1667, H. R. 8476; 63 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 20994; 62 Cong. 2 sess.: H. R. 27012; 62 Cong. 3 sess.: Cong. Rec., Jan. 24, 1913, 1049, 1950: Stat. 39, 358. HOSTILITY TONATIONAL FORESTS 277 institutions of public benefit maintained upon the very forest reserves themselves. . . . Would it be fair to have a non-resident landholder in the state exempted from contribution to the expenses of the state and the local government? Should the United States be exempt from contributing to the cost of its own protection and the protection of its own property?” Senator Heyburn once claimed that it cost one county in Idaho $8000 in one year to try cases that originated upon the forest reserves.** Representative Humphrey, in connection with an effort a few years later to secure an investigation of the Forest Service, claimed that the state of Washington had received $14,400 a year where the taxes on the timber would have yielded at least $7,593,500 annually.*” Rep- resentative Johnson of the same state asserted that it cost one county in Washington $100,000 to “help out the Forest Service” ; while the 25 per cent contribution from the government amounted to $24.65. Speaking of the withdrawal of 700,000 acres of so-called agricultural land from the Olympia National Forest in 1901, Johnson admitted that the land fell mainly into the hands of the big timber owners; but he insisted that “the money they paid the settlers was the money that kept that part of the country going” and that the “wages they pay in camps, mills, and offices is to this day the principal support of the country in question. But for the withdrawal of 1901, another county would have been bankrupted.”** Hawley of Oregon claimed that his state was getting $50,000 a year in lieu of about $1,000,000 which she would have got by taxation, had her timber lands been in private hands.** There is no doubt some justice in these complaints. The Forest Service admits that in some cases the national forests impose a heavy burden on settlers, and as Mr. Graves puts it: “There is little com- fort to the man who, with a handful of neighbors, must pay heavy taxes for roads, schools, and other purposes, in the thought that at some time in the more or less indefinite future, conservation will mean increased local prosperity. He bears his burdens now. Though the 31 Cong. Rec., Mar. 7, 1910, 2842; Mar. 8, 1910, 2893. 32 Cong. Rec., 63 Cong. 1 sess., 1867. 33 Cong. Rec., 63 Cong. 1 sess., 5972; 63 Cong. 2 sess., 4635. 34 Cong. Rec., 64 Cong. | sess., 6404. 278 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY forests had been bought up and were being held undeveloped by specu- lators in order to take toll of the public later, he would at least, if they were in private hands, be able to make them pay their share toward the expenses of local self-government.’”*° The loss in “taxing power” has generally been grossly exaggerated, however. The complaints of such men as Heyburn on this as on other subjects, have been biased in spirit and exaggerated in statement of fact. While some communities suffer hardship, others doubtless get more from the 25 per cent fund than they would from taxation, if the land were in private hands, and as time goes on this will become more and more generally true. Mondell once admitted that he believed the 25 per cent would eventually yield just as much for the western states as they would get from taxation. . Contributions to the western states from forest reserve receipts 1916 were as follows: School and road Road and trail State moneys (25 per cent) moneys (10 per cent) Montana $ 79,589.78 $ 31,835.91 Idaho 75,651.15 30,260.46 _ California 67,611.87 27,044.74 Arizona 59,807.89 23,923.16 Colorado 59,218.60 23,687.44 Oregon 49,675.83 19,870.33 Utah 48,675.96 19,470.38 Wyoming 43,086.86 17,234.75 Washington 37,445.56 14,978.23 New Mexico 31,786.46 12,714.58 Nevada 16,244.53 6,497.81 South Dakota 12,988.11 5,195.25 The states of Arizona and New Mexico received additional shares of national forest receipts amounting to over $40,000 for their school funds, on account of school lands included within national forests.** The growth in the amount available for the states is indicated by 35 Cong. Rec., 63 Cong. 1 sess., Appendix, pp. 465 et seq. 36 Report, Sec. of Agr., 1916, 278. HOSTILITY TONATIONAL FORESTS = 279 the following table, showing the total contributions for the road and school fund since 1908—the year when this contribution was raised from 10 to 25 per cent: 1908 $ 447,068 1913 $ 632,141 1909 441 552 1914 639,893 1910 510,907 1915 649,067 1911 515,078 1916 610,797 1912 554,880 1917 695,541 Much of the reasoning regarding this loss in taxing power has been superficial, or worse. In figuring what revenues would have been enjoyed if the reserves had been subject to taxation, the assumption has usually been made that the standing timber would be taxed, according to the unscientific system common in the United States. A rational tax should of course be levied mainly on the annual cut, rather than on the standing timber; and, if it is true, as even govern- ment officials are now inclined to admit, that lumbermen have not gen- erally made any profits during the past decade (previous to the out- break of the world war), it appears that the tax on the annual cut should in justice be a fairly light tax. This was recently pointed out in Congress by Representative McLaughlin of Michigan, when Humphrey and Johnson were bewailing the fact that many sawmills in the West were being run at a loss, and that private individuals could hardly afford to own timber lands. McLaughlin pertinently sug- gested that if private individuals could not afford to own lands, they could hardly afford to pay taxes on the lands.*” Even if it had been possible to levy a heavy yield tax on timber lands, it would have yielded little revenue in some sections, for much of the government timber is inaccessible at present prices. Much of the reasoning on the subject takes only a short-time view of the matter. If the government timber were turned over to private exploitation, there can be no doubt that most of it would be exploited more rapidly than it is now, and that some of the communities involved would enjoy an era of what Americans commonly regard as “prosperity” ; but if such a policy resulted in the speedy and wasteful destruction of this timber, such a “prosperity” would be short-lived. 37 Cong. Rec., Apr. 19, 1916, 6458. 280 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY The government, in its forest reserve policy, is aiming at long-time results. It is commonly assumed in these complaints about the loss of taxing power, that if the national forests were turned over to private owner- ship, and sawmills were built to saw up the timber, the only effect on the financial balance sheet of the community would be an increase in tax revenues. No attention has usually been given to the fact that these mills would need a large number of employees, and that, with an increase in population, would come an increased expense for enforcing justice, providing schools, etc. These expenses might not Increase in the same proportion as the revenues, but they would certainly increase somewhat. As a matter of general reasoning, it seems probable that conserva- tion does not involve any general sacrifice for the present or for future generations, even in the West. It is true that it may result in a slower rise in rents and land values, and may at first involve all the disad- vantages that arise from sparseness of population, but in some regions it has not retarded the growth of population, and even where it has, it must be remembered that sparseness of population has its own advantages. Perhaps the average standard of comfort in the West is just as high as it would be if there had never been any national for- ests; and if it is true that the reservation policy means a wiser and more economical use of resources, the standard of comfort in the long run will be higher than would otherwise have been possible.** Of course any policy that hinders rapid growth and expansion would seem most iniquitous to many people of the West, because western people are characteristically “boosters” of the most enthusi- astic type, keenly intent upon “growing” as rapidly as possible, and sometimes careless as to whether their development is along safe and sane lines or not. It is not the policy of the Forest Service to shut the people out of the national forests. The general policy is to put to its most produc- tive use every foot of land in the forests. Those areas most ‘valuable for agriculture are to be used for that purpose; those most valuable for mining should go to the miner; those most valuable as water 38 See an able article by Professor W. J. King, in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, May, 1916, 595. HOSTILITY TONATIONAL FORESTS) 281 power sites or for irrigation should be put to the proper use. There can be only one way to accomplish this development, and that is to get farmers to farm land, miners to prospect and develop mines, water power companies to build construction works, lumbermen to buy timber, stockmen to put in their herds to feed on the grass. In other words, people are needed in the forests to use the resources. It should be noted finally, that, even if the complamts of hardship from loss of taxation be given full credence, it is not probable that the best way to help unfortunate communities would be to increase the percentage of national forest receipts, for where little use of the for- ests has as yet been developed, the receipts would not do much good even if they were all given. The remedy for such a situation must be found in some other way. It would be unwise for the government to increase this fund above 25 per cent; but it is not at all impossible that the western men may yet secure an increase. The proposition has a “pork barrel’? flavor which might make an irresistible appeal to Congress, under certain circumstances. Furthermore, it presents a rather attractive and indirect way of attacking the reservation policy. If the opponents of the national forests could get something for their constituents, and at the same time increase the “insolvency” of the reserves by cutting down the share of revenues available for their protection, and thus turn some of the eastern men against them, they would be attacking the forests in the safest and most effective way. It is not certain that the average congressman from the West gains public favor, even among his “chome folk,” by attacking the reserves directly, but if he can attack them in the guise of a statesman seeking “pork,” he can hardly fail to win votes, and at the same time perhaps seriously prejudice the reserves. It is notable that several of the recent attacks on the reservation policy have been inaugurated by an attempt to secure an increase in this fund. INCLUSION OF STATE LANDS IN THE NATIONAL FORESTS Frequent complaints have been made regarding the inclusion of state lands in the national forests. It has been claimed that, in some cases, the value of state lands has been reduced to almost nothing; and in almost every session of Congress a great many bills are intro- duced to “adjust the claims of the States and Territories to lands 282 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY within National Forests.” The Forest Service has been exchanging lands outside the reserves for state lands included wherever it is pos- sible to do so, however, and it is hoped that this complaint will be heard less frequently in the future. It is to the advantage of the Forest Service as well as the states that the reserves should be con- solidated wherever possible. Wherever Congress has authorized ex- changes they are being made.”° ROBBING THE WESTERN FORESTS FOR THE EASTERN FORESTS Within recent years there has been some complaint that the goy- ernment is “robbing” the western forests for the benefit of the new Appalachian reserves. As Mondell once expressed it: “We are now trying to maintain a good-natured attitude toward the Appalachian Forest Reserves, but I fear that we cannot, if gentlemen insist on robbing our reserves of proper appropriations in order to appropriate money for the maintenance of the Appalachian Reserves. I notice this, that while you take this money away from our reserves at the rate of 2 cents an acre, . . . you apply it to the Appalachian Re- serves at the rate of 20 cents an acre, so that it is going to cost, right off the bat, 10 times as much per acre to take care of this Appa- lachian land as it does to take care of the western forest land.”*° OBJECTION TO AN “ALIEN GOVERNMENT.” Just as in an earlier period, many western people have been com- plaining that the reservation policy subjects them to the exactions of a bureaucratic, alien government.. The West is said to be “rele- gated to the position of Federal provinces,” governed by a “gigantic feudal landlord, ruling over unwilling tenants by the agency of irre- sponsible bureaus; traversing every local right, meddling with every private enterprise.” The entire policy is pronounced a “transplanted exotic from monarchial Europe, wholly out of harmony with American institutions.” “Mr. Pinchot makes his own laws, construes them and executes them,” declared E. M. Ammons—later governor of Colo- rado—ain a speech a few years ago. “He is the legislative, the judiciary 39 Report, Sec. of Agr., 1909, 399; 1912, 473; 1916, 45: Report, Forester, 1914, 27; 1915, 20. 40 Cong. Rec., Mar. 9, 1912, 3108. HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS = 288 and the executive. . . . He is in fact a very sovereign”; while as to the people of the West, “their souls are not their own; their American manhood is subdued; there is ringing in their very souls a hatred of this government.” It has often been claimed that the Forest Service, in its management of the reserves, was accustomed to disregard the state laws.** 41 Cong. Rec., Apr. 28, 1909, 1567; May 14, 1909, 2019; Feb. 1, 1910, 1351; May 19, 1910, 6526-6529; Feb. 27, 1912, 2529: No. Am. Review, 191, 465; Apr., 1910. CHAPTER IX HOSTILITY TO THE NATIONAL FORESTS IN RECENT YEARS (continueD): CRITICISM OF THE FOREST SERVICE THE complaints mentioned above were directed at the general policy of reservation. There were also many complaints, not regarding the policy itself, but regarding the way in which that policy has been carried out, complaints of inefficiency and malfeasance on the part of the Forest Service. THE “INSOLVENCY” OF THE NATIONAL FORESTS AND ALLEGED EXTRAVAGANCE OF THE FOREST SERVICE The alleged failure of the national forests to support themselves has brought much criticism in recent years. Pinchot predicted in 1907 that within five years the reserves would be self-supporting, but enemies of the reserves have produced figures purporting to show that every year but one during the next decade, there was a deficit of from $300,000 to $1,400,000.* This so-called “insolvency”? of the reserves was attributed to the extravagance of the Forest Service; and complaints on this point have 1 Receipts rrom Nationat Forests AnD AMOUNTS EXPENDED FOR MaInTENANCE OF Forests From 1908 To 1917 INcLUSIVE EXPENDITURES RECEIPTS FOR MAINTENANCE DEFICIT 1908 $ 1,788,255.19 $ 1,622,413.17 $ —165,842.02 1909 1,766,088.46 2,093,781.68 327,693.22 1910 2,041,181.22 2,791,275.62 750,094.40 1911 1,968,993.42 3,395,730.77 1,426,737.35 1912 2,109,256.91 3,433,285.36 1,324,028.45 1913 9,391,920.85 3,396,762.44 1,004,841.59 1914 2,437,710.21 3,337,048.83 899,338.62 1915 9,481,469.35 3,261,455.16 779,985.81 1916 2,823,540.71 3,427,140.41 603,599.70 1917 3,457,028.41 3,868,562.60 411,534.19 Total $ 23,265,444.73 $ 30,627,456.04 $ 7,362,010.39 HOSTILITY TONATIONAL FORESTS) 285 come not only from Mondell and Heyburn and the other western anti- conservationists, but from farther east—from Tawney and Steener- son of Minnesota, Fitzgerald, Perkins, and Bennett of New York, Clark and Stone of Missouri, Haugen of Iowa, Hamilton of Michigan, and others. The extravagance of the Forest Service is alleged to have been shown in various ways. Mondell claimed in 1911 that not over 15 per cent of the annual appropriations for the Service in the previous six years had been used directly in protection of the reserves, a consider- able share of the rest going for an unnecessarily large clerical force, traveling expenses, for unnecessary junkets, and for the prepara- tion of newspaper and magazine articles for advertising the Forest Service.” Various men have complained of the payment of traveling expenses of forestry officers, who “stand before the national geo- graphic societies and other learned societies with impressive titles and tell them how the world ought to be run.””* In 1908, an amendment to the Agricultural Appropriation Bill provided that none of the money appropriated should be used to pay traveling expenses of any forest officer except on business directly connected with the Forest Service ; but it was often charged even afterward that government funds were used to pay the expenses of officials who were merely gomg about lecturing to conventions and associations.* The “‘press bureau” of the Forest Service has often been criticised, the charge being that the Service devotes considerable time to the preparation of bulletins and articles, often of a self-laudatory nature, to send out to the newspapers and magazines. Mondell pointed out in 1910 that the Forest Service had a mailing list of 750,000 names.” In 1908, the appropriation bill was amended to prevent the use of money for the preparation or publication of such articles, but it has been charged that the Forest Service often evaded this.® JUSTICE OF THESE COMPLAINTS The weight to be given to these complaints of extravagance in the 2Cong. Rec., Feb. 2, 1911, 1836. 3 Speech of Senator Heyburn, Cong. Rec., Mar. 1, 1911, 3774. 4 Stat. 35, 259. 5 Cong. Rec., Feb. 1, 1910, 1359. 6 Stat. 35, 259. 286 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY- Forest Service will depend somewhat on the point of view taken. Com- pared with private business enterprise at its best, probably nearly all government bureaus are inefficient and extravagant ; but the Forest Service has been one of the most efficient bureaus in Washington. As a matter of fact, that is one of the reasons why the Service was sub- ject to so much criticism during Pinchot’s régime. The Service was . going ahead with much the same energy and enterprise that is sup- posed to characterize private business, and this brought it into con- flict with interests which were represented in Congress. Officials and bureaus that follow the humdrum, cut-and-dried methods of the aver- age office in Washington are seldom or never criticised. As a rule, nothing speaks so well for a public official or department as a generous amount of criticism from the politicians. The figures given above, to show the “insolvency” of the reserves, do not really prove anything. The reserves were self-supporting in 1908, and they might have been maintained on that basis had that been a wise policy to pursue. In 1908, however, Pinchot recommended a change of policy, recommended that there should be provision for more effective protection and administration of the reserves, even if it resulted in a deficit, and this policy was adopted. It should also be noted that some of the figures given for expenses include, not only the actual cost of forest administration, but a great many items—sal- aries, rents, cost of investigative work, etc.—which have nothing directly to do with the national forests. The statement that only 15 per cent—iater 25 per cent—of the money appropriated went directly to the protection of the forests, is at least misleading, for it is difficult to say what money is used directly in the protection of the reserves. It can hardly be said that the work of a clerk or draftsman is less essential to the protection of the forests than the work of a ranger. A great many clerks there are in any government office, but this seems to be required by the “red tape”? of officialdom. When Henry Graves was made chief of the Ser- vice, he took some steps toward a greater decentralization of the administration and tried to use more of the appropriation for pro- tection and investigation.’ 7 Forest Quarterly, 12, 397 et seq. HOSTILITY TONATIONAL FORESTS = 287 There might easily be a question as to the justification for any con- siderable expenditure for expenses of officials going to deliver lectures. A number of members of the Forest Service have at different times performed such work, but it was usually incidental to other work. As a rule, addresses before educational institutions, associations of wood users, commercial and civic organizations, and general audiences, are made by men en route and without cost to the Forest Service, except the expenditure of time involved.* Even so, however, this has not been an altogether negligible item, for, as late as 1916, 425 addresses were given by members of the Forest Service. Whether this be a proper function of the Forest Service or not is a question concerning which there may well be an honest difference of opinion.” Regarding the preparation and publication of articles by the Forest Service, much the same must be said. Almost all investigators em- ployed by the Forest Service who have done work of any considerable importance, have doubtless been engaged at some time in writing matter for publication, either in official bulletins or in magazines or newspapers. The Forest Service always has a number of men employed in investigative work and it is desirable that the results of such work should be made available to the public. The Service has for many years had in its employ one or more men engaged primarily in editing manuscripts for official publication, and these editors have sometimes written matter for publication, both in official bulletins and circulars and in periodicals and newspapers. At times the Service has had men whose function was chiefly or entirely to diffuse information through the press. At one time the Service had a mailing list of 750,000 names and from five to seven men were employed in editing and sending out material. That the work of attending to this mailing list is an expen- sive matter, may be inferred from the fact that the installation of an addressing machine by the Forest Service in 1908 is reported to have reduced the clerical force of the Service by thirty persons. In some ways, this publicity work has been about as much needed and as valuable a line of work as any that the Forest Service performs. 8 H. Doc. 681; 62 Cong. 2 sess.: Report, Sec. of Agr., 1912, 466 et seq. See also S. Doc. 485; 60 Cong. 1 sess. 9H. Doc. 681; 62 Cong. 2 sess.: Report, Sec. of Agr., 1912, 466 et seq. See also S. Doc. 485; 60 Cong. 1 sess.: Report, Chief of the Division of Forestry, 1891, 195. e 288 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY Twenty years ago, the average man in the United States, even the average educated man, had absolutely no idea as to what forestry meant. The average man looked upon forestry, as a prominent forest official once said, as “something in the nature of a frill for rich men embellishing their estates, or a combination of tree planting and the ‘Woodman, spare that tree’ idea.” Pinchot, and others with him, saw the need for education of the public, saw the desirability of utilizing the press of the country as a means of disseminating information. It was one of Pinchot’s virtues that he was a good advertiser, for if he had not been he never could have accomplished all that he did. Nat- urally. some of the material published has tended to “boom” the national forests, and that has brought criticism.*° The Forest Service has tried to diffuse information in various ways: by advice to individuals, given on the ground, or by correspondence; by the preparation and distribution of publications; by public ad- dresses; by the loan and sale of lantern slides, pictures, and other material for the use of lecturers, writers, and others; by codperation with teachers, public school officials, and others connected with educa- tional work; by exhibits at expositions; and by the preparation of official information concerning forestry, in brief typewritten or mimeographed statements, which are given to the newspapers for publication. The Forest Service could doubtless make the reserves pay their own way, if such a policy seemed wise. If the Service were to increase the grazing fees sufficiently, make a special effort to sell a larger amount of standing timber, and cut out, or greatly redtice, the amount ex- pended for permanent improvement, investigative work, etc., it could doubtless make the reserves pay a net profit to the government; but the Forest Service has wisely declined to adopt any such course. Probably the grazing fees should be generally increased, but any decrease in expenditures for permanent improvements would be short- sighted economy. Perhaps most of what is spent on the forests each year should be regarded as an investment. This applies not only to expenditures for road and trail construction but likewise to fire protection.”* 10 Reports, Sec. of Agr., 1907, 347; 1908, 438 et seq.; 1909, 407 et seq.; 1916, 190. 11 Am. Forestry, May, 1917, 305: dm. Lumberman, May 27, 1916, 58. HOSTILITY TONATIONAL FORESTS = 289 THE TIMBER SALE POLICY OF THE FOREST SERVICE The receipts from timber sales could perhaps be augmented, but in considering this possibility, it is necessary to go briefly into the ques- tion of the timber sale policy of the government, for this has long been the object of severe,criticism and, perhaps strangely, on diametrically opposite grounds. Some critics have asserted that the price charged by the government was too high, while others, although not so many, have charged that the price was too low. With the increase in lumber prices since 1897, it was inevitable that many people should suspect the working of a lumber trust and that they should wonder why the government did not at least try to keep prices down, by selling its own timber at a price somewhat below those established by the so-called “lumber trust.” The charge has often been made that the government not only did not undersell the “trust,” but actually established a price somewhat higher than that of private own- ers in the same vicinity. E. M. Ammons, later governor of Colorado, criticised the Forest Service for its method of selling timber to the highest bidder, and charged that the “lumber trust” bid just high enough to get it, and then added correspondingly to the consumer’s price. Senator Heyburn called attention to a conférence between the forestry officials and the lumber operators to fix a scale of prices, and asserted that the Forest Service had increased prices 100 per cent. Representative Humphrey of Washington charged the Forest Ser- vice with being largely responsible for the timber “monopoly” in the West, and alleged that the big “interests”—Frederick Weyerhaeuser, J. J. Hill, and others—were among the most prominent influences in the conservation movement. He asserted that the “so-called forest- conservation movement” had “operated solely to bull the lumber and timber market.””*” Much of the complaint regarding the high price set by the govern- ment on its timber was not made in any spirit of sincerity. Men who disliked the system anyhow found here a good line of attack—one which would make a strong bid for popular support. This is clearly indicated by the following extract from a confidential letter which the 12 Cong. Rec., May 19, 1910, 6527; May 16, 1912, 6545; Mar. 10, 1914, 4621, 4628; Mar. 12, 1914, 4759, 4760; June 2, 1913, 1865; Apr. 18, 1916, 6388: H. Res. 114; 63 Cong. 1 sess. 290 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY board of governors of the National Lumber Manufacturers’ Asso- ciation circulated among the members of that association in July, 1918: “Dear Sir: ( Confidential.) “There is good reason to believe that an attack is to be made upon the administration of the Forest Service, with particular reference to the present methods of selling timber from the national forests. “For your confidential information, will say that certain members of Congress, whose antagonism to the Forest Service is well known, are said to be planning to make the charge, as soon as pending tariff and currency legislation is out of the way, that the policy of the Forest Service in disposing of government timber is dictated, or at least influenced to a degree, by timber owners.””” Representative Johnson of Washington criticised the Forest Ser- vice for selling stumpage too cheap. He admitted that the price of the government was nominally higher than the market price, but said it was really lower because the government gave purchasers five years without interest to remove timber purchased. Johnson was in close touch with lumber interests; in fact, he apparently had lumber inter- ests of his own, and this would easily explain his attitude.** On the whole, there is exceedingly slender basis for the criticisms of the policy of the Forest Service with regard to timber sales. In the first place, the Service is required by law to sell at actual market prices, and is not subject to criticism for following the provisions of the law. Furthermore, even if the law did not require this, it would be the only wise policy to sell at the regular market price. If the price were raised above the market price, the government would be unable to sell at all; a revenue of over a million dollars a year would be lopped off; and a large amount of mature timber would be left te rot in the forests. Much of the government timber is mature, some even deteriorating. Even at the price set, the Forest Service has never sold anything approximating the annual growth of the national forests; in fact, it has been stated that it never sold as much as one sixth the estimated annual growth previous to 1913. If, on the other hand, the 13 “T,umber Industry,” Pt. IV, 61 et seq. 14 Cong. Rec., Apr. 18, 1916, 6390, 6392 et seq. HOSTILITY TONATIONAL FORESTS 291 price were put below the prevailing market price, it would only tend to increase the demoralization which has existed in the lumber industry much of the time during the past ten years. It is not certain that the government revenues could be greatly increased by reducing the price, even if that were possible. In those districts where the amount of government timber is not large enough to affect the market greatly, no great increase in sales could be expected, no matter what the price, and in regions where the govern- ment timber is an important factor in the market, reduction in price would simply compel private owners to reduce too, and thus leave the amount of government sales somewhat the same as before. It is stated that the reason why the government has not sold more is not that the price is too high, but rather that it is impossible to dispose of inac- cessible blocks of timber at any price. Much of the government timber is comparatively inaccessible, and large investments are necessary to its development on any considerable scale. Even from the point of view of the consumer, very little is to be said for a reduction in the government price of stumpage. Unless the amount of such timber is so great as to have an important influence on the market, it is likely that if the government lowered its price the fortunate purchasers of this cheap stumpage would nevertheless sell their product at the regular market price, and pocket the profits accruing. Under any circumstances, it is of course the lor g-run inter- ests of consumers rather than their mere immediate interests which should be considered.*” It might be possible for the Forest Service to increase its revenues somewhat by charging for the timber which it has for many years been giving away free to settlers ; but the amount of timber thus given away has not been very great—120,000,000 feet in 1916—and even if it were a very considerable item, it is not certain that it would be just or expedient to charge settlers for it. As already stated, the Forest Service should increase the grazing fees. The rates allowed in the past have hardly been fair to all con- cerned. Not only has the government been meeting an annual deficit 15 Report, Sec. of Agr., 1908, 422; 1912, 491; 1916, 157 et seq.: Report, Forester, 1914, 9, 10. See also “Some Public and Economic Aspects of the Lumber Industry,” by W. B. Greeley; Dept. of Agr., Office of Sec., Report 114. 292 UNITED STATES FOREST POLI€Y while the stockmen were getting the grazing for half what it was worth, but the states lose a share of what they ought to receive under ~ the present scheme of apportionment. Thirty-five per cent of the loss falls upon them. The Forest Service was planning a gradual increase in rates at the time the recent war broke out, but this was postponed because of war conditions. The livestock associations protested vigorously against the increase.” THE FOREST LIEU ACT AGAIN The difficulties arising under the Forest Lieu Act of 1897 have been discussed in a previous chapter; but it is necessary to note here that those difficulties did not end with the repeal of the act in 1905; and even within very recent years, there has been a great deal of dis- cussion of this act, largely in the way of a criticism of the Forest Service for a part it was alleged to have played. Senator Heyburn always maintained that the evils of the Forest Lieu Act should be attributed to Secretary Hitchcock, and to the conservation movement generally. Humphrey of Washington later took a similar position, especially charging the Forest Service with having backed the bill for the creation of the Mount Ranier National Park, and asserting that it was the conservationists who blocked the passage of the act repealing the Forest Lieu Act until the Northern Pacific could get its scrip located. The merits of the Forest Lieu controversy have been discusses in a previous connection,” but it may be pointed out here that only a vivid imagination could trace any of the evils of the Forest Lieu Act to the door of the Forest Service. Previous to 1905, the forest reserves were under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, while the Division of Forestry—later known as the Bureau of Forestry, and after 1905 as the Forest Service—was in the Department of Agriculture. The officials in the Division—or Bureau—of Forestry could hardly be criticised for not protesting against something which was officially none of their business.** 16 Am. Forestry, Mar., 1917, 177: Am. Lumberman, May 27, 1916, 58. 17 Cross Reference, pp. 176-190. 18 Cong. Rec., May 14, 1912, 6383, 6384; June 2, 1913, 1863, et seq.; Mar 10, 1914, 4631; Mar. 14, 1914, 4867; Jan. 27, 1915, 2148 et seq. HOSTILITY TONATIONAL FORESTS 293 Criticisms of the Forest Service naturally involved a considerable criticism of Gifford Pinchot, for many years the head of the Service. He was accused of ruling over the reserves as a feudal lord over his demesne; and **Pinchotism,” in the vernacular of certain congressmen, was meant to imply all that was arbitrary, unreasonable, and despotic. The fact that he was an eastern man, wealthy, and represented by some as an aristocrat, did not raise him in the estimation of some of the western people.*” Representative Humphrey also criticised Pinchot for not having protested against the operation of the Forest Lieu Act, and several western men accused him of being in large measure responsible for the frauds arising under that act.*° HEYBURN’S CRITICISMS It is perhaps hardly worth while to point out all the various criti- cisms made by Senator Heyburn in his opposition to the Forest Ser- vice: his assertion that the Forest Service was in politics; that for- estry officials in Idaho had admitted they were instructed to see that he was not reélected to the Senate; that forest rangers were accus- tomed to get their tree seeds by robbing squirrels’ nests, thus leaving the squirrels to starve, etc. There may have been truth in some of his charges, but, as pointed out in a previous chapter, Senator Heyburn was so wholly lacking in judicial poise when he spoke of the Forest Service that his statements have to be received with considerable caution.” Senator Heyburn was wont to tell a great many stories about the _ atrocities committed by the Forest Service. One story he several times recounted was that of Robert Byrne, a miner, who was shot from ambush for refusing to vacate ground from which he had been ordered by a forest ranger. Another story was of the mayor of Senator Hey- burn’s town, who, riding along the road with his family one day, met 19 Something of the acerbity of some of the western writers may be judged from the following editorial from one of the western newspapers: “Of the asininity of Pinchotism, of the unfeeling selfishness with which mad theorists plan to build up a Federal empire in the sovereign states of the West and in Alaska, . . . Seattle long has had knowledge.” (Cong. Rec., Mar. 10, 1914, 4636.) 20Cong. Rec., Jan. 7, 1910, 393-399; Mar. 10, 1914, 4636; Jan. 22, 1915, 2151, 2152; Apr. 18, 1916, 6390, 6395; Jan. 6, 1910, 366: Forest Bul. 67, 1905. 21 Cong. Rec., Mar. 8, 1910, 2885, 2893; Mar. 1, 1911, 3771, 3774. 294 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY a forest ranger, but did not give him enough of the road, whereupon the ranger pulled a revolver and commenced shooting at him. These, Heyburn declared, were “merely little instances of the manner of administration.” THE REAL ATTITUDE OF THE WEST Perhaps the question may be raised as to the real attitude of the West toward the national forests in recent years—Are the people in western states still generally hostile, or have they become reconciled to the reservation policy? To this question it is difficult to give a general answer. Certainly the attitude of the people varies with the different states, counties, and communities, as well as with individuals. Much of the evidence on the subject is conflicting, anyhow. It is commonly asserted that the West has finally come to look with favor on the forests; yet, even in recent years, some western politicians have staked their political hopes on a record of hostility, and have won. Senators Heyburn and Dubois of Idaho always represented opposite sides of the question, and both seemed to feel assured of popular support. So, in later years, Hum- phrey and Bryan of Washington represented opposite views; and other similar examples might be given. Senator Warren attributed his defeat in one election to a speech he made in Congress in favor of ceding the forest reserves to the states. On the other hand, Congress- man Taylor of Colorado once claimed that three representatives from Colorado had failed of reélection because they failed to get some of the Colorado reserves opened to settlement. Senator Smoot of Utah said not many years ago: “The approval of the work of this service on national forests by the great body of the people, and particularly by the western people whom it most affects, has grown steadily until it is probably more general and more em- phatic than the popular approval of the work of any other Federal agency.” Heyburn and Borah of Idaho would never for a minute have admitted any such statement as this; yet Mondell, a pretty consistent opponent of the forest reserves, stated recently: “The people in the Mountain States, in the main, believe that the reasonable establish- 22 Cong. Rec., Mar. 8, 1910, 2893: Forestry and Irrigation, Aug., 1908, 445. For a similar story told by Senator Carter, see Cong. Rec., Feb. 26, 1909, 3233. HOSTILITY TONATIONAL FORESTS = 295 ment of reserves, that is, the establishment of reserves within reason- able boundaries, properly and wisely administered, is a good thing for that country and for the country as a whole.” One conservation writer concludes that Colorado is now friendly to the reserves, because the people of northern Colorado petitioned Congress for a law permitting the President to add a half million acres to one of the Colorado forests. Only three years before this, however, the legislature of Colorado had adopted a memorial to Con- gress strongly protesting against the reserves. It will be remembered that when the question of the disposition of the forfeited railroad ‘grant in Oregon was up in Congress, certain representatives of Oregon expressed “unalterable opposition” to the creation of any more reserves.”* It seems that the hostility which led to the withdrawal of the President’s power in 1907 has not disappeared entirely, for in 1910, the section forbidding him to create national forests in the six northwestern states was reénacted, and in 1912, the state of California was added to the list.** In the fall of 1912, Gifford Pinchot sent out 2000 questionnaires to representative individuals in the western states, asking their opinion as to the value of the forests. Of the 1500 replies received, 90 per cent were claimed to be favorable to the reserves.” Other illustrations might be given, but enough has been said to indi- cate that general statements are misleading, if not meaningless. It would probably be safe to say, however, that in general the people of the West are gradually abandoning their hostility, to the national forests. Since 1910, following the Ballinger row and the dismissal of Pinchot from the Forest Service, Mr. Henry Graves was appointed chief forester, and his administration was far more acceptable to western people, for some reason. Even Senator Heyburn once ex- pressed his belief in “the fairness and justice of the new régime.” Tt might perhaps be worth noting that some states have generally been less hostile than others. Thus, Utah and California have been less hostile than Oregon, Washington, and Colorado, probably be- cause irrigation is more important in the first-named states. The 23 Am. Forestry, July, 1917, 399: Outlook, May 3, 1913, 9. 24 Stat. 36, 848; 37, 497. 25 Cong. Rec., June 17, 1913, 2066. 26 Cong. Rec., Mar. 8, 1910, 2894; Feb. 4, 1911, 1958.. 296 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY attitude of Utah men in Congress, Senator Smoot, for instance, has doubtless been influenced by the attitude of the Mormon Church; many of the Mormons are farming irrigated lands. The sentiment of the people of the West varies according to the occupation of the people. A grazing section usually presents a different attitude from a section peopled by small settlers, or miners, or “lumberjacks.”””’ SAFETY OF THE NATIONAL FORESTS The question finally arises—Are the forests safe, or is there still a possibility that they may be turned over to the states, or opened to private exploitation? Prediction of the future is always dangerous, but many signs indicate that the reserves are probably safer than ever before. Even the radical opponents of the forest reserve policy have in recent years apparently realized the hopelessness of their fight. As early as 1910, Mondell declared in Congress: “Forestry and forest reserves have been a fad with the American people for a few years past and it does not seem to matter to them how much it costs. I realize that, and I have exposed myself to all sorts of criticism by being one of the very few people who have had something to say about the extravagance of the service. I have gone into it quite fully in other sessions of Congress. I realize it did not do a particle of good. .. . I realize that the committee proposes to give the Forest Service what- ever it asks and without much question.”** Senator Heyburn likewise seemed, at least occasionally, to realize that the sentiment in Congress was overwhelmingly against him. “‘Mr. President,” he said at the close of a vigorous attack on the Forest Service in 1911, “I have very little hope of reformation in this hour. This is not the hour of reforms. It is the hour of chaos—political chaos, governmental chaos, and I will wait until conditions settle down and men begin to think.”*? Senator Heyburn’s “‘hour of reforms” is probably more distant now than it was in 1911. Various lines of reasoning would point to the probable indefinite 27 Cong. Rec., Feb. 26, 1909, 3231, 3239; Feb. 1, 1910, 1340; Mar. 8, 1910, 2891, 2893; June 17, 1913, 2059, 2066; Apr. 18, 1916, 6406: Proceedings, Society of Am. Foresters, Nov., 1905, 70-76: Outlook, Nov. 7, 1908, 553; May 14, 1910, 57: Report, Montana Commission on Conservation, 1911. 28 Cong. Rec., Feb. 1, 1910, 1338. 29 Cong. Rec., Mar. 1, 1911, 3774. HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 297 retention of the national forests. The tendency of governmental policy is clearly away from the “laissez-faire” policy and toward government ownership and control at least of certain classes of lands. Further- more, the trend is toward Federal control rather than state control. Also, it is being made clearer each year that the government made a serious mistake in alienating so much of its timber lands. The lumber industry for some time previous to the war had been in a very unsatis- factory condition, that is, private ownership had worked badly, even for those in the industry itself, while the threat of a future shortage of timber is always before the consumers. All this is being brought more and more clearly before the public through government and private investigations; and the purchase of timber lands under the Weeks Law indicates a purpose of seeking out a remedy, even at great expense. It would be very strange if the government, after going extensively into the purchase of denuded lands, should sell the tim- bered land it already has. While it hardly seems likely that the government will soon, or per- haps ever, abandon its great reserves, it should be noted that there are ways in which the reservation policy could be seriously perverted. It will be remembered that the attack on the forests in 1912 took the form of an attempt by the western states to get a larger portion of the proceeds. They now get 25 per cent—which for certain communi- ties is doubtless too high—and have tried to get this raised to 50 per cent. Perhaps they will not be successful, but anything in the way of a “pork” grab has some chance of success in Congress, because those to be benefited are very zealous, and the rest of the members are likely to be less interested in defending the public treasury than in se- curing some “pork” of a different kind for their own constituents. If the share given to the western states should be raised to 50 per cent, or perhaps even higher, and the receipts were to increase greatly, as they certainly will in the future, the national forests might be a source of revenue to the West, while the country as a whole might still be hold- ing the sack for the millions it has spent for permanent improvements in the forests, and for the cost of purchases under the Weeks Law. It is possible to imagine a situation in which the West, and perhaps those eastern states in which reserves were being bought up, would be vastly pleased with the reservation policy, while the rest of the coun- 298 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY try would turn to a position of actual hostility. A complete reversal of this kind seems unlikely, and yet a few scattered indications of such a change may perhaps already be observed. There will probably be a constant issue in Congress on the question of the percentage of forest reserve receipts which shall go to the western states, and this percentage may be fixed at such a point as to seriously affect the value of the reserves. This represents only one of the possibilities in the future develop- ment of the reserves. Another possibility is that the Stock Raising Homestead Act of 1916, under which settlers and speculators may enter 640 acres of grazing lands, may some day be extended to the national forests. There have always been some people who favored turning the na- tional forests over to the states. Mr. James J. Hill has been one of the most influential champions of this policy, but in Congress, Senators Heyburn and Borah of Idaho, Fall of New Mexico, and Bailey of Texas, and Congressman Lafferty of Oregon have been actively fa- vorable to such a disposition of the reserves. A considerable number of western men would probably vote for the proposition if it were pre- sented in Congress. About 1912 or 1913, there were a great many efforts in Congress to effect this change. Even such consistent oppo- nents of the reserves as Carter and Mondell, however, have been unwilling to go so far. Such a step at the present time would of course mean the abolition of most of the reserves, for most of the western states would not take care of reserves placed in their hands.*° On the whole, it seems that the national forests are reasonably safe. All the probabilities in the case point to a retention and even an extension of the reservation policy. 80 Cong. Rec., Feb. 26, 1909, 3230, 3231; May 14, 1912, 6390; May 15, 1912, 6477, 6478; May 16, 1912, 6561; Aug. 7, 1912, 10338; June 10, 1913, 1970: H. R. 2890; 62 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 1793; 63 Cong. 1 sess.: Outlook, Sept. 17, 1910, 90; Dec. 28, 1912, 935: Scientific American, Sept. 6, 1913, 176: Report, Oregon Conservation Commission, 1913. CHAPTER X THE WORK OF THE FOREST SERVICE Ir is the purpose of this book to treat of the congressional forest policy, rather than the internal administration of the national forests or of other timber lands; nevertheless it seems appropriate to note briefly some of the developments in the administration of the national forests. The work of the Forest Service has broadened greatly during the past decade or more, particularly since Gifford Pinchot assumed the office of chief forester in 1905; and at the present time the Service performs a great variety of important functions. ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE TO PRIVATE OWNERS In the first place, the Forest Service offers expert advice and assist- ance to private timber owners. As early as 1899, the appropriation bill recognized this as a legitimate function, and it has grown in im- portance. The advisory work of the Service may assume various forms. In a limited number of cases, it may take the form of advice and instruction regarding the practice of forestry, based upon exami- nation of certain tracts. These examinations are restricted mainly to states not equipped to furnish expert advice, and usually they are made only when several examinations can be made on neighboring tracts, and on condition that the owners bear part of the expense. In some cases, the advisory work of the Forest Service consists in referring owners to the proper state officer, especially in cases where woodlot examinations are desired, the state officer being presumably in closer touch with local conditions within his state, and able to make examinations at less expense than a Federal officer. Owners who desire to obtain planting stock, either seeds or young trees, with which to reforest waste lands, or establish farm woodlots or wind- breaks, are supplied with lists of dealers in such stock. 300 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY In the development of this function of assisting private timber owners, three stages may be recognized. In the first stage, repre- sented by the period preceding the transfer of the forest reserves to the Department of Agriculture, much attention was given to exami- nations of private lands and preparation of working plans. The in- creasing value of stumpage led many large timber owners to look with some favor upon plans for the best utilization of the timber; and the foresters rendered important assistance in two ways. In the first place, they showed many lumbermen that they could actually increase their profits by reducing the waste involved in cutting high stumps, in throwing away too much of the tops, and in failing to utilize more of the material left on the ground. Doubtless the lumber- men would in time have seen the loss involved in their methods of operation, but the change to more careful methods spread more rapidly as a result of the early codperative work. In the second place, these early efforts of the foresters led to better methods of fire pro- tection. This was done largely by educating the public up to a more intelligent understanding of the danger of fires, and the methods of preventing and suppressing them, and by stimulating the develop- ment of codperative fire protection organizations. During the second stage of this work, from the transfer of the reserves in 1905 until about 1915, the codperative work was much less important, the Forest Service being engrossed in the preparation and publication of information needed for scientific forestry, in the training of more expert foresters, and especially in working out the problems connected with the national forests. In the third stage, beginning about 1915, the Forest Service gave renewed attention to the problems of private forestry, particularly the problems of the small woodlot. Considerable attention has been given in these later years to the question of marketing. Also, with the development of a clearer appreciation of the public aspects of the lumber industry as a whole, more attention has been devoted to the problems of the large owners, from the point of view of the public interests. The Greeley report on “Some Public and Economic Aspects of the Lumber In- dustry,” published in 1917, is an illustration of this point of view. Efficient and intelligent work along this line was made possible by the investigative work carried on during the preceding years. WORK OF THE FOREST SERVICE 301 This codperation with private owners is a field of work which should broaden greatly in the future. The Forest Service must get into closer touch with the private timber owners if it is to accom- plish the most possible; and the Service is making a vigorous effort to secure closer cooperation. Perhaps the Forest Service may some- time be given supervisory authority over private timber lands, coupled with the duty of assisting in fire protection, reforestation, and man- agement; at any rate, the study of forest management in European countries indicates that some extension of the powers and duties of the Forest Service may be necessary if the forest interests of the country are to be adequately guarded. The different states will grad- ually extend the scope of their work in forestry, but the burden of this work must fall mainly cn the Federal government.* One of the principal means of assisting private owners is by the preparation and distribution of publications on forestry. These include “planting leaflets,” which briefly describe the principal species adapted to the various parts of the United States, and methods of planting them; commercial tree bulletins, which deal with the char- acteristics of the more important commercial species; and a series of “regional studies,’ which discuss questions of forest management, planting, and utilization, with reference to the needs of private owners within regions where the conditions of forest growth and markets for wood products are comparatively uniform. Other pub- lications dealing specifically with markets and uses of wood are issued from time to time. Indicative of the sympathetic attitude of the Forest Service toward private interests, is the recent investigation of the lumber industry. This investigation by the Forest Service, unlike that made by the Bureau of Corporations a few years earlier (1907-1914), was con- ducted with a view to helping the lumber interests remedy the un- fortunate conditions which had prevailed in the lumber industry for nearly a decade. The Bureau of Corporations had carried on its investigation with the apparent purpose of proving the existence of monopolistic conditions in the industry, no matter what the actual facts disclosed ; while the Forest Service, in the first part of its report, 1 See the annual reports of the Forester: Forest Cire. 21, 22, 27, 37, 79, 100, 138, 203: Forest Bul. 32, 39, 56, 68. 302 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY published in 1917, disclosed a point of view which was clearly sym- pathetic and helpful. COOPERATION WITH STATES The Forest Service has developed a policy of assisting not only private owners, but states as well, through codperative agreements. Under such agreements, the Forest Service has made a great many studies, dealing with various problems related to forestry. Thus, in 1908, a study of forest taxation was undertaken in New Hampshire and a comprehensive law was drafted and presented to the Legis- lature. In 1910, a study was undertaken in codperation with the Pennsylvania Department of Forestry to ascertain how far soil erosion and floods in certain districts of Pennsylvania are due to forest destruction along the watersheds. In all cases, states are re- quired to share in the expense of studies of this nature.” The most important work done in codperation with states has been that of fire protection. One of the sections of the Weeks Law appro- priated the sum of $200,000 for codperation with the states in pro- tecting the forested watersheds of navigable streams from fire. Such coéperation has been extended only to states which have provided by law for fire protection, and have appropriated for that purpose funds at least equal to those provided by the Federal government. The states have responded very liberally to this offer of assistance, and in 1916 a total Federal expenditure of $90,000 was “supple- mented” by over $400,000 of state funds, from twenty-two different states.” PROTECTION OF FISH AND GAME Another function of the Forest Service which has developed con- siderably in the last few years, and is destined to develop much further, is that of protection of fish and game. As early as 1906, the appropriation bill had included the “protection of fish and game” among the proper functions of the Forest Service, and since then 2 See annual reports of the Forester. 3 See annual reports of the Forester, particularly that of 1916, p. 179: Forest Circ. 205: Stat. 37, 855. On general forest fire prevention see Forestry and Irriga- tion, Jan., 1907, 23; Feb., 1907, 62: Am. Forestry, Nov., 1910, 681; Dec., 1910, 744; May, 1912, 349; Aug., 1912, 541; Nov., 1913, 739: Conservation, Feb., 1909, 70, 1. WORK OF THE FOREST SERVICE 305 considerable sums of money have been given each year for the con- servation of various forms of wild life—not only fish and game, but also birds. Doubtless this movement was to some extent due to the influence of President Roosevelt. Game refuges in the national forests can be created only by special act of Congress, and only three have been created—the Wichita Game Preserve in Oklahoma, the Grand Cafion Game Preserve in Arizona, and the Pisgah Game Preserve in North Carolina. In 1918, the Wichita preserve contained a herd of 100 buffalo, with some elk, antelope, deer, and smaller game; the Grand Cajion preserve supported 6000 to 8000 deer and other game; while the Pisgah preserve sheltered deer, wild turkey, and wild fowl. The five big game preserves in which most of the wild game is to be found are not in charge of the Forest Service, but are under the jurisdiction of the Biological Survey. Many of the national forests carry considerable game, however. Of the 40,000 elk in the Yellowstone region, about half live in the national forests surrounding the park, and a portion of the remainder occupy national forest land at times. There are 3000 or more elk - in the Olympic Forest, and smaller herds in the forests of central and western Montana and central Idaho, and new herds are being built up in various national forests of Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona. In spite of all efforts, national forests at present carry only an insignificant fraction of the game which could be supported upon them; in fact, in many sections the game has been almost entirely exterminated. The individual states have jurisdiction over the game, the Forest Service merely codperating with the states in carrying out the state laws for protection; and. this division of responsibility has not worked for efficiency. The Federal government has full authority to protect game in only seven of the sixteen national parks—the Yellowstone, Glacier, Mount Ranier, Crater Lake, Platte, Hot Springs, and the Hawatan. The states have not ceded jurisdiction of the other nine parks, and, in the absence of Federal legislation, the Federal authorities can punish poachers there only by expelling them from the park limits. Of the thirty-four national “monuments,” twenty-one are administered by the National Park Service, eleven by the Forest Service, and two are under the juris- 304 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY diction of the War Department, while the game on them remains | subject to state jurisdiction. A good example of the confusion in jurisdiction is found in the administration of the great elk herds in the region of Yellowstone Park. In the park itself, game is wholly under Federal jurisdiction, but in the adjoining national forests game is under state jurisdiction. Within a relatively small area it would be possible to find as many as four different sets of game laws, and of course the elk frequently wander across state lines and into new jurisdictions. The states do little to care for these elk, and in severe winters hundreds of them died of starvation, before the Federal government established a feed- ing station at Jackson Hole, where they are now fed in severe weather. There is need of a more comprehensive plan. Perhaps all game in the national forests should be placed under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service, with provision for proper state codperation. Perhaps the entire jurisdiction over the national parks should be placed with the Forest Service, in the Department of Agriculture, instead of in the Department of the Interior. The Park Service needs men of much the same character as the Forest Service; many of the prob- lems are similar; and some economy, and perhaps also efficiency, would be secured by turning the national parks and the national forests over to the same administrative department—the Forest Service.* The game in Alaska has received considerable attention in recent years. Alaska was once one of the finest hunting grounds in the world, but in recent years the moose, caribou, white mountain sheep, and other game animals have decreased very greatly in numbers; and with the building of the new railroad into the interior, some species of game seem on the way to extinction. A law was passed in 1908 providing extensive regulations for their protection, and authorizing the appointment of a game warden to enforce these regulations. Considerable sums have been voted from time to time to carry out the provisions of this law; but the enforcement has not been very effective. The recent creation of the Mount McKinley National Park as a game preserve will provide protection for some of the Alaskan game. Probably the development of the game resources of the national 4 Am. Forestry, Mar., 1917, 133, 139; Jan., 1917, 48, 49. WORK OF THE FOREST SERVICE 305 forests and of the country generally will receive greater attention in the future. The number of bills introduced in Congress to establish “eame sanctuaries” indicates a growing public interest in the matter.” RECREATIONAL USES OF THE FORESTS The development of the recreational uses of the national forests is also receiving increasing attention. To an increasing extent the for- ests are being used as playgrounds for the people of the country. It is said that nearly seven hundred thousand people visited the national forests of Colorado in the summer of 1916, left the sweltermg heat of the prairie states and the states farther east, for a vacation in the mountains. The Forest Service is trying in various ways to in- crease the usefulness of the national forests to those seeking recreation. In 1915, a law was passed authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to grant permits for summer homes, hotels, and for similar uses in the national forests for periods of not more than thirty years; and under this law a great many permits have already been issued. Through the issue of permits in this way, the Forest Service is able to prevent any class of individuals from permanently appropriating the most beautiful lake and mountain sites. Wholesale appropriation of beautiful mountain regions, as for instance in the case of the Dunraven estate in what is now Estes Park, is not possible in the national forests.° ASSISTANCE TO GRAZING INTERESTS The problems of grazing and of range management are still im- portant. The ranges of the national forests cover about 100,000,000 acres of land, on which a total of about 15,000,000 animals, including ~ 5,000,000 young, are grazed each year. In addition, there are several 5 Reports, Sec. of Agr., 1909, 396; 1910, 404; 1911, 398; 1912, 525; 1916, 172: Report, Forester, 1914, 23: Report, Sec. of Int., 1916, Vol. I, 237: Report, Chief of the Bureau of Biological Survey, 1917: Proceedings, National Park Conference, Washington, 1917, 187, 200, 206: Am. Forestry, Mar., 1917, 139: Stat. 33, 614; 34, 536, 607; 35, 102, 1104, 1137; 36, 1258; 37, 292, 459, 847; 38, 49, 434, 648, 862, 1105; 39, 233, 467, 476: H. R. 6881, 11712, 14972, 17381; S. 3044, 4418; 64 Cong. 1 sess. 6 Stat. 38, 1101: Forest Service, Use Book, 1915, 136: Report, Sec. of Agr., 1916, 176: Am. Forestry, Mar., 1917, 133; June, 1917, 358: Outing, May, 1916, 172. 306 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY million head of stock which spend from one to forty days in the forests while crossing to private lands, and several hundred thousand more are grazed by settlers and campers under free permits. A total of over 33,000 permittees are using the ranges in the national forests. The Forest Service is working out more effective means of co- - operation with the stockmen, through a recognition of the various livestock associations, of which there were 359 in 1917. These asso- ciations may adopt and request the enforcement of special rules designed to secure better conditions for the stock on the range, and such special rules, when approved by the district forester, are en- forced by the Forest Service and are binding upon all permittees using the range. Thus the Forest Service endeavors to codperate with the stockmen in securing the fullest utilization of the range; and the attitude of the stockmen is more helpful and friendly as a consequence. Free range privileges are given in an increasing number of cases. In some portions of the forests, notably in the Sierra Nevada of California, the demand for range accommodations for animals be- longing to campers and tourists has become so great that it is neces- sary to set aside considerable areas for their use.. The amount of grazing land required by settlers is increasing with the increase in the number of homesteaders in and adjacent to the forests, each set- tler being permitted to graze ten head of milch, work, or saddle animals free of charge. Large numbers of livestock belonging to the Indians residing in or adjacent to national forests are also grazed free. Efforts are being made to increase the value of the range in still other ways. For several years the Forest Service has tried to work out effective means of destroying predatory animals. Men were even employed to hunt and trap, and forest officers were urged to help where possible, by hunting and trapping, and by using poison. In 1916, this work was turned over to the Biological Survey, but even after that, the Biological Survey furnished some forest officers with traps, ammunition, and poison. The Biological Survey had previously carried on the work of destroying prairie dogs, ground squirrels, and other range-destroying rodents." 7 Forest Bul. 72, 97. WORK OF THE FOREST SERVICE 307 The Forest Service, in codperation with other branches of the government, has been trying to reduce stock losses from disease and poisonous plants. This work has been largely experimental in its nature, but it is claimed that stock losses have been materially reduced. The question of grazing in the new national forest areas of the Appalachian region has recently come up for consideration, and in 1916, these areas were placed under regulations very similar to those enforced in the West. One great problem still awaits solution, and that is the problem of preventing the too frequent loss of animals on the public range from starvation and exposure. Under a system which is a disgrace to civilization, stockmen regularly turn animals out on the range without any provision for feeding them in case of an unusually un- favorable season; and in severe winters many animals always starve to death on the plains. Thus the winter of 1908-1909 was very severe, and the result was “considerable losses of newly sheared sheep.” The following winter “prolonged periods of extremely cold weather caused suffermg among all classes of stock; winter losses were above the average, and the percentage of increase among sheep and cattle was materially reduced.” The winter of 1911-1912 was severe, and govern- ment officials reported that “there was a pronounced shortage of winter feed, and heavy losses of stock occurred in Colorado, Wyo- ming, and southeastern Montana.” In some sections of Arizona, 20 per cent of the ewes were reported to have died. The winter of 1915- 1916 brought a similar condition, and travelers in the West in the spring of 1917 noted the carcasses of cattle scattered along the plains. Conditions have been better on the ranges within the national forests, and the Forest Service has made special efforts to assist the ‘stockmen who were unable to provide their herds with feed; but the conditions which recur with every hard winter demand a more effec- tive remedy.® INVESTIGATIVE WORK The Forest Service has developed many kinds of investigative work. In the first place, it has carried on research work in range con- 8 See the annual reports of the Forester. 308 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY ditions. In 1910, the government appropriated several thousand dollars for experiments and investigation of range conditions within the national forests, and of methods of improving the range by re- seeding, regulation of grazing, etc.; and the work has been main- tained ever since, $25,000 to $30,000 being appropriated annually the past few years. These experiments relate to the more careful” determination of the grazing capacity of the ranges, the proper dis- tribution of watering places in order to secure maximum efficiency of the range, the effect of grazing on various trees and on fire danger, the proper protection of land subject to erosion and floods, and the possibility of reseeding ranges where the vegetation has once been destroyed. There have also been some studies of poisonous plants, and some in the construction of coyote-proof pastures, especially for lambing.® The main investigative work of the Forest Service, however, re- lates not to range lands, but to forest lands proper, and this work has in recent years expanded to cover a great variety of subjects, included under three general heads—dendrology, silviculture, and forest products. Dendrological studies, or studies concerning the distinguishing characters and the geographic distribution of the different species of North American trees and shrubs, were specifically provided for in the appropriations of 1910, and every year since, a considerable amount has been given for this purpose. These studies are carried on by the dendrologist and his assistants at Washington, with such help from the national forest officers as they may be able to give. SILVICULTURAL INVESTIGATIONS Silvicultural investigations cover a great variety of important studies, relating to forestation, forest influences, management of forests, forest mensuration, and forest protection. Some of these studies have been carried on for a great many years, but the work received a great stimulus in 1908, with the establishment of the experiment station at Flagstaff, Arizona. Since that time six other experiment stations have been established, two in Colorado, and one 9 Reports, Sec. of Agr., 1910, 402; 1911, 397; 1912, 524; 1916, 183: Report, Forester, 1915, 31: Forest Circ. 156, 158, 160, 169: Forest Bul. 97. WORK OF THE FOREST SERVICE 309 each in Idaho, Minnesota, Utah, and California. There is also a seed- testing laboratory at the Arlington Farm, Washington, D. C. FORESTATION The work in forestation is an important line of silviculture. This includes experiment in reforestation of cut-over lands, and in the forestation of lands which have never grown trees. The work covers the entire field of establishing a forest by artificial means—from the collection of the seed to the final sowing of seed or planting of trees. It includes investigations in regard to the collection and testing of seed; factors influencing the amount and quality of seed produced, such as site and condition of the tree; periodicity of seed years; effect of the source of seed, such as the locality in which the seed was produced and the condition of the mother tree upon the size and hardiness of the seedlings. It covers studies in the nursery relating to the time of sowing, depth of covering, necessity of shade, protec- tion from birds and rodents, age of transplanting, methods of trans- planting, use of fertilizers for the various species; also experiments in seed sowing and planting of nursery- and forest-grown stock, to determine the comparative values of each for the various species and sites, as well as the best seasons, the best age of stock, the possibility of extending the range of native species, or of introducing exotics.*° Probably reforestation will get increasing attention in the future. There are millions of acres of natural forest lands, divested of timber but unfit for agriculture; and, with the rapid exploitation of our remaining timber lands, this area will increase. In most regions forests which are cut reproduce themselves without any assistance other than protection from fire, but im some regions and under some circum- stances artificial restocking is necessary. Whether mere protection or artificial replanting is necessary, the work must be done mainly by the Federal government. As lumber prices advance, an added stimulus will be given to such work, and, when prices have reached something like the European level, perhaps reforestation will be as important as it now is in some European countries.* 10 Review of Forest Service Investigations, Forest Service, 1913: Forest Bul. 98: Agriculture Bul. 475. See also annual reports of Forester, 1908 to 1916. 11 Report, Sec. of Agr., 1908, 424; 1909, 388; 1910, 386; 1911, 372; 1912, 505; 1916, 166: Report, Forester, 1914, 15. 310 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY The experiments in tree planting on lands which have not grown trees seem somewhat like a revival of the old Timber Culture Act of 1873, and some of the results are apparently about as encouraging as the results of the earlier act. As early as 1899, the appropriation bill provided for seeking “suitable trees for the treeless plains,” and two of the national forests—one in Kansas, and one in Nebraska— were created especially for working out this problem; but very re- cently (1916), the Kansas National Forest has been abolished. This indicates that the results accruing from the work there were not satisfactory, although some valuable information was acquired re- garding the adaptability of various species to the arid climate. In the Nebraska National Forests, the Forest Service is still at work on the problem of finding some kind of forest cover which will hold down the sand hills of western Nebraska, and some success has been re- ported. The appropriation bill of 1911 provided for the free dis- tribution of trees from this forest to settlers within the “Kinkaid” district, and hundreds of thousands of trees have been given away.” INVESTIGATION OF FOREST INFLUENCES It was pointed out in a previous chapter that in the early period much attention was given to the question of the influence of forests on climate, and the Forest Service is conducting experiments with a view to determining more exactly the relation of forests to climate and streamflow. ; The study of the effect of forest cover on streamflow is carried on at the Wagon Wheel Gap Station, in Colorado. The object is to determine, by means of the most careful and accurate measurements, the effect of forest cover upon the high and low water stages of moun- tain streams, the total run-off from mountain watersheds as compared with the annual precipitation, and the erosion of the surface of such watersheds. Measurements of the streams in two watersheds, both moderately well covered with forests, will be conducted for a number of years, with the measurements of all the factors which may affect 12 Forest Bul. 66, 121: Forest Cire. 37, 99, 145, 161: Report, Sec. of Agr., 1912, 511; 1916, 160, 168: Report, Forester, 1914, 16, 18: Report, Chief of Div. of For- estry, 1891, 206: Proceedings, Society of Am. Foresters, July, 1914, 365, 388: Canadian Forestry Journal, Oct., 1905, 155: Proceedings, Am. Forestry Assoc., 1890, 81. WORK OF THE FOREST SERVICE 311 the character of the flow of each stream. There has been no general agreement among writers as to the exact influence of forests on cli- mate and streamflow, and it is to be hoped that these investiga- tions will furnish the basis for the settlement of some long mooted questions.** OTHER SILVICULTURAL INVESTIGATIONS Among other silvicultural studies of the Forest Service are those relating to forest mensuration, that is, studies as to the growth, volume, and yield of the different species and types of forests; pro- tection studies, aiming to ascertain the exact effect of fire, grazing, diseases, insects, animals, snow, hail, and wind; regional studies, to secure authentic information concerning the forest resources of state or forest regions; silvical studies, which try to establish a definite relation between the forest region, forest types, and forest trees in general, and the climatic and physical factors affecting their distribu- tion and growth; and also some field studies in utilization of timber. INVESTIGATIONS IN FOREST PRODUCTS A field of investigation which is expanding tremendously in recent years is that relating to forest products. The work is mainly directed from headquarters in the Forest Products Laboratory at Madison, Wisconsin. This laboratory, which is maintained in codperation with the University of Wisconsin, is one of the best of its kind in the world. Laboratories are also maintained at Wausau, Wisconsin, and at Seattle, Washington, and district stations have been established at several points. Studies in this field fall under four heads—mechanical and physical properties and structure of wood, wood preservation, derived products, and statistical studies. The first class of studies includes those relating to strength of structural timbers; stiffness, toughness, hardness, specific gravity, and other qualities of different woods, effect of air seasoning, kiln- drying, and high temperature and pressure treatments. | 13 Review of Forest Service Investigations, 1913, 36: Forest Bul. 44, 91: Forest Cire. 143: House Committee on Agriculture, “Report on the Influence of Forests on Climate and Floods,” by Willis L. Moore, 1910: Yale Review, 10, 241: Review of Reviews, 47, 605: Proceedings, Am. Forestry Assoc., Sept., 1897, 133: Agr. Yearbook, 1903, 279: Science, July 18, 1913, 63-75. 312 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY In connection with the studies in wood preservation, experiments are conducted in the protection of wood from destruction by decay, fire abrasion, and insects; the cost and efficiency of preservatives, various processes of preservation, and the suitability of different species to preservation. This includes experiments in the preservation of wood blocks for paving, carried on in codperation with various cities ; experiments in the preservation of railroad ties and telephone poles, carried on in coéperation with railroad companies, and tele- phone and telegraph companies; experiments in the preservation of mine timbers, carried on in codperation with mining companies; tests in the prevention of wood decay in cotton factories, where conditions are very favorable to decay, carried on in codperation with factory owners and insurance companies; experiments in devising a preserva- tive for wooden ships against marine borers; tests in the methods of preserving fence posts and silo timbers from decay; a great number and variety of tests and experiments vitally related to the commercial interests of the country. Experiments in the kiln-drying of lumber have been carried on for some time, and it is claimed that these experiments have resulted in much more economical drying of some woods. In the drying of red gum, for instance, one of the most difficult and refractory woods to dry, it is claimed that commercial losses have been reduced from 15 per cent to less than:1 per cent. So in the drying of maple shoe lasts, the period required has been reduced from nearly two years to seven weeks. A method was perfected recently whereby hemlock ship lap was dried in forty to forty-eight hours, two-inch planks in four to six days. Some interesting experiments in kiln-drying have been carried on in codperation with furniture companies, woodenware manufacturers, lumber manufacturers and railroads. Studies of derived products cover a vastly increasing field, includ- ing investigations in the manufacture of pulp and paper, to ascertain the fitness of various woods for paper making, the process appro- priate to different woods, the possibility of using waste barks for the manufacture of pulp and paper products, the latter investigations being carried on in codperation with paper companies. In this class of investigations are included also those relating to wood distilla- tion—the extraction of acetate of lime, wood alcohol, rosin, turpen- WORK OF THE FOREST SERVICE 313 tine, and various miscellaneous products. Recent experiments in the production of ethyl alcohol from wood waste have resulted in great economies. Methods of producing naval stores devised by the laboratory are reported to have increased the yield 30 per cent. Nearly a million dollars’ worth of dye is now manufactured annually from Osage-orange wood—an industry built up as a result of investi- gations carried on in the laboratory at Madison. Statistical studies have been made from time to time covering the amounts, prices, sources, and uses of various forest products. Such studies are of course of an economic nature, but are necessary to the development of an intelligent forest policy. FOREST PRODUCTS RESEARCH AND THE WAR The entry of the United States into the war in 1917 brought out clearly the importance of the forest products investigations. Much of the technical information that had been secured in this research work was immediately important in the solution of war problems, which demanded exact knowledge of the properties of wood, and the mechanical, physical, and chemical methods of conditioning. In the construction of airplanes, for instance, there was a demand for knowledge of the qualities of different woods, the availability of substitutes for the spruce commonly used, methods of drying woods speedily, the strength of laminated structures and veneers and ply- wood—a multitude of problems of great importance in the prosecu- tion of the war. The Forest Products Laboratory had a large amount of data on the properties of airplane woods at the beginning of the war, but much more was needed immediately, and soon the war air- craft problems occupied the attention of about two thirds of the force at the Madison laboratory. At the beginning of the war, it was customary to air-dry all wood used in airplane construction, because of the danger of reducing the strength by methods employed in commercial kiln-drying. It takes about two years to air-dry spruce for this purpose, and large quan- tities of material were needed at once, so kiln-drying was absolutely necessary. Investigations in kiln-drying had been under way at Madi- son for several years, and methods had been worked out for a number of woods. Similar experiments with spruce showed that it could be 314 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY kiln-dried without loss of strength im less than a month; and numerous dry-kilns constructed on the plan laid down at Madison were built by the companies with airplane contracts. Plywood formed by gluing together several sheets of veneer was found to be very serviceable for various parts of airplanes. A ply- wood wing rib has been developed which weighs nearly one third less than the rib before used, while its strength is 200 per cent greater. These are only a few illustrations of the work being done in forest products. Probably this work will expand in the future, as the in- creasing scarcity of timber compels a more intelligent and economical use of our remaining resources.** 14 Review of Forest Service Investigations, 1913. See also the annual reports of the Forester and numerous bulletins issued by the Forest Service. CHAPTER XI RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY: CONCENTRATION IN THE OWNERSHIP OF STANDING TIMBER Tue unfortunate results flowing from our unwise forest policy have been pointed out in various connections throughout the preceding chapters; but it will be appropriate at this point to consider these results in somewhat greater detail. They may be briefly summarized as follows: In the first place, almost all the standing timber of the country has gravitated into the hands of a relatively few holders; in the second place, on the basis of this concentration of ownership of timber, a certain unity of control has developed in the lumber indus- try, which, though of no very serious importance in the past, may hold a threat of future difficulty; in the third place, private owner- ship of standing timber has proved unfortunate, even for the lumber- men themselves. Carrying charges on standing timber nave been so heavy in some instances as to force cutting regardless of price, and the consequent demoralization of the market has meant that many producers must sell below actual cost of production. In the fourth place, lumbering in the United States has always been characterized by extravagant wastes; and in the fifth place, few lumbermen have made any effort to reforest cut-over lands. During the past forty years or more, various government officials and others have pointed out repeatedly that the timber lands were going rapidly into the hands of a few timbermen and speculators. Most thoughtful students of the question have realized that such a process was going on; but the full extent to which the concentration of ownership had proceeded was not clearly understood until recently. In 1918, the Bureau of Corporations, after several years of investi- gation of the most important timber regions in the country, published the first part of its “Report on the Lumber Industry”; and this report brought the situation clearly before the public.* 1H. Res. 652, S. Res. 189; Cong. Rec., Dec. 13, 1906, 352; Jan. 18, 1907, 1330- ~ 316 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY: CONCENTRATION OF OWNERSHIP IN TERMS OF BOARD FEET The privately owned timber of the United States, according to the best estimates, amounts to some 2,197,000,000,000 feet. Of this total amount about four fifths was included in the area investigated by the Bureau of Corporations; and of the amount in the investigation area nearly half was owned by holders of 1,000,000,000 feet each or over ; 39 per cent was owned by holders of 2,000,000,000 feet or over; 32.2 per cent by holders of 3,500,000,000 feet or over ; 26 per cent by hold- ers of 5,000,000,000 feet or over; and 19 per cent—nearly one fifth— by holders of 13,000,000,000 feet or over. Over 69 per cent of the un- reserved timber in the investigation area was owned by holders of 60,000,000 feet or over. To illustrate the magnitude of some of these figures, it may be stated that a billion feet of lumber would load a freight train 417 miles long, or would build about 65,000 ordinary five- or six-room houses. The three largest holders in the country owned in 1914 over 237,- 1332. Owing to the fact that most of the material on the subject of concentration of ownership of standing timber is taken from the Report of the Commissioner of Corporations on the Lumber Industry, few citations to references are here given. The first three parts of the report are provided with excellent and detailed indexes, and anyone wishing to follow up information contained in this chapter can easily find the source by referring to them. Certain considerations unfortunately render the information contained in the Report on the Lumber Industry somewhat less accurate than the writer could wish. In the first place, the report was published several years ago (1913 and 1914), and some of the details of ownership have certainly changed since then. One change that should be noted at the outset, is that, since the report was published, the Southern Pacific has lost about 2,000,000 acres of its most valuable timber land, through the forfeiture act of 1916. Many smaller changes might be mentioned. Thus the Gould estate is reported to have sold its holding of about 100,000 acres in Louisiana; and many such changes in ownership are constantly being made. In the second place, the Report on the Lumber Industry was written with a too evident purpose of proving the existence of something approaching a monopoly condition in the timber and lumber industry; and, as a result, some of the con- clusions drawn are hardly justified by the evidence at hand. In spite of all this, it has seemed wise to include some of the material relating to the subject of timber ownership. Such changes in the details as are constantly occurring do not affect seriously the general situation as presented in this chapter, and the inclusion of some such details give definiteness and concreteness to the general statements. Also, while some of the conclusions drawn in the Report on the” Lumber Industry are not justified, the data and statistics presented are for the most part fairly accurate—the best, and indeed almost the only data available on the subject. Some material which was too clearly forced and biased, the writer has been careful not to include here. RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 317 000,000,000 feet—nearly 11 per cent of all the privately owned tim- ber; and the eight largest holders owned 340,000,000,000 feet, or 15.4 per cent—over three times the entire amount of stumpage in the Lake states. The Bureau of Corporations constructed ownership maps for certain areas in the Pacific states, in Idaho, and in Louisiana, and it appeared that of the 755,000,000,000 feet contained in these map areas, 552,000,000,000 feet—nearly three fourths--was owned by 198 holders. ACREAGE FIGURES Concentration of ownership in terms of board feet is sufficiently marked, but perhaps nearly as significant are the figures in terms of acreage. The three largest timber holdings in the United States— those of the Southern Pacific, the Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, and the Northern Pacific—aggregated about 9,000,000 acres of tim- ber land—since the forfeiture of the Southern Pacific lands in Ore- gon, only about 7,000,000 acres—some of it among the finest in the world. The five largest holdings in the country included 12,794,000 acres, an average of 2,560,000 acres each. Among holdings smaller than these were 9 of from 500,000 to 1,500,000 acres, averaging almost 1,000,000 acres each; 27 holdings of from 800,000 to 500,000 acres each; 48 holdings of from 150,000 to 800,000 acres; 124 of from 75,000 to 150,000 acres; and 520 holdings of between 18,000 and 75,000 acres. Thus 783 holders owned in fee a total of 71,521,000 acres of timber land and land owned in connection with or in the vicin- ity of this timber land—an average of nearly 100,000 acres each. There were also 961 smaller holders owning a total of 6,731,000 acres, an average for each of 7,000 acres—the equivalent of forty home- steads. This makes a total of over 78,000,000 acres owned in fee by 1,694 holders—nearly one twentieth of the land area of the United States, from the Canadian to the Mexican border. It may be noted that even within the national forests, private parties owned much of the valuable timber land. In the national forests of California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana, they had nearly 15,000,000 acres. In some of these reserves as much as 80 or 40, or even 62 per cent of the land was privately owned; and of course the privately owned land was the best. 318 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY CONCENTRATION OF OWNERSHIP IN THE NORTHWEST Of the three great regions investigated—the Pacific Northwest, the southern pine region, and the Lake states—the Pacific Northwest, including California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana, con- tains by far the greatest amount of timber; contains, in fact, over half of the timber in the United States—over twice as much as the southern pine region and over ten times as much as the Lake states.” It is mainly from this region that the future supply of timber for the United States must come, and it is in this region that the greatest timber holdings in the United States were found. The three great holdings of the Southern Pacific, the Northern Pacific, and the Weyerhaeuser Timber Company included in 1914 over 237,000,000,- 000 feet of lumber, more than double the total stand of the three Lake states. Thirty-eight holders, each owning 3,500,000,000 feet or over, owned over half of the privately owned timber in this region, while holders of 60,000,000 feet or over owned 93 per cent of the redwood, and 79 per cent of the other species. In the great timbered area of southwestern Washington, one holder—the Weyerhaeuser Timber Company—held the title to 42 per cent of the timber. The Weyerhaeuser Timber Company and the Northern Pacific Railroad together owned about half; and the thirty- 2 According to estimates the total standing timber of some of the important lumber producing states is as follows (in billions of board feet): PRIVATELY OWNED TOTAL Pacific Northwest: ORE ROMs AS oe eee Ses tet Wee lea hee boii cincen (tel tee OL ee Washing tomy) iitsc say tio iete Uiso neliake ye GAOL by ola) oatieth yeti hintion ret) cee maim ERE California ey ep econ eae i et ey Oe OA BINT eect tie uaa Slee ieee Uo lee: aaa ONO Idaho ah ea Negian pate atm gt ENIZIS SARST TIRES Se ME DAtra eas ba caterer Soa DO) Montana Sr PER es by va sue eee ne IB Ragan ge i Nano cnn mite ua ae een Oe Southern Pine Region: WOUISIAM Arun sree cee aee mel OLS INIISSISSIP PR. ee eee eee en eC Oe Arai Sag ee fee eo Baath oer pose Mee SLOT Gabi Weeks veer n eae RG AUC Ayal ch O (Almost all of the timber in the Mexas oS 0 ha) rae ee 66.0) southern pine, resion vandyingithe Alabama - . . . . . . . 56.3 Lake states is privately owned, so Lake States: no totals are given.) IMUIChig anivic rie cial ite etn ie nea AEG IWASCONSIN Fee pea egies heim ene Minnesotan (2s ven age eee nes 93.2 RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 319 five largest holders owned 73 per cent. The holdings of the Weyer- haeuser Timber Company, the Northern Pacific, and three others contained 43.4 per cent of all the privately owned timber in the state of Washington—the second greatest timber state in the Union. The situation in western Oregon has so greatly changed with the forfeiture of the Southern Pacific lands in this section in 1916, that the figures of the Bureau of Corporations are no longer accurate. Besides the Southern Pacific, however, there have been several impor- tant holders here. The Weyerhaeuser Timber Company itself owned, in 1914, 380,599 acres in Oregon, largely acquired from the Northern Pacific Railroad Company by the purchase of lieu selections. C. A. Smith owned about 250,000 acres here; the Booth-Kelly Lumber Company, closely affiliated with the Weyerhaeusers, about 324,000 acres; and several other lumber companies owned large tracts. In the sugar pine and western pine forests of northeastern Cali- fornia, the Southern Pacific was the dominating holder. In this region was also, however, the immensely valuable holding of Thomas B. Walker, the largest individual (non-corporate) timber owner in the country, amounting to over 750,000 acres. The Southern Pacific Railroad and Thomas B. Walker together controlled half of the private timber in this area, and these two, with four other holders, owned 70 per cent. In the redwood lands of the north California coast, the stand of timber is exceedingly heavy, running often from 100,000 to 150,000 feet per acre and sometimes even as high as 1,000,000 feet, so that, in the territory covered by four counties, there is nearly as much timber as in the entire three Lake states; and here was found an unusually high concentration in timber ownership. Forty-one per cent of the total redwood in this district was owned by six holders. The twenty-three largest holders owned 79 per cent of the timber, and among these holders there was interrelation, through common stock ownership and common directorships. In no other species of timber did the holders of 60,000,000 feet or over own as large a percentage of the total amount of the species. Even in cypress, where ownership is highly concentrated, such owners had only 72 per cent of all, and in white and Norway pine, 80 per cent; while in redwood they had 93 per cent. 320 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY The unusually high degree of concentration of ownership shown here was the result of the grossest frauds under the public land laws, since in this region there was no great Federal land grant such as tended to increase concentration of ownership in northeastern Cali- fornia, western Oregon, and southwestern Washington. In the white pine and western pine region of north central Idaho, almost all of the timber was found to be in the hands of a very few large holders. Seventy per cent of the unreserved timber was owned by seven holders—in fact, the Idaho white pine belt was so largely in the hands of these seven holders, that an outsider would have found it difficult to assemble a holding of as much as a quarter of a billion feet against their opposition. This is especially significant in view of the fact that three of these seven holders were interrelated by minority interests. Over half of the unreserved timber was in the hands of three holders—the Potlatch Lumber Company, the Clearwater Timber Company, and the Milwaukee Land Company. The first two mentioned were at least in some measure controlled by the Weyer- haeuser interests, and the Milwaukee Land Company was owned by the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company. The inter- ests controlling the situation in north central Idaho were also closely connected with important interests in the southern part of the state. Two holders, the Northern Pacific and the Amalgamated Copper Company, together with four relatively small holders, owned 79.3 per cent of the non-reserved timber in Montana. The total area inves- tigated in this state was about 3,000,000 acres, and the Northern Pacific and the Amalgamated Copper each had over a million acres of this, the Amalgamated Copper having secured its holding by pur- chase from the Northern Pacific, which originally owned almost all. Smaller holders played a very unimportant part in this region. THE THREE BIG HOLDINGS OF THE NORTHWEST The three greatest holdings in the Pacific Northwest, or indeed in the United States—those of the Southern Pacific, the Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, and the Northern Pacific—merit a little further consideration. The total acreage of timber land owned by these three corporations in 1914 was over 9,000,000 acres; of which the South- ern Pacific had over 4,500,000 acres, the Weyerhaeuser Timber Com- RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 321 pany about 2,000,000 acres, and the Northern Pacific over 3,000,000 acres. Stumpage figures for these three great holdings are more significant than acreage figures, because the average stand of timber is far heavier in the Pacific Northwest than in the Lake states or in the South.* The - total stumpage owned by these three holders amounted to over 237,- 000,000,000 feet—11 per cent of all the non-reserved timber in the United States, and nearly 25 per cent of the privately owned timber in the entire Pacific Northwest, where over half of the country’s tim- ber supply stands. This was more than double the entire timber supply of the Lake states, over three times the total stand of Florida or Texas or Alabama. The Southern Pacific Railroad, with over 105,000,000,000 feet of timber, standing on 4,500,000 acres of land, was the largest timber owner in the United States, before the forfeiture of its Oregon hold- ings. This one corporation owned more timber than is found in the three Lake states, or in any state in the South, except Louisiana; but in 1916, Congress forfeited over half of this, so that its present holding is less than that of the Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, or perhaps even the Northern Pacific. The Weyerhaeuser Timber Company owned about 2, 000,000 acres, the main bulk of which was in Washington, though the company had also 380,000 acres in Oregon, and smaller tracts in Idaho and in the Lake states. This did not include further interests of the Weyerhaeuser family and their associates. Perhaps it should be stated also that the Weyerhaeuser Timber Company had apparently some friendly rela- tion at least with the Northern Pacific, and some connection with various timber companies in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere. While the Northern Pacific owned a much larger acreage than the Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, the quality of its lands was rela- tively so much poorer that its total stumpage was less than half as great—about 36,000,000,000 feet. The Northern Pacific originally 3 The average stand per acre is about 32,000 feet in the Pacific Northwest, 6100 in the southern pine region, and only 5600 in the Lake states. Even Montana has an average stand of 7300 feet per acre, which is above that of the Lake states and above that of any state in the South except Louisiana and Mississippi. Oregon has the heaviest stand, with an average of 39,500 feet per acre, and Washington and California rank only slightly lower. 322 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY received the largest grant ever made by the government .to any rail- road, and in this grant was included a vast area of the finest timber land in the country; but the railroad sold much of the best of it— nearly a million acres to the Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, and smaller tracts to other large companies, in many of which the Weyer- haeuser family and their associates were to some extent interested. Notwithstanding these sales, the Northern Pacific was in 1914 the third largest timber holder in the United States, still owning 8.6 per cent of the unreserved timber in Washington and nearly 80 per cent of that in Montana. OWNERSHIP IN THE SOUTHERN PINE REGION In the southern pine region, there were no such enormous holdings as the three just described in the Pacific Northwest, yet even in the southern pine region a large proportion of the timber was in the hands of a comparatively few large holders. In Louisiana, the greatest tim- ber state in the South, fourteen holders owned 32,000,000,000 feet of timber—more than the total stand of either Wisconsin or Minnesota; and in the southern pine region as a whole, these fourteen holders had over 4,500,000 acres of timber land, with 50,000,000,000 feet of timber. Most of the cypress of Louisiana was found in a comparatively limited area covering the river and delta parishes in the southern part of the state, especially in the great swamps; and the great bulk of the timber was in a very few hands. Fourteen holders in this state owned three fifths of the supply. Florida is perhaps as nearly owned by a few large holders as any state in the Union. Of the total land area of the state, 54 per cent was held by 290 holders, according to the Bureau of Corporations. The 182 largest holders owned nearly 17,000,000 acres of land altogether, some of it timbered. It should be stated that considerable of the timber acreage owned in the South was owned in the form of timber rights and not in fee. This does not. seriously affect the significance of the figures given, however, because the timber is itself the important item rather than the land, and because the fee to the land is also See, in the hands of large holders. OWNERSHIP IN THE LAKE STATES In the Lake states, the ownership of timber lands was more concen- RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 323 trated than in the southern pine region. One of the holders in this region had over 1,500,000 acres, another 626,000, and several others owned holdings of more than 300,000 acres each. Six holders in Minne- sota had 54 per cent of the white and Norway pine in the state, and the same number in Michigan owned over half. COMPARISON OF OWNERSHIP IN THE DIFFERENT REGIONS Of the three great timber regions studied—the Pacific Northwest, the southern pine region and the Lake states—the Pacific Northwest contained the largest holdings ; and it was there that the greatest pro- portion of the timber was in the hands of the few very large holders. More than one third of all the timber in the Pacific Northwest was included in eight holdings, while in the Lake states it took forty-four holdings, and in the southern pine region, 159 holdings to represent the same proportion. In the Pacific Northwest, holders of over 3,500,- 000,000 feet each owned 50 per cent of the timber, in the Lake states, 12 per cent, and in the southern pine region only 8.7 per cent. There are several reasons why the very large holders did not have so much of the total supply in the southern pine region as in the West. In the first place, there was no railroad grant in the South which compares in size with the Pacific grants. In the second place, the stand is not nearly so dense in the South. Moreover, the lumbering opera- tions of many years have brought most parts of the South to a con- dition unfavorable to assembling immense holdings. Large buyers, whether they plan to establish a mill or to sell their timber standing, prefer solid blocks of virgin timber, and the parts of the South where considerable areas of such forest still exist have for some years been comparatively restricted. Probably a more important factor, however, in the determination of the size of holdings has been the price at which the timber could be bought. It is true that vast tracts of land in the South were sold at low prices by the government many years ago; but when investors began to assemble very large holdings, the timber in the Pacific Northwest could be bought at a lower price, compared with its probable future price, than that in the South. While it is true that a few very large holders owned a far greater proportion of the timber in the Pacific Northwest than in either of the other two regions, it was in the southern pine region that large 324 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY holders had by far the greatest fee acreage. Thus, 835 holders, own- ing each 60,000,000 feet or more, had the fee to 43,230,000 acres in the South, while the 702 similar holders in the Pacific Northwest owned only slightly over one half as much land. In order of the aver- — age size of land holdings, the Lake states stood first, with an average of 56,000 acres for all holders of 60,000,000 feet or more; the south- ern pine region came next with an average of 52,000 acres; while in the Pacific Northwest, despite the enormous size of some holdings there, the average was not quite 33,000 acres. In connection with this, it must of course be remembered that the average stand is much greater in the latter region. In acreage of timber controlled by the larger timber owners, Florida stood first, with 13,030,000 acres in the hands of owners of 60,000,- 000 feet or over. Louisiana came next with only slightly over half as much—7,307,000 acres; and no other state has half as much as Flor- ida. Oregon, Washington, Michigan, and California followed in order, with 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 acres each. TIMBER OWNERSHIP OUTSIDE THE INVESTIGATION AREA Although the Bureau of Corporations made no investigation out- side of the regions described, there is every indication of a very high degree of concentration in the ownership of timber outside the inves- tigation area, especially in the Appalachian region from Maine to northern Georgia, and in the southern Rockies. Many timber com- panies owning within the investigation area also have large tracts in various other regions; and some of them have invested heavily in Canadian and Mexican timber. The foregoing pages indicate a sufficiently interesting situation with regard to the ownership and control of our timber lands, but it will be necessary to point out several considerations which make the power of these large holders even: greater than mere figures as to acreage and stumpage would indicate. FACTORS AUGMENTING THE POWER OF LARGE HOLDERS: LARGE HOLDINGS PROPORTIONATELY MORE VALUABLE In the first place, a large holding is worth more in proportion to its acreage or stumpage than a small holding. A 100,000 acre tract of timber is worth much more than ten times as much as a 10,000 acre RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 325 tract of similar stand, because it is proportionally much easier to pro- tect from fire and from trespass, and cheaper to log, since it permits the erection of better equipment. This is one reason why there is a constant tendency for large holding to absorb the small; the small plot is worth much more as part of a large tract than it is alone in the hands of a small holder. Thus, even if the large holding were only of the same quality as the smaller holding, its value would be much greater. The holder of a large tract is often in a position of much independ- ence. If he has a timber holding of such size and such situation that the erection of a large mill to cut it is economically justified, he can build a mill himself, or he can deal on equal terms with buyers. The small owner is in an entirely different situation. His holding does not justify the building of a mill. If he gets anything for his timber he must sell it. It is likely that not more than one large mill will be in a position to cut and haul his timber economically; and if this is so he can expect little competition among purchasers. Even if there are several large holders surrounding him, they are very likely to have an understanding on the situation, often in the form of buying “zones.” i The small timber owner is often practically limited, therefore, to the choice between keeping his timber or selling it at such a price as some large buyer in the neighborhood may think it wise to pay. This is so well recognized that large owners commonly reckon, not only the timber which they own, but also that which they “control’’; that is, timber which is so interspersed with their holdings that no one else can well handle it. In this way, some of the large owners of railway grants really “control” solid tracts, alternate sections and all; and in Louisiana, for instance, in the region of the old New Orleans Pacific grant, where the lands were originally granted in odd numbered sec- tions, little of the checkerboard effect of the alternate squares can now be seen on the ownership map, because the purchasers of railroad lands have filled in with even numbered sections which they “‘con- trolled.” LARGE HOLDERS HAVE THE MOST VALUABLE LANDS It was found everywhere, moreover, that the large holders had the most valuable lands—the heaviest stands, and the most valuable 326 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY species of timber. Thus, the three largest holders in the country had almost all of their lands in the Pacific Northwest, where the stand is generally highest. It is true that the average stand of the Northern Pacific lands is low—only 11,500 feet per acre, but this is due to the fact that the Northern Pacific for many years followed the policy of selling its best lands to timber owners, notably to the Weyerhaeuser Timber Company; and the average stand of the Weyerhaeuser lands is very high—nearly 50,000 feet per acre. The average stand for the Pacific Northwest was 32,000 feet, of the southern pine region 6100 and of the Lake states 5600. In the redwood lands of California, it was found that the six largest holders had an average stand of 118,000 feet per acre, while the next smaller group of holders averaged only 90,000 feet per acre. In the Lake states, the average stand for holdings of 60,000,000 feet and over was one fourth greater than the average stand of holdings below that size; in the southern pine region, two fifths greater; and in the Pacific Northwest, three fourths greater. In the coast states, the average for such holdings was nearly twice as great as the average for smaller holdings. Even among the large holdings—those of 60,000,000 each or more—the relatively smaller holdings had the least timber per acre. LARGE HOLDINGS INCLUDE THE MOST VALUABLE SPECIES The large owners had not only the highest stands, but also the most . valuable species of timber. In the Pacific Northwest, there is of course no great variety of timber. The forests are almost wholly coniferous, and there are not such wide differences of value as in the South, between yellow pine and the gums, for instance. In the southern pine region, holders of 60,000,000 feet each or more owned over 50 per cent of the valuable longleaf pine and only 20 per cent of the low value hardwoods; while the smaller holders had 21 per cent of the longleaf and 47 per cent of the hardwoods. In Alabama, hardwoods constituted only 15.2 per cent of the larger holdings and 42.8 per cent of the smaller holdings. The thirteen largest holders in this state had 29.7 per cent of the longleaf pine, 7.8 per cent of the shortleaf and loblolly, and only 3.9 per cent of the hardwoods. In Louisiana, the large holders (those owning 60,000,000 feet or over) had 80.7 per cent of the yellow pine and cypress and only 42.6 per RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 327 cent of the less desirable timber. In Mississippi, the ten largest holders had 41.2 per cent of the longleaf, 11.5 per cent of the shortleaf and loblolly, and 5.8 per cent of the hardwoods. In Florida, large holders owned 81.1 per cent of the more valuable timber and only 3.9 per cent of the less valuable species. In all three of the Lake states, there is a very high concentration in the ownership of the valuable white and Norway pine and hemlock. In Minnesota, there is a relatively very low concentration in the owner- ship of hardwoods and of conifers other than white and Norway pine. Of the large holdings in that state (those of 60,000,000 feet or over), 81.5 per cent was found to be white and Norway pine, and only 18.5 per cent the other conifers and hardwoods; while of the smaller hold- ings only 24.8 per cent was white and Norway pine and 75.2 per cent the cheaper kinds of wood. The six largest holders in Minnesota had 54 per cent of the white and Norway pine and 2 per cent of the hard- woods. The hardwood stands of Michigan and Wisconsin, unlike those in Minnesota and the southern pine region, are of high average value, and as a consequence, the ownership is centered in a comparatively few holders. The power of the large timber owners is greatly augmented by a close interweaving of interests, by interlocking directorates, owner- ship of subsidiary companies or of stock in other companies, and by close affiliation with other kinds of business, particularly with trans- portation. CAUSES OF CONCENTRATION OF OWNERSHIP: RAILROAD LAND GRANTS It will be profitable to note briefly the causes which have been responsible for the remarkable concentration in timber ownership de- | scribed above. In a word, it might of course be said that this concen- tration is due to the unwise land policy of the Federal government; but the particular features of that policy must be considered in detail. No other factor has been so influential in promoting concentration in most regions as the system of land grants to railroads and wagon roads. Among the largest timber owners are some of the original rail- road beneficiaries; and a great many of the holdings of large timber companies can be traced to railroad grants. A study of the present 328 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY ownership of 7,370,000 acres of land grants showed that only 15 per cent is now distributed in small holdings, while 85 per cent is owned by the grantees or their successors or by large timber companies. The Southern Pacific Railroad is no longer the largest timber owner in the United States, since the forfeiture of 2,000,000 acres of its grant in Oregon; but in an immense area of northeastern Califor- nia it has retained most of its lands, while several large tracts that once were a part of its grant in Oregon and California have been taken up by large lumber companies—68,000 acres by the Booth-Kelly Lumber Company, 42,000 acres by the A. B. Hammond Companies, 70,000 acres by the Diamond Match Company, 52,000 acres by the McCloud River Lumber Company, and smaller amounts by various other companies. The Northern Pacific Railroad Company owns only about one third as much timber as the Southern Pacific formerly did, but by its policy of sale to large timber companies, it has done much to make possible the assembling of other large holdings. In southwestern Washington, the Northern Pacific grant, including timbered and non-timbered land, amounted to 2,415,000 acres. Of this, the Weyerhaeuser Timber Com- pany held 1,230,000 acres at the time the Bureau of Corporations reported, the Northern Pacific itself retained about 855,000 acres, and other large timber holders had no less than 340,000 acres, in amounts ranging from 50,000 acres down. Of the entire grant in this great timber region, 80 per cent was held by large timber owners, leaving only 20 per cent in small holdings and non-timbered land. The Northern Pacific grant covered a large part of the timber lands of northern Idaho, and the railroad is still an important holder, after selling 150,000 acres to one lumber company, 100,000 acres to another, and smaller amounts to still other companies. In Montana, the Amalgamated Copper Company interests have over 1,000,000 acres which were purchased from the Northern Pacific, and the Northern Pacific is itself a very important holder. These two cor- porations owned 79 per cent of all the unreserved timber in the state, according to the report of the Bureau of Corporations. Several large holdings in the Pacific Northwest owe their origin to wagon road grants. In western Oregon, almost all of the grant to the Coos Bay Wagon Road Company, aggregating some 100,000 acres, RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 329 found its way into the hands of a single company. The Oregon Central Military Road grant included 175,000 acres of timber land, later found in the hands of a single company—the Booth-Kelly Lumber Company. The Willamette Valley and Cascade Mountain Wagon Road grant of over 800,000 acres was in 1914 practically all in a single ownership, and about 180,000 acres is heavily timbered. The Dalles Military Road grant of 550,000 acres contained only about 36,000 acres of timber land, but it was practically all in the hands of one company. Railroad grants have played a less important part in the Lake states than in the West, but even in the Lake states they have been a very important factor in the timber situation. The Chicago & North- western Railway Company received grants in Wisconsin and Michi- gan aggregating 1,065,000 acres, and it still retains 370,000 acres, while most of the rest has passed into the hands of large timber owners. The Marquette, Houghton & Ontonagon Railroad, successor to the Marquette & Ontonagon and the Bay de Noquet grants in the upper peninsula of Michigan, received patents for about 462,000 acres, and sold 402,000 acres to what is now the Michigan Iron and Land Company (Ltd.), which held in 1914 over 320,000 acres in fee. The Fort Wilkins, Copper Harbor and State Lime Wagon Road grant, in the same state, amounted to 220,000 acres, and one estate got the title to 174,000 acres of this, and three great copper companies got practically all of the rémainder. Three canal construction projects re- ceived Federal grants aggregating 760,000 acres in the upper penin- sula, and of this amount 670,000 acres (88 per cent) found its way into the hands of large timber owners, in tracts ranging from a few thousand to 300,000 acres. In the longleaf pine region of Louisiana, a railroad grant—the New Orleans Pacific grant—constituted the basis of several large holdings ; in fact, over 90 per cent of this grant was later taken up by large timber owners, in tracts of 133,000, 93,000, 54,000, 45,000, 30,000, 23,000, and 17,000 acres respectively.* 4 The New Orleans Pacific was financed by Jay Gould, and it was a typical Jay Gould road. It was not built until long after the time set by law for its completion; the original grantee, after its charter had been repealed, attempted to assign the grant to the New Orleans Pacific; and in spite of efforts in Congress in the middle eighties to forfeit the grant, it was finally confirmed to the New Orleans Pacific 330 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY In Florida, railroad grants have been much less important than swamp land grants. The total received from the Federal government by four land grant railroads here was 2,200,000 acres. It should be | stated, however, that Florida gave over 8,500,000 of its swamp land grant to various railroads, and in this way state railroad grants greatly facilitated the assembling of large holdings in Florida, for almost all of this land is now included within some of the many large holdings in this state.” SWAMP LAND GRANTS Swamp land grants are responsible for most of the immense hold- ings in Florida, and for some in Michigan. Over 730,000 acres of the land belonging in 1914 to the Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company inter- ests in the upper peninsula of Michigan, were originally part of a swamp land grant; so also were some 87,000 acres belonging to the Detroit, Mackinac & Marquette Railroad; 45,000 acres belonging to the Escanaba Lumber Company; 26,000 acres belonging to the Worcester Lumber Company (Ltd.), 23,000 owned by the I. Stephen- son interests ; and smaller amounts owned by various holders. Without doubt, many of the large holdings in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and in some other states were likewise originally included in swamp land grants. OTHER STATE GRANTS A few large holdings were traced to other varieties of grants to the states. Two large holders in Oregon had all their lands in sections 16 and 36. Thomas B. Walker owned over 100,000 acres of California state lands in northeastern California, part of it composed of school sections; and the Collins interests, the McCloud River Lumber Com- pany and the Diamond Match Company had smaller amounts. The Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company owned a large amount of the land granted to Michigan for educational purposes. The Potlatch Lumber . Company had 80,000 acres in Idaho which were acquired from the in 1887. (See references cited in “Lumber Industry,” II, 147. This Gould holding has recently been sold by the Gould estate.) 5 Cross Reference, pp. 53-55. 6 Cross Reference, p. 46. RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 331 state, almost all in the form of timber rights; and several other large lumber companies had small amounts." THE CASH SALE LAW Comparatively little information is available regarding the number of holdings based upon the old cash sale law, but there is some evidence to show that large owners used this law a great deal. In the longleaf pine district of Louisiana, nearly a million acres were traced back to the cash sale law, and nearly all of it was in the hands of large holders. The Long-Bell Lumber Company had 203,000 acres; the Lutcher- Moore interests, 120,000; the Central Coal and Coke Company, 76,000 acres; the Industrial Lumber Company, 58,000 acres; the Chicago Lumber and Coal Company interests, 54,000 acres; Lud- dington, Wells and Van Schaick, 54,000 acres; the Calcasieu Pine Company and Southland Lumber Company, 46,000 acres ; and a dozen other large companies had amounts ranging from 50,000 acres down. The Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company obtained over 200,000 acres of its land in Michigan through the cash sale act. It is reasonable to assume that a study extending throughout the timbered regions of the public land states would reveal a large number of cases where lands were alienated in great blocks under this law, and are now owned by large timber owners.” LIEU SELECTIONS AND LARGE HOLDINGS The Forest Lieu Act of 1897 has been treated at some length in a previous chapter, but it is interesting to note here that several large holdings are at least partly traceable to this act. Thus, 35,000 acres of the holding of William Wente et al. in Oregon, and 37,000 acres of the Thomas B. Walker holding in California, were taken up with Atlantic and Pacific lieu scrip; 14,000 acres of C. A. Smith’s prop- erty were taken up in the same way, as were also some 50,000 acres belonging to smaller holders. In western Oregon, 175,000 acres of the Weyerhaeuser lands and 70,000 acres of the lands belonging to other large holders were originally Northern Pacific lieu selections. Altogether, 219,000 acres of the Weyerhaeuser holdings go back to 7 Cross Reference, p. 47. 8 Cross Reference, p. 49. 332 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY the special lieu selection act creating Mount Ranier National Park; while 53,000 acres belonging to the Northern Pacific, 67,000 acres belonging to the Clearwater Timber Company, and 22,000 acres in the hands of the Edward Rutledge Timber Company can be traced to the same origin.” In the Pacific Northwest, the Timber and Stone Act was, aside from the three railroad grants, the principal means of building up large estates, while in some of the older sections of the country the Pre- emption and Commutation Homestead laws were used more. The manner in which these laws operated has been discussed sufficiently in previous chapters. LARGE HOLDINGS NORMAL IN TIMBER OWNERSHIP Among the causes of the concentration in the ownership of timber lands must be mentioned the fact that large holdings are normal in timber land in most regions of virgin stand, just as small holdings of 160 acres seem to be normal in agricultural lands. A large holding can be more effectively and more cheaply protected from fire and from trespass than a number of small ones, more cheaply logged, and the lumber can be more cheaply sawed and marketed. Efficient lumbering operations, in many sections of the country, demand fairly large tracts of timber—large enough to afford at least a fifteen or twenty years’ supply of timber for the sawmills operating. A mill with a capacity of 20,000,000 feet a year—not a large mill in some regions— should have available a supply of perhaps 400,000,000 feet of timber, and in regions of light stumpage this might require nearly 100,000 acres. Even in regions of heavy average stand this would require a holding of not much less than 10,000 acres. Thus it is that, as stated previously, large holdings are worth more in proportion to their acreage or stumpage than small holdings, and tend constantly to absorb them. There is a very definite economic law, according to which timber lands gravitate into large holdings. SPECULATION Some of the very large holdings in the virgin timber lands of the West and South should not be ascribed to economy in protection or 9 Cross Reference, pp. 176-190. RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 333 harvesting, but rather to speculation. When the timbermen of the Lake states and farther east found their supplies of stumpage dis- appearing, they looked about for places to invest the large amounts of capital which they had accumulated. The forests of the South and West presented attractive fields for investment, and some of these timbermen bought up tracts for speculation—tracts larger than any considerations of efficiency or economy would have dictated. If the forests of the country are to be privately owned, perhaps it is quite as well that they should be owned in large tracts; yet this concentration in ownership contains a threat of future monopolistic control which cannot be ignored. CHAPTER XII RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY (continvep): CONDI- TIONS IN THE LUMBER INDUSTRY In order to bring out more clearly the unfortunate results of our forest policy, it will be necessary to note the conditions in the lumber industry, for it is in the lumber industry, rather than in the owner- ship of standing timber, that the effect of our forest policy upon the public is most clearly brought out. A discussion of conditions in the lumber industry will involve some consideration, first, of price-fixing activities among lumbermen; second, the depression in the industry from 1905 to 1915; third, the wasteful methods of lumbering, and fourth, the failure of lumbermen to reforest their lands. THE SO-CALLED LUMBER MONOPOLY The matter of price-fixing activities among lumbermen brings up the question of the so-called “lumber monopoly”; and it should be stated at once that in the lumber business there is no suggestion of a single dominating monopoly, or anything approaching it, no single organization occupying such a commanding position as the Inter- national Harvester Company once did in its field, or the United States Steel Corporation, or as the Standard Oil Company has long held in the oil business. Such price-fixing activities as have been charged to the lumbermen have not been attributed in general to the National Lumber Manufacturers’ Association, but to the various regional associations.” 1 Jt is not the purpose of the writer to enter into any exhaustive discussion of the lumber industry in this chapter. For more elaborate treatment than is here possible, see Part IV of the Report of the Commissioner of Corporations on the Lumber Industry: Compton, “Organization of the Lumber Industry”: Some Public and Economic Aspects of the Lumber Industry, William B. Greeley, Report No. 114, U. S. Dept. of Agr.: Brief on Behalf of the National Lumber Manufacturers’ Association, May, 1916: also articles by Professor George Stevens RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 335 LUMBERMEN’S ASSOCIATIONS Associations among lumbermen existed at least as early as 1883, and since that time, particularly since 1897, there has been a remark- able development of association activity. At the present time there is an association representing the producers of almost every kind of wood—yellow pine, white pine, Douglas fir, hemlock, etc. ; These lumbermen’s associations and organizations have performed various functions. One function has often been that of trying to give stability to the lumber market in various ways, particularly by issuing price lists, and by organizing curtailment campaigns. Among the other activities have been the following: 1. Advertising of lumber products, and demonstration of their value for various purposes. / 2. Establishment and maintenance of lumber grades; trade-mark- ing and grade-branding to maintain the quality of the product and fix responsibility for each shipment; furnishing responsible inspection service to buyers and aiding in the settlement of disputes ; elimination of sharp practices, grade manipulation, and fraudulent or irresponsi- ble methods of selling lumber. 3. Maintenance of credit bureaus and sale of fire insurance at cost to members. 4. Investigation and handling of freight rates and other traffic matters of common interest to the manufacturers in a region. 5. Maintenance of employment bureaus and studying of labor conditions and efficiency in the various operations of lumbering. 6. Conduct of various lines of research, aimed to improve the mill products of the region or to extend their use. 7. Promotion of better and more uniform accounting among manufacturers and distributors, and dissemination of data on the cost of production and distribution. ; 8. Furnishing of authentic, responsible information to the public regarding conditions in the lumber industry. 9. Conducting of studies in forest management. 10. Agitation for better methods in taxation of forest lands. Besides the ordinary associations, a number of selling agencies have and by Professor Compton in the American Economic Review, June, 1917, 289; and Sept., 1917, 582. 336 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY been formed among the manufacturers of Douglas fir, cypress, and hemlock. The Western Pine Manufacturers’ Association has also employed codperative methods in selling. THE NATIONAL LUMBER MANUFACTURERS’ ASSOCIATION Coéperation among lumbermen on something approximating a national scale began as early as 1897. In that year, a meeting was held in Cincinnati at which representative lumbermen from various parts of the country met to devise ways and means to secure the restoration of the tariff on lumber, the white pine manufacturers being especially prominent in the movement. The National Lumber Manufacturers’ Association was organized in St. Louis in December, 1902, the outgrowth of a friendly intercourse that had existed for several years among a large number of local associations. The white pine manufacturers and the yellow pine manufacturers were leaders in this movement, but the organization now includes some of the strongest associations in the country. SCOPE AND INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONS The Yellow Pine Manufacturers’ Association included some 300 members controlling perhaps one third of the yellow pine output of the United States. It was connected to some extent with several other associations in the South. By means of a number of common directors, it was connected with the Southern Lumber Operators’ Association— a Louisiana association organized in 1906, ostensibly to fight labor unions—and in various ways was related to the Southwestern Lum- bermen’s Association, and with the Lumber Secretary’s Bureau of Information, and with the National Lumber Manufacturers’ Asso- ciation. After the Missouri ouster suit in 1918,” this association was __ reorganized as the Southern Pine Association, with a total of over 150 subscribers and a combined output of about 6,000,000,000 feet— half of the yellow pine production in the Gulf states. The Georgia- Florida Saw Mill Association, the other yellow pine association, is much smaller, but includes seventy-six members, representing 50 per 2 The suit brought by the state of Missouri against a number of lumber com- panies for violation of the state anti-trust laws. The suit resulted in the conviction of twenty-five lumber companies, and the imposition of heavy fines, while some of the companies were ousted from the state. (169 Southwestern Reporter, 145.) RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 337 cent of the cut in the territory covered. The California Redwood Association, with seventeen mills, represents 70 per cent of the total production in the region covered, the California White and Sugar Pine Manufacturers’ Association 70 per cent, the Western Pine Manufacturers’ Association 80 per cent, the Northern Hemlock and Hardwood Manufacturers’ Association 50 per cent of the cut of Wisconsin and upper Michigan, the Michigan Hardwood Manufac- turers’ Association 70 per cent of the cut of lower Michigan, the West Coast Lumber Manufacturers’ Association 70 per cent of the total cut in the region covered. Associations affiliated with the Na- tional Lumber Manufacturers’ Association control 40 per cent of the total lumber production of the United States. The cypress producers are about as strongly organized as any group of lumbermen in the country. The Southern Cypress Manu- facturers’ Association represents about 50 per cent of the principal cypress mills of the United States. An editorial in the New Orleans Lumber Trade Journal refers to the nature of the control over cypress in 1900: *“‘No lumber list ever promulgated has been as rigidly kept as that of the Southern Cypress Association. A deviation of a hair would not be tolerated. Their moderation in good times and their firmness during periods of depression has imparted a stability to the wood highly appreciated by buyers, for they know that an ample power behind will maintain its value intact.” At a meeting of the Southern Cypress Manufacturers’ Association in 1906, President Wilbert said: “Probably less than one hundred men could be named who control more than 95 per cent of the cypress production.’”*® A prominent western lumberman, pleading for closer organization among lumbermen, recently stated: ‘‘We need an organized effort to bring about the results, such as you have brought about in connection with your cypress.””* The Washington Logging and Brokerage Company was said to include in its membership 85 per cent of the logging companies in the Puget Sound district. Its successor, the Washington Brokerage Com- pany, had exclusive control over the output of its members, at first through a written agreement, later by a tacit understanding. It 3 “Tumber Industry,” IV, 723, 724. 4 Proceedings, National Lumber Manufacturers’ Association, 1915, 51. 338 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY appears that, in curtailment campaigns, members could operate only by consent of the company. Thus the minutes of one of the meetings of the directors contain the following: “The manager reported that Mr. Izett had made application to him to be allowed to operate his camp and dispose of the logs at $1 off the Association list. On motion it was ordered that the request be denied.”” } Secretary Beckman of the Pacific Coast Lumber Manufacturers’ Association reported in January, 1902: ‘Eleven cases of alleged price cutting were investigated during the year.” Two years later he re- ported that “the members paid $154,264.93 in penalties, which was divided among members not penalized.”’ Thus it seems that this asso- ciation imposed penalties for violation of trade agreements, and was strong enough to collect them.° The Maple Flooring Manufacturers’ " Association had a similar penalty clause in its agreement of 1898. Under this clause each mem- ber was required to deposit $500 with the treasurer of the association, to be forfeited in case of any violation of the terms of the agreement, and each member was further required to forward to the secretary each month a sworn statement that his firm had complied with the rules of the association as to prices, grades, and other matters. This association was said to represent 95 per cent of the maple flooring manufacturers in the United States.’ EFFORTS TO FIX PRICES Thus an important function of most lumbermen’s associations has been that of trying to fix lumber prices. Most of the associations have at various times tried to control market prices, either directly or by means of curtailment of output. Previous to 1906, organized activity among lumber manufacturers was openly promoted by lumber associations as part of their official work, and written or oral agreements were commonly made to main- tain uniform price lists. At that time, most manufacturers’ associa- tions issued price lists regularly, and these were widely used by the trade. In some cases they established price lists at their meetings, and 5 “T.umber Industry,” IV, 356, 361. 6 “Iuumber Industry,” IV, 388, 392. 7 “lumber Industry,” IV, 879. RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 339 in some cases they established price list committees whose duty it was to issue lists from time to time. About 1906, the Federal government, and some of the state gov- ernments as well, became very active in the enforcement of the anti- trust laws, and the lumbermen’s associations resorted to various schemes to conceal their activities. Some of them issued “market re- ports,” or “statements of market conditions,” or lists of “prevailing prices,” or “current prices.” These “market reports,” etc., were in the same form and served the same purpose as did the “price lists” of the earlier days, and they have been issued by certain associations from that time down to the present. During the first few years of the “market reports,” the prices approximated the actual selling prices, but later some associations substituted what might be termed high “basis” lists in place of the “market reports.” The prices shown in these “basis” lists were pur- posely fixed above the market price, while discount sheets were issued to indicate actual selling prices. In some instances, lumber associations have got lumber journals, printing houses, or so-called “information bureaus” to print and issue these price lists. Some of the cypress manufacturers have thus issued price lists under the name of a printing company—NMiller and Brandao, and later the Brandao Printing Company. The Southern Lumber Journal assisted the North Carolina Pine Association in a curtailment campaign in 1913; and the Yellow Pine Manufacturers’ Association has employed the Lumbermen’s Printing Company to issue price lists from time to time. Some of the Pacific associations have sometimes put the name of the Pacific Lumber Trade Journal on the lists they were issuing. Associated lumbermen have tried various means of securing adher- ence to price lists. In many cases, agreements have been circulated and signatures required. One of the so-called “Centralia agreements” of 1905 read as follows: “Joint AGREEMENT: “We, the undersigned, hereby agree to maintain the official list adopted at a joint meeting of the Southwestern Washington Lumber Manufacturers’ Association: and a committee of the Pacific Coast 340 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY Lumber Manufacturers’ Association, held at Centralia, Washington, March 8, 1905, same to be maintained in all territory, with the excep- tion of 50 cents per thousand discount to yard lines. The above agree- ment to become void unless signed by 80 per cent of manufacturers and wholesale jobbers. “Name of firm)... 5x0). oe ieee SAddiress 2 cies ais nGls ee ele Pe ane ” POOLS IN THE LUMBER INDUSTRY Pools have not been common among lumbermen, yet there has been at least one example of this form of coéperation, among the manu- facturers of Douglas fir. Under the provisions of the “‘export agree- ment” of 1902, the lumber interests were divided into four districts— Puget Sound, Columbia River, Oregon and Washington coast, and British Columbia. The capacity of each mill capable of doing export business was determined by a committee, and to each mill was allotted a percentage of the total export trade. On all export shipments an assessment of $3 per thousand feet was collected by the trustees who managed the pool; and any mill shipping over its allotted percentage was assessed an extra $3 per thousand feet on such excess. A mill shipping less than its allotment was required to pay $3 per thousand feet on its entire allotted percentage; but it might sell its right to another mill. Dividends were declared monthly and semi-annually, 50 per cent of the receipts from shipments being divided among the shippers monthly, while semi-annually, after deducting expenses, the remainder was divided among all members. This pool referred only to the export trade, although some of its promoters enthusiastically claimed that it had an important influence on domestic prices. OPEN PRICE ASSOCIATIONS A few of the lumbermen’s associations are what may be termed ~ “open price” associations, and this type of organization is being pushed. The theory of this type of association is that each manufac- turer should fix his own selling prices as he sees fit and change them when he desires; but he should fix his prices intelligently, that is, he should have the fullest and most accurate knowledge of market con- ditions. The underlying theory is that instability and disorganization RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 341 of business are due chiefly to ignorance or misinformation as to actual market conditions, and as to costs of manufacturing and marketing. Accurate knowledge of these matters is assumed to be a sufficient - remedy. The Southern Pine Association was recently considering an extension of its work so as to place it upon an open price basis. The Western Pine Manufacturers have a department known as the “‘infor- mation bureau” which has carried on open price work since 1912. Perhaps the most notable example of open price associations is the Hardwood Manufacturers’ Association of America. Originally merely a trade association, it has recently adopted the open price plan in its entirety and began operating under it March 1, 1917. It is intended that eventually all hardwoods shall be included, but in the beginning its operation is to be confined to oak, the lumber most commonly produced by its members.® It is not to be assumed that all the price list committees, informa- tion bureaus, etc., are suggestive of “open price” associations. In many instances such agencies have tried to fix an artificial price level. The price lists have often represented nothing like the prevailing market.° OTHER EFFORTS TO FIX PRICES’ - It has long been a common practice among lumber manufacturers to try to effect concerted curtailment of production in order to influ- ence prices. Sometimes an agreement to curtail the output has been circulated among the members of an association, perhaps also among manufacturers who were not members. In other instances, resolutions to curtail have been adopted by associations at their meetings. Since the associations have become more fearful of government prosecution, they have largely abandoned these practices, but have tried other means of accomplishing the same results. Trade papers have been influenced to proclaim the benefits of a reduced output, association secretaries have issued reports showing the extent of curtailment and urging all members to reduce their output. In some instances, the curtailment campaign has been directed by some asso- 8 “Open Price Associations,” by Professor H. R. Tosdal; American Economic Review, June, 1917, 331-334: Am. Lumberman, Dec. 22, 1917, 26, 46; Feb. 15, 1917, 16. 9“Tumber Industry,” IV, 79, 93, 416. 342 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY @ ciation member, “acting as an individual,” who has been assisted by association officers, likewise “acting as individuals.” In several cases, curtailment movements have been directed by the editors of friendly lumber journals, an illustration of this being found in the curtailment campaign among members of the North Carolina Pine Association during the summer of 1913. PRICE ACTIVITIES AMONG RETAILERS While it is not the purpose of the writer to enter into a considera- tion of the retailing of lumber, it may be appropriate to point out that among retailers as well as among lumber manufacturers, there have been numerous examples of illegal efforts to fix prices. In some instances, these efforts have been connected with the lumbermen’s associations. Thus some of the charges made against the Yellow Pine Manufacturers’ Association, and against two other southern associa- tions, in the Missouri ouster suit, were that they had divided territory among retail dealers, had agreed not to sell to so-called “poachers,” farmers’ codperative yards, consumers, or any but “legitimate ‘retail dealers.” Other less important judicial decisions describe a similar state of affairs.*° Lumbermen, manufacturers, and retailers alike have often fought the irregular retail dealers by unfair and underhand methods. They have tried to interfere with the business of mail order houses, by writing in, and by having others write in for catalogues, estimates, etc., in bad faith. They have tried to influence manufacturers to re- frain from furnishing lumber to such houses by threats of loss of patronage; in one case they even employed an agent to secure con- fidential information regarding the business secrets of such concerns, and tried to hinder and embarrass them in various other ways. In one large western city, the retailers jointly fixed prices and deposited a guarantee to play fair, and even hired a secretary to keep watch. Any member found cutting list prices was heavily fined.” 10 Gibbs et al. vs. McNeeley; 107 Fed. Rep., 210: Grenada Lumber Co. vs. State of Mississippi; 217 U. S., 433: Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers’ Association vs. U. S.; 224 U. S., 600. 11 Am. Lumberman, Dec. 22, 1917, 32: Compton, “Organization of the Lumber Industry,” 51. For a discussion of the “exchange” formed by the lumber dealers of Kansas City, Missouri, see the Kansas City Star, October 27, 1916. RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 343 EFFECTIVENESS OF EFFORTS TO FIX PRICES As to the effectiveness of price activities, it is very difficult to gen- eralize. Conditions have varied so greatly among the different regions, and at different times, that any general statement is likely to be mis- leading. The report of the Commissioner of Corporations (Part IV) was largely dedicated to proving the existence of monopolistic condi- tions in the lumber industry, and it contains a great deal of evidence intended to prove that. On the other hand, lumbermen claim, and there is a great deal of evidence tending to prove, that efforts of lumbermen to influence prices have generally been ineffective, that, in spite of them, lumber prices have generally been too low to cover even the bare cost of production for many lumbermen. It is the increase in lumber prices since the middle or late nineties which has directed attention to the question of price activities among lumbermen; but there can be no doubt that this rise in prices is mainly due to other causes. In the first place, other causes are ample to explain most, if not all, of this crease. The depreciation in the value of money is responsible for much of it. If it is true, as Professor Fisher estimates, that the dollar was worth two thirds as much in 1914 as in 1896, lumber prices could have risen nearly 50 per cent without indicating any peculiar forces at work.” In the second place, the shifting in the main sources of supply, from the Lake states to the southern and western states, will account for much of the rise in lumber prices. In 1896, the Lake states still led in the production of lumber, and even the northeastern states were furnishing consider- able amounts. This lumber could be sold in the great consuming cen- ters very cheaply. When, however, these readily accessible supplies were nearly exhausted, and lumber had to be shipped in from the southern states, and even to some extent from the western and Pacific states, higher prices were inevitable. Transportation charges are a very large element in the cost of so bulky a product as lumber. In the third place, the increasing scarcity of lumber might account for an increase in lumber prices. The lumber supply of the country con- stitutes a limited natural resource, and, with its rapid exhaustion, the forces of supply and demand would account for a considerable 12 See Compton, “Organization of the Lumber Industry,” 80. 344 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY rise In prices. Some agricultural products, in the production and marketing of which competition has had its freest action, have in- creased more in price than lumber, even though, in the case of agri- cultural products, there has been no prospect of the exhaustion of supply.” It appears thus that competitive forces would have been sufficient to cause a very considerable rise in prices. Certain lines of general reasoning likewise suggest that efforts of the lumbermen’s associations to maintain price lists could hardly have had any great influence on prices. In the first place, there has been some difficulty in securing accurate enough grading of some kinds of lumber to permit effective price control. In the second place, plants are not large, compared with plants in some other industries, are numerous, and widely scat- tered. Mere physical isolation has been an impediment in the way of effective combination. In the third place, many lumbermen have always been so deeply in debt, so tied down by bond issues, that they had to cut and sell their lumber almost regardless of price, in order to meet interest charges. It is claimed that a few plants which refuse to be bound by price agreements are enough to set low prices in times of depression. Prices are of course set by those lumbermen who sell, if there are enough of them, rather than by those who refuse to sell." In the fourth place, it is clear that, since price-fixing activities have almost always been carried on by the associations, there would usually remain the competition between woods, even if the association mem- bers were ever so loyal, and ever so strong financially. In the great lumber markets of the country, like Chicago and New York, com- petition between woods is very persistent.” Competition between woods is not always and everywhere strong enough to insure purely competitive prices. In a certain region and for certain purposes, white pine, for instance, has an element of monopoly advantage over other woods, and might sell at a price above that fixed by free competition, if the white pine producers themselves were sufficiently well organized. This is also true of a 13 Compton, opus cited, 105. 14 Proceedings, Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the National Lumber Manufac- turers’ Association, 95. 15 Compton, opus cited, 41 et seq. RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 345 number of other woods, although the producers of some species are organized on something approaching national lines, covering most of the entire product, and thus might conceivably prevent any com- petition between different regions. Akin to the competition of woods is the competition of substitute building materials—brick, cement, stone, steel, fiber, and the great variety of substitute roofings. Any great increase in the price of lumber for building purposes would lead to an increased use of some of these substitutes.*® . It may be worth while to point out that competition between lumber manufacturers who are owners of their own standing timber may be on a somewhat different basis from competition between retailers, or even between manufacturers of some other products. There has been a general tendency in the past for lumber prices and timber prices to rise, and, if a lumber manufacturer refuses to cut and sell his timber at prevailing prices, it means that he is losing, or, perhaps better, is failing to make a profit—as a manufacturer; but he may yet make a profit as owner of the standing timber if the value of standing timber rises. Thus he is in a somewhat different position from that of an ordinary merchant, for instance, who, when he fails to make a sale, has definitely failed to make his profit, and may even lose heavily on the stock remaining on his hands. The profit which may be anticipated from the rise in timber values would ordinarily set what might be called a “discounted future price,” below which the market price of lumber could hardly go, if all of the lumbermen were strong enough financially to follow what they recognized as the wisest long-run policy. Many lumbermen must meet heavy fixed charges, and so must sell almost regardless of price, but those who are in a position of financial independence have a rather stronger position in the market than competitors in some other lines of industry. This consideration is most important in the case of woods which are approaching ex- haustion, as, for instance, white pine, or those which for any reason are increasing rapidly in value. It must be noted, however, that prices of some grades of lumber did not increase at all between 1905 and 1915, but even declined somewhat; and, while prices during the past 16 Report No. 117, U. S. Dept. of Agr., Office of Secretary. 346 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY few decades have shown a general tendency to advance, that tendency need not be regarded as prevailing always and everywhere. Many lumbermen have lost money on standing timber. It will be pertinent to point out here that, since the economic law of supply and demand determines market value, efforts at price fixing must be ineffective unless accompanied by some limitation of supply. Even experienced lumbermen have probably sometimes been mistaken as to the effectiveness of some of their efforts to maintain price lists. Thus general reasoning indicates that price activities have gen- erally had little influence. Much of the direct testimony on the subject points to the same conclusion. In the first place, a study of the trade news in the lumber journals indicates clearly that lumber prices were often largely beyond the control of the associated lumbermen. The following excerpts are a few of many that might be given: “Many of the small [ yellow pine] mills which derive their logs by purchase from others’ lands, and must pay for them as they saw, and are thus bound by contracts, are running and placing their lumber on the market at the best prices they can obtain. It is the product of such mills that is bemg shipped in transit, is being sold by brokers in the large markets at a variety of prices, and is causing a large part of the prevailing demoralization.”*" “The committee on values of the Southern Lumber Manufacturers’ Association in January and February sought to arrest the tendency to a decline in prices by fixing new bases for the list, but in this case the all-powerful trade law of supply and demand asserted its su- premacy over the law of fiat, and prices remained persistently weak.’ “The condition of stocks of white pine is such that it is practically impossible to make a price list which will fit them all; consequently each man with lumber to Sell is putting his own price on it according to how his stock is assorted.”*® “The efforts of wholesalers to maintain list price [of hemlock] early in the spring have practically failed, and the man who wants 17 Am. Lumberman, Mar. 21, 1908, 38. 18 4m. Lumberman, Mar. 26, 1904, 15. 19 dm. Lumberman, Minneapolis news, Feb. 22, 1902, 48, 49. RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 347 hemlock lumber to-day and has: money to pay for it has the price situation in his own hands.’’*° “Spruce demand has remained about the same with low prices and a general disregard for the list by some of the larger manu- facturers.”** “The most glaring instance of unwise management is the maple flooring association. The price list adopted in July was unwarranted by market condition, and, as orders did not come in, many firms began to cut freely. This was hushed up at first, but discontent grew, the ‘Boxers’ started out with long knives and now the slashing has become general.”””” Not infrequently market prices have gone above the list, as the following quotations indicate: “For weeks buyers of white pine had thrown away all bargaining for prices and freely offered anything which would bring the stock. Above the list was common at that time, and the present list is con- ceded to be only a fair representation of the real strength of the market.’”*° “Many items of white pine on the list are selling at a premium.”’”* “It was shown that sales were being made in nearly every instance at a figure considerably higher than the list.”””? The Missouri ouster suit of 1918, in which the Supreme Court of Missouri found some twenty-five lumber companies guilty of violating the state anti-trust law, furnishes little proof of the effectiveness of price activities. There was no doubt that the lumber companies had been guilty of technical conspiracy in violation of the anti-trust law, had attempted to fix prices; and the court even held that these efforts had been successful, but did not make much of the question of success. Possibly the decision should not be regarded too seriously anyhow, for much of the evidence rests on the investigation of a single com- missioner. of facts, and the tenor of his report and of the decision based on it indicates that perhaps the zeal to find the truth was over- 20 NV. Y. Lumber Trade Journal, May 15, 1908, 27. 21 dm. Lumberman, Aug. 8, 1908, 78. 22 Boston news in dm. Lumberman, Feb. 14, 1903, 63. 23 Minneapolis news in Miss. Valley Lumberman, Mar. 30, 1906, 34. 24 Minneapolis news in Miss. Valley Lumberman, May 31, 1907, 35. 25 Am. Lumberman, Oct. 14, 1905, 33; report of meeting of Oct. 3, 1905. 348 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY shadowed by a desire to convict. Some of the statements of fact were inaccurate, and the tone of the decision was more like that of an attorney for the prosecution than that of a judge or court dispas- sionately weighing the merits of the suit. Lumbermen generally deny that there was any justice in the decision.” While efforts at price fixing have generally been futile, there is evidence that such efforts have sometimes had an appreciable in- fluence. The following excerpts from lumber journals tend to support this conclusion: “The market broke very rapidly after the price agreement went off in March.” “There is a stubborn rumor that the yellow pine manufacturers intend to advance their prices at an early date, and many of the yards are hurrying to place their orders before this advance shall become effective.” “The price list which went into effect October 15 is meeting with high favor, although some of the wholesalers report inability to secure some of the figures named. It has had the effect, however, of greatly increasing the actual selling price.” “All of the items are in poor supply at initial points and while the new list may not be maintained at the start, it will mean an advance in actual selling prices about equal to the advances ordered.”*° “The recent price lists of the Georgia Sawmill Association and the Southern Lumber Manufacturers’ Association are being strictly ad- hered to, and yellow pine is to-day one of the strongest features.””** “The solid front that the mill operators are maintaining in their insistence on firm prices at the December advance renders the picking up of lumber at concessions in prices next to an impossibility.” ‘There is not much revival of demand, but the trade is in good shape and dealers say that prices are holding firm, though they do 26 Proceedings, Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the National Lumber Manufac- turers’ Association, 31, 32. 27 Kansas City news in St. Louis Lumberman, May 15, 1904, 37. 28 St. Louis news in Am. Lumberman, Aug. 26, 1905, 67. 29 St. Louis news in Am. Lumberman, Nov. 5, 1904, 61. 30 St. Louis news in Am. Lumberman, Jan. 14, 1905. 31 New York news in NV. Y. Lumber Trade Journal, Apr. 15, 1902, 22. $2 Am. Lumberman, Jan. 13, 1906, 69. RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 349 admit that but for the new White Pine Association there would prob- ably have been a lot of cutting that has not developed now.”’”* “Half a dozen operators control practically all the hemlock that comes to this market, and from all the information I can gain the present price is being maintained, with no prospect of a break. The present of $17 will not be lower this season, in the opinion of those most interested. In fact, holders of hemlock state with confidence that they have the situation fully in hand.’’** Regarding the cypress market, some of the followimg quotations from the lumber journals are significant of the situation in 1901: “Prices are up to the full list, the cypress representatives here stating that not a foot is being sold under the agreed prices.” “Prices are unchanged and they will remain so for some time to come. Full list is ruling absolutely.” “Prices remain steady and the list goes in this territory at least.” “Every order is placed at full list prices.” “List is rigidly maintained.” “Prices are at list, as they have been all this season.” “The advance made two weeks ago is being obtained in all in- stances.” é “Cypress is selling at full list and the firmness of the market is not questioned in any quarter.” “Prices are being maintained everywhere with the most scrupulous fidelity to the list.” Such a situation as this has been very common in the cypress market, although in times of depression and slack demand, as, for instance, in the latter part of 1907 and in 1908, there was plenty of evidence that the cypress list was not strictly maintained. Much of this evidence must be discounted heavily. Trade journals and officials in the lumber associations are often enthusiastic pro- moters of codperative activity, and are prone to exaggerate its effec- tiveness. Many lumbermen were doubtless themselves mistaken as to the effect of their price activities. Even with due allowance for exag- geration, however, the evidence presented clearly indicates that price lists have sometimes had an influence. It is probably in a falling 33 dm. Lumberman, Apr. 9, 1904, 57. 34 V. Y. Lumber Trade Journal, Jan. 1, 1904, 9. 350 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY market that such lists have had the most effect.®? Some lumbermen | have claimed that price lists were not issued with any intent to in- fluence prices, but merely as a record of the prevailing market. In some instances this has been true, but many of the lists have not corresponded to market prices even when first issued; and there is conclusive evidence that, in some cases, lists were not even intended to represent the market. Although price lists have sometimes raised prices somewhat, they may nevertheless have been justified, even from the point of view of the public, for they have at times given some measure of stability to a peculiarly unstable field of industry ; a field in which blind and un- fettered competition has often been very severe, and in which the average rate of profits has not been excessively high. A reasonable degree of stability in any industry is to be desired. EFFECTIVENESS OF CURTAILMENT CAMPAIGNS Price lists could not have any great or lasting effect upon lumber prices unless accompanied by some regulation of the supply. Lumber associations have often attempted, however, to limit the supply through organized curtailment agreements; and these curtailment agreements have sometimes had an appreciable influence upon prices. Curtailment agreements would sometimes be fairly easy to main- tain if operators were not too deeply in debt, and were strong enough financially to follow out their own interests. Loyalty to a curtailment agreement has sometimes involved very little sacrifice. In a depressed market, when lumbermen have had to sell their product at a price below actual cost of production, those who were also owners of their standing timber might easily profit by closing down for a time, and indeed many of them did so, even though not bound by any agree- ment. They could count upon an increase in the value of standing timber to balance in some measure the immediate loss of income. Timber values may not increase as much in the future as they have in the past, but they will probably increase somewhat. There is a great deal of evidence indicating that curtailment cam- paigns have sometimes influenced prices. There is, in the first place, the testimony of those familiar with the industry. Speaking of a cur- 35 “Tumber Industry,” IV, 126, 563, 681. RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 351 tailment campaign carried on in 1904 by the Southern Lumber Manu- facturers’ Association, one influential lumberman stated: “That values are what they are to-day is the result solely of this curtail- ment movement.”’*° Mr. R. A. Long, one of the most influential men in the yellow pine field, in speaking of curtailment among the producers of yellow pine, said in 1905: “Some of the most successful men in our line of business shook their heads and made the statement that we could not ‘legislate prices’; that supply and: demand must govern and that the supply would be governed by the ‘survival of the fittest.’ In spite of these prophecies we succeeded in securing the codperation of about 80 per cent of the manufacturers of yellow pine, and so the plan was entered into and tested between July 1 and October 1. In less than 10 days from July 1 the downward tendency of prices had been checked, and within 30 days a substantial advance had been made. Before we had reached October 1 it was believed that the commencing of the opera- tion of our mills on full time on that date would practically mean a loss of all we had gained, and an effort was made, and accomplished, continuing the curtailment until January 1 of this year. On October 15, a further notable advance was made. Desiring to be as nearly correct as possible as to the extent of the advance between July 1 and October 1, and as to the further advance made between October 1 and January 1, I addressed a letter to a number of the larger manufacturers asking their views on this point, also as to whether or not they attributed the advance to the curtailment movement or otherwise. These replies did not vary to any great extent, and the summary of the same developed an average advance between July 1 and October 1 of $1.19 per M.-and between October 1 and January 1 of $1.04 per M., all agreeing that the curtail movement was that which brought about this favorable condition.”** A letter written in 1912 by C. E. Patten, “Chairman of the Manu- facturers’ Curtailment Committee” of one of the coast associations, contains the following: “Our close-down during December, January, and February was a very satisfactory one, fully 50 of the mills being closed from 30 to 90 days. In addition to this, a large number of our 36 “Tumber Industry,” IV, 129: Miss. Valley Lumberman, Jan. 27, 1905, 35. 37 “Tjumber Industry,” IV, 76. 352 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY mills are running only 8 hours per day or 5 days per week. I am endeavoring to get as much of a curtailment as possible but it is pretty hard to hold some of them in line, as we have a great many mills that through pure cussedness will not curtail, in fact, one or two of them sawed more lumber in 1911 than they did in 1907. Then of course we have a good many who are in such financial condition that they are unable to curtail, but even with all this, at the present time we are having a very large curtailment, which I hope will continue until the first of July or until conditions improve.”** | A report of a mass meeting of shingle manufacturers held in Seattle, December 19, 1905, appearing in the Pacific Lumber Trade Journal of January, 1906 (p. 46), contained the following: “In calling the meeting to order President Bass reported that out of 299 straight shingle mills in western Washington, 252 mills were then coéperating in the close-down policy, and out of forty-seven mills outside the fold, not to exceed twenty-five were able to operate steadily owing to log jams, water conditions, and the car shortage. At the meeting, five more mills signed up the closing agreement, making 257 out of the possible 299 mills to be secured. He also stated that the mills had up $120,000 in cash forfeitures with which to bind their agreement and the actual curtailment effected was not short of 36,000,000 shingles a day.” Regarding the extent and effectiveness of this close-down, the Pacific Lumber Trade Journal (February, 1906) had the following to say: “The ‘close-down’ was an absolute and unqualified success. Ninety-three per cent of the shingle manufacturers in Western Wash- ington were identified with the movement, and not one broke the agreement. As a result of this curtailment probably 5,000 cars of shingles were kept off the eastern markets during a season when shingles cannot go into consumption and when buying is of a purely speculative nature. The benefit that this ‘close-down’ has been to the manufacturer is represented in an advance of from thirty-five to fifty cents a thousand on the several grades. If these prices slump it will be the fault of the manufacturers, who now have the situation well in hand, and, by coéperating, can eliminate many of the unneces- . 38 “Tumber Industry,” IV, 467. RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 353 sary evils that have demoralized the industry in former years, par- ticularly the year of 1905.” Of course this testimony, like the testimony regarding the effective- ness of price lists, is probably much exaggerated ; but it indicates that curtailment campaigns have sometimes achieved a measure of success. Where forfeitures or penalties were imposed, as in some of the cases mentioned, it must have been possible to keep members fairly well lined up, at least for a time. In estimating the significance of organized close-downs, it should be remembered that in times of depression many mills would curtail their output somewhat, or perhaps even close down altogether, without any agreement or understanding whatever. It would be a very serious error to assume that all, or even most, of the curtailment was due to agreement. Organization, where it is efficient, merely makes the curtailment more effective. Even if it be assumed that organized curtailment of output has sometimes had an appreciable influence on prices, it does not follow that it is to be unreservedly condemned. If the lumbermen merely limit the cut and then leave prices to the law of supply and demand, they are conserving our timber supply. This results in higher prices at present of course, but logically it should increase the future supply and so result in lower prices ultimately—exactly what conserva- tionists are calling for.*° POSSIBILITY OF FUTURE TROUBLE It thus appears that although almost all lumbermen’s associations have tried to fix prices, either directly through adherence to a price list, or indirectly through organized curtailment, and although some | of these efforts have achieved a measure of success, yet, on the whole, consumers have in the past had little cause of complaint. The situation is unsatisfactory mainly in that it contains the possibility of trouble for the future. There are reasons for believing that price fixing may be more successful in the future. In the first place, the amount of standing timber is decreasing rapidly. The Forest Service has estimated that the present timber supply of the country would last fifty-five years at the present rate 39 For an expression of this view see 4m. Lumberman, Aug. 19, 1916, 26. 354 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY of consumption. It will not be exhausted as soon as that, of course, for reforestation will get more attention in the future, and, as the supply disappears and prices rise, the rate of consumption will tend to decrease; nevertheless, the timber supply will certainly decrease very greatly within the next few decades, and the holders of remaining supplies will perhaps occupy a correspondingly stronger position in the market. Probably there will be fewer operators, at least in the regions of good remaining virgin timber. In the past there has been a tendency in some regions for the smaller and financially weaker timber holders to furnish a disproportionate amount of the annual cut, and, if this tendency should persist, the smaller holders would tend to be eliminated from the field, leaving a larger proportion of the supply in strong hands, capable of taking advantage of a favor- able situation. It may be, too, that there will be a tendency in the more heavily forested regions for large mills to displace smaller mills, because of superior economies. Some indications of such a tendency have appeared in recent years. It would be easy to exaggerate these dangers, however. In the first place, as to timber ownership, the government is cutting much less than the annual growth in the national forests, and thus will have a larger proportion of the total standing timber in the future, al- though it will be many years before the government timber will be a very important factor in-most markets. Regarding the size of mills, it may be said that there will always be a field for the small mill, in some regions a wider field than now. As the more valuable and acces- sible timber is cut, lumbermen will necessarily resort to inferior stands, either second-growth timber on cut-over lands, or inferior virgin timber, and, on such lands, small mills will prove most economical. . INSTABILITY OF THE LUMBER MARKET Whatever may be our guess as to probable future conditions in the lumber industry, lumbermen rightly claim that during the past decade consumers, or at least retailers, have generally had no reason to complain; that they have often got lumber below actual cost of pro- duction; that lumbermen, as manufacturers of lumber, have generally . made very low profits, or sometimes no profits at all; that the situation RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 355 has been far less satisfactory from the point of view of the lumber- men than from that of consumers.*” The lumber market has always been very unstable. Prices of most woods have fluctuated widely and often. Occasional years of high prices have been followed by longer periods of depression and low prices. Taking the years between 1907 and 1915, for instance, the average price of southern yellow pine shows a range of from $12.50 to $16.50, or 32 per cent of the lower rate. The average price of Douglas fir in the same period ranged from $9.60 to $15.20—a spread of 58 per cent of the lower rate. Such an instability must be regarded as an evil from every point of view.** THE LUMBER INDUSTRY AND TIMBER SPECULATION One of the vital weaknesses of the lumber manufacturing business has been its close alliance with timber speculation. Twenty years ago much of the timber in the West was worth very little, and purchasers were able to buy stumpage at from three to twenty-five cents per thousand feet. At that price it was good investment, for, with the development of lumbering, the construction of transcontinental rail- roads, expanding markets, and the influence of eastern conceptions of timber values, enhancement of stumpage prices was very rapid— particularly from 1900 to 1908. There was a rush of entrymen to the public timber lands, not to settle them, but to acquire salable claims; and millions of acres were patented from the government every year. The agents of lumber companies and eastern investors bought up claims and “blocked up” holdings while local speculators assembled properties of a few thousand acres. Trading was active, hundreds of men made fortunes by buying and selling stumpage, and confidence in future timber values seemed unlimited. It was the common feeling that prices would go up—as far as in eastern lumbering regions. Within ten or fifteen years, the initial cost of government timber was multiplied in subsequent transfers—ten, fifteen, or twenty times, in some parts of the Northwest.” 40 Proceedings, National Lumber Manufacturers’ Association, Thirteenth An- nual Meeting, 172 et seq. 41 “Public and Economic Aspects of the Lumber Industry,” 21-23; Am. Lumber- man, Jan. 1, 1916, 52: Forest Bul. 34, 43. 42“Public and Economic Aspects of the Lumber Industry,” 12 et seq.: Am. 356 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY It was during this period that the conservation movement gained great momentum; and the establishment of the forest reserves gave an impetus to this speculative fever. The public reservations and the discussion of future timber shortage were generally interpreted as pointing to higher values; and speculators hastened to secure avail- able timber lands before they could be withdrawn. Many persons unfamiliar with the industry, and less conservative than experienced timbermen, were encouraged to invest in stumpage. Some speculators and timber companies took advantage of the boom in timber values in capitalizing their holdings for borrowing. A concrete measure of the speculative activity during this period is found in the present capitalization of stumpage in the western states. The assessed value of private timber lands in California was about $51,000,000 in 1916; in western Oregon and Washington, $170,000,000, exclusive of the considerable quantities of stumpage on areas classed as “unimproved lands”; and in the “Inland Empire,” approximately $140,000,000, or, for the whole Northwest, $358,- 000,000. Considering the basis of assessment in the several regions, and the prevailing price of stumpage of average quality and acces- sibility, the rated value of the private timber lands in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and western Montana today is probably not far from $1,100,000,000. Such capitalization, built up mostly within two or three decades, involved extensive use of borrowed money. Much of this was secured through a conservative mortgaging of assets, bodies of timber in some instances being bonded to finance the construction of sawmills and logging railroads. There was much unsound financing, however. Timber was often heavily mortgaged to provide funds for further purchases, and the process repeated with each new block acquired. Manufacturers sometimes bought addi- tional timber with earnings which should have been used to reduce indebtedness or improve their plants. The early borrowing was usually in the form of short-term notes, at the high interest rates characteristic of undeveloped sections of the country; but, about 1905, a special form of security appeared— Lumberman, Aug. 7, 1915, 1: Review of Reviews, May, 1916, 583. See also a Brief on Behalf of the National Lumber Manufacturers’ Association, May, 1916, 23 et seq.; and Cong. Rec., Apr. 19, 1916, 6459. RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY B57 the timber bond, issued as a first mortgage upon timber holdings and manufacturing plants. Bonds were usually to be refunded serially by setting aside a stated sum from the proceeds of lumber sales. The common interest rate was 6 per cent, but expenses in issuing such securities, and their usual sale below par, often made the actual cost of the capital 7 per cent or more. Bonds, in series running for ten or fifteen years, had the disadvantage of prescribing in advance the cut of lumber necessary to meet futurities, regardless of the condition of the market. The capitalization of timber was, broadly speaking, a slower and saner process in the southern pine belt than in the Northwest. Large holdings were slower to develop. For a long period timber ownership was well distributed, and many mills bought but small quantities of stumpage from time to time; but about 1905, competitive timber buying began on a large scale, and stumpage values went up rapidly. Many bond issues were floated in connection with large timber pur- chases between 1905 and 1912. In an investigation of twenty-seven companies in this section, timber bonds aggregating $39,000,000 were found outstanding. In 1914, an analysis of 108 companies, in- cluding ten that were free from debt, showed a total indebtedness of over $52,000,000—$1.11 per thousand feet on the timber repre- sented. COST OF TIMBER OWNERSHIP Interest charges were not the only charges to be met. Taxes have had to be paid, regardless of whether the property was bringing in any income or not. The tax burden has varied greatly in the different forest regions, but most investigators have been of the opinion that, through underassessment and lax administration of laws, taxes have not been a very heavy burden in most regions. Occasional gross in- equalities in assessment, however, and uncertainty as to the future, have doubtless been something of a menace to lumbermen and to the stability of the industry.** Cost of fire protection has added slightly to the carrying charge. This cost, however, including such fire losses as may occur, rarely exceeds one tenth or one fifth of a cent per 43 Sunset Magazine, Apr., 1916, 35: Jour. Pol. Hc., Dec., 1915, 971. 358 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY thousand feet of stumpage yearly, although in northern Idaho fire protection has cost one third of a cent per thousand feet. Broadly speaking, if taxes and protection costs be added to the investment and if interest be compounded at 6 per cent, the amount invested in the property doubles every eight or ten years. It is ap- parent that any timber, no matter how cheaply obtained, will acquire a high book value when the period during which it must be carried is measured by decades. Ten cent stumpage obtained from the public lands in 1880, and carried at 6 per cent interest on first cost and on current outlays for taxes and protection, becomes $1.50 stumpage in 1916 and $6 stumpage in 1940.** Some careful students of the lumber industry are inclined to doubt whether private individuals can afford to own any but readily accessible timber. Representative Johnson of Washington stated in Congress recently that many large holders had found their properties so burdensome that they would be glad to have the government take them over.” | For many years previous to 1907, timber values generally in- creased fast enough to cover all these carrying charges, and in many regions yield great profits to investors. Between 1907 and 1915, however, there was no material advance in values, except in the yellow pine region; and many lumbermen found themselves hard pressed to meet obligations they had incurred in earlier years. Since 1907, a great many lumber operators have been compelled to saw up their stumpage almost regardless of market values, in order to meet heavy carrying charges, and in this way the market has been badly demor- alized much of the time. It was noted in 1913 and 1914 that a marked decline in the price of yellow pine lumber was accompanied by an equally marked increase in the stock on hand, because some hard- pressed operators had to saw more lumber rather than less, as the price went down, in order to meet their fixed charges. Thus a decline in the speculative value of timber holdings fostered rapid forest de- struction. Beginning about 1915, lumber prices rose again because of the war demands, and at the present time (1919), the general 44 For an interesting computation by Professor Kirkland of the University of Washington, see the Forestry Quarterly, 12, 432. See also an article by Professor Compton in the Journal of Forestry, Apr., 1917. 45 Cong. Rec., Apr. 19, 1916, 6459. RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 359 price level is higher than it has ever been before in the history of the industry.*° WASTE OF TIMBER Waste of natural resources of every kind has always characterized new countries and especially the frontier; and it was inevitable that the lumber business should be carried on wastefully. That which has only slight value is never used economically. This waste takes several forms. First, timber is cut in advance of any real economic demand, timber which might better be left until the country needs it; second, the trees felled are but partially utilized, and large amounts of low- grade material are destroyed in the woods or mills; and third, inferior species in the forests are wholly or partly left uncut.* The first element of waste results from cutting timber solely on account of the financial difficulties of timber or mill owners, and then forcing it upon the market at a sacrifice price, often less than the cost of production. Such lumber often represents, not competition in manufacture, but competition in unloading burdensome timber hold- ings, a patent ill effect of the close connection between lumber manu- . facturing and speculation in timber lands. Hence results a surplus of stock, to be disposed of like the “transit” cars of lumber shipped into Chicago by the hundreds during 1914 and 1915 and sold on the way or after arrival for whatever they might bring.* Sidelights on this situation illustrate the wastes of overproduction. Some operators on the west coast with rafts of high-grade fir logs, which in good times are manufactured largely into flooring, stepping, silo stock, and other high-quality products worth probably $20 per thousand feet, in 1914 and 1915 cut such timber into railroad ties and other cheap products at $8 per thousand or less, because this was the only business to be had at the time, and because of physical and financial imability to carry large stocks of logs until a better market was available. A yellow pine company in the South, during 46 “Public and Economic Aspects of the Lumber Industry,” 24 et seq.: Pro- ceedings, Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the National Lumber Manufacturers’ Assoc., 21, 167, 172: Am. Lumberman, Mar. 18, 1916, 44. 47 “Public and Economic Aspects of the Lumber Industry,” 64 et seq.: Brief before the Federal Trade Commission on Behalf of the National Lumber Manu- facturers’ Association, May, 1916, 33; Jan., 1916, 74. 48 “Public and Economic Aspects of the Lumber Industry,” 64 et seq. 360 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY the winter of 1914-1915, burned 2,000,000 feet of No. 4 boards under its boilers, because there was no longer room to carry this material in its yards. Another large operator dumped from 2 to 3 per cent of the entire cut into the waste burner because yard room was exhausted. Many companies experienced losses from deterioration of lumber in their yards, on account of the extra stock on hand and the unusually long time it had to be carried. The second element of timber waste—poor utilization of the trees felled—arises largely from the cheapness of timber in the United States. Greater or less waste of this character has been inherent in lumbering everywhere in the United States, but especially in southern and western logging, because of the lack of diversified wood-using industries and the heavy freights to large markets, which preclude the shipment of material of low value. Even under normal conditions, as in 1912-1913, southern and western loggers left from 20 to 30 per cent of their timber in the woods, some of which would have been put to use for box lumber, cooperage, etc., in eastern Pennsylvania or central New England. It has been estimated by competent authori- ties that in many instances only 35 per cent of the actual cubic con- tents of the tree is utilized; the remaining 65 per cent being lost in the stump, in sawdust, slabs, trimmings, broken timber, and low- grade logs left in the woods. The third element of waste arises in the species of trees found in nearly all forests, trees of lower value than the principal commercial timbers because of poor standing in the trade, or because they yield mainly low grades, and hence cannot be cut or can be cut only in part when the market is poor. In many parts of the East, the leaving of such species, like balsam and hemlock, in the early logging, did not mean a loss, since they were taken off in later cuttings. Often, indeed, they were of value in restocking cut-over lands, even though with inferior species. In western operations on private land, however, most of the timber left is destroyed in the slash fires which usually follow logging, or deteriorates so much before a second cut is practicable that it cannot be credited as a future forest resource. This waste of timber has in part been an inevitable feature of pri- vate exploitation of a cheap natural resource; but it is most unfortu- nate, nevertheless, for important public interests are involved. Aside RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 361 from the future needs for lumber, there are the future needs for a great many important wood products—paper, cheap industrial fuel, rosin and distillates of many kinds. The public interest in economical lumbering methods is so great as even to demand government regu- lation of lumbering on private lands, although that involves such a departure from our ordinary “laissez faire’ theory of government that it will be difficult to secure. FAILURE TO REFOREST LANDS The waste incident to our present lumbering methods would not be so serious a matter if a new crop of timber were growing up to replenish the supply, but unfortunately very few lumbermen are making any effort to reforest their cut-over lands. Just how extensive are these cut-over lands it would be difficult to say. The National Conservation Commission estimated in 1909 that there were 75,- 000,000 acres of non-agricultural cut-over lands which should be de- voted to growing timber. Certainly there are large areas of idle stump land, unfit for agriculture, and producing no timber. Lumbermen cannot be justly criticized for not replanting their lands. Only under exceptional circumstances could it be done profit- ably. In the first place, an investment of this character would be a long-time investment. No return could ordinarily be expected in less than fifty years, in some cases even longer, and in the meantime the owner must pay taxes and protect his investment from fire and tres- pass. Although these two items—fire protection and taxes—are not large, they are too uncertain for a conservative investment. While fire protection is a small item usually, there is always a chance that fire may destroy a part of the entire investment. Taxes likewise, al- though not a very large item, are uncertain and arbitrary, and, under the unscientific system prevailing in most states, must be paid regard- less of whether the lands are bringing in any return or not. An in- vestor who undertook to predict the amount of taxes on his growing timber for fifty years in advance would be dealing in very uncertain quantities. Even if there were no element of uncertainty, reforestation would seldom present an attractive field of investment. The initial cost of reforesting, together with the cost of protection and taxes, com- 362 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY pounded annually for fifty years at 6 per cent, would amount to a very large sum, in all probability much more than the stumpage would then be worth. One writer on the subject has termed tree planting “a risky 6 per cent investment.”*° Thus the results of private ownership of timber lands, as illus- trated in the condition of the lumber industry, have been unsatis- factory from every point of view. Consumers have suffered little from high prices, but have viewed with distrust the repeated efforts on the part of lumbermen to force an artificial level of prices. Lumbermen themselves have not profited generally, and have often suffered severely from the instability of conditions within the industry; while the public can only view with foreboding the gross waste in lumbering operations, and the failure of those within the industry to provide for its future maintenance. THE QUESTION OF REMEDIES The question of remedies to be adopted will hinge largely on the question as to which of the difficulties suggested is deemed most im- portant. If the principal difficulty is found in the efforts of the lumber- men to fix prices, the question of an appropriate remedy will involve mainly a consideration of trust regulation. For two reasons, however, this aspect of the problem will not be considered here. In the first place, the question of trust regulation is far too broad to be given adequate attention within the scope of this volume; and, in the second place, since consumers have suffered little in the past, it seems that the question of remedy may safely be left to the future, if it ever becomes an acute problem. The unfortunate situation of some of the lumbermen during a large part of the past decade seemed to demand more attention than it ever got; and a few years ago the Forest Service, in codperation with the Bureau of Corporations, and later with the Trade Commission, undertook a study of conditions. Their report,’ completed in 1916, called attention to the depressed situation of the lumbermen, and 49 Kellogg and Ziegler, “The Cost of Growing Timber,” Pub. by Am. Lumber- man, 1911. 50 “Some Public and Economic Aspects of the Lumber Industry”: Report No. 114, Dept. of Agr. RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 363 suggested the following general remedies: first, adequate capital, better financial backing, and better methods of accounting ;”* second, more efficient equipment and technical methods; third, better mer- chandizing of the product ; and fourth, a more efficient and economical use of raw material. The details of these recommendations lie outside the scope of this work, but it is interesting to note that the report advocated the publication of current prices—actual prices, not list rates or quotations ; recommended a better adjustment of the lumber cut to demand, not through curtailment by joint agreement, but through curtailment by the operators individually, each following the policy dictated by his own costs, available markets, and other business circumstances—whatever that may mean—and even ap- proved of the selling agency in domestic trade, and of some form of co- operative selling organization for foreign trade. This report was not off the press before the conditions it deplored were completely changed, and the lumber industry was again enjoy- ing one of the greatest “booms” in its history. At this time (1919), this “boom”? is still on, and there is no present necessity for Javishing sympathy on the lumbermen. The suggestions for promoting stability in the industry are still pertinent, however, for the lumber industry, like the steel industry, has always tended to be either “prince or pauper.” ; Regarding the waste of lumber, it may be said that waste will pre- vail as long as timber has a low value, unless the government adopts a policy of supervising the cut on private lands. Probably the govern- ment will do this ultimately, and it can hardly do it too soon, but it will take some time to educate lumbermen and the public generally to the necessity for such a step. GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF LUMBER PRICES Government regulation of lumber prices has been advocated, on the one hand by lumbermen, on the ground that it would probably assure them a better price than they have usually received under a régime of competition, and on the other hand by certain publicists, notably by President Charles Van Hise of the University of Wisconsin, on the ground that such a policy would permit lumbermen to enjoy the | 51 4m. Lumberman, Jan. 1, 1916, 26; Jan. 29, 1916, 1; Apr. 8, 1916, 26. 364 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY benefits of codperative action, and at the same time would protect the public from monopolistic exaction.”” The fact that some lumbermen have been willing to have the govern- ment step in and regulate prices, indicates clearly their sincerity in asserting that they have not been making a reasonable profit. Even the attorneys for the National Lumber Manufacturers’ Association, in their brief before the Federal Trade Commission in 1916, asserted that the lumber industry would welcome government observation, or even government regulation, if deemed expedient.°* It is true that government regulation of prices is not the most important item in the proposal of the lumbermen, or of Dr. Van Hise. They are primarily interested in so amending the anti-trust laws as to permit more effective codperation; but it seems inevitable that if the present competitive system is to be seriously altered, some form of government regulation of prices must be adopted. The idea of price regulation, perhaps by means of a commission, seems attractive in many ways. It has a directness, a finality, an apparent simplicity even, which presents a strong appeal to certain minds. It is perfectly conceivable, too, that if the government is to engage in the regulation of prices at all, lumber prices might be as good a point of attack as any. The industry is based on a natural resource, and is fairly well centralized. It is true that considerable difficulty has been encountered in fixing satisfactory standards of some woods, but this difficulty would be met with in any industry. Finally, the cost of production, as far as that might enter into the 52 Am. Lumberman, Aug. 28, 1915, 32; Sept. 25, 1915, 35; Nov. 6, 1915, 32: Proceedings, National Lumber Manufacturers’ Assoc., 1916, 27. In the American Lumberman of December 22, 1917, the lumberman’s attitude toward anti-trust activity is well expressed: “Incidentally, it might be well to call the attention of the state authorities to another very suspicious circumstance, in connection with the sale of lumber. One would naturally suppose that under free competitive con- ditions it would be sometimes sold by the thousand feet, sometimes by the cord, sometimes by the pound, sometimes by the bushel, and in occasional cases, by the lineal foot and yard. Instead, it appears to be almost universally sold upon a single standard of measure, per thousand feet board measure, and the buyer who wishes to buy according to any other standard of measure is thereby limited in his ability to purchase. This seems to have been overlooked and should at once be investigated and corrected.” 53 Brief on Behalf of the Lumber Manufacturers’ Association, May, 1916, 13. RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 365 fixing of price, would be as easily determined for lumber as for almost any product. A thorough and exhaustive criticism of government regulation of prices would lead beyond the scope of this book; but it will be appro- priate to point out some of the difficulties in the way of such a scheme. In the first place, there would be the difficulty of securing a commis- sion of well-trained men, the difficulty of avoiding too great a repre- sentation of politicians, such as cheapened the quality of the work done by the Federal Trade Commission. In the second place, and most important, there would be the difficulties connected with the determination of prices, and the first question would be as to the basis upon which prices should be established. A number of items would have to be considered—cost of labor, logging and milling equip- ment, original cost, interest charge and depreciation, fire protection and taxes. Perhaps the most important item, and the most difficult to work out, would be the value of the standing timber. It is difficult to find any satisfactory basis for the determination of lumber prices without taking into consideration the value of the standing timber, and yet that involves a suggestion of a logical absurdity, a circle of reasoning—to fix a price schedule on the basis of the present value of standing timber, when the value of the standing timber is dependent on the prices fixed. In the case of joint products, special complica- tions would arise. For instance, the yellow pine forests of the South produce turpentine and lumber. Hemlock is valuable for its bark as well as for its wood. How should the price of the lumber be determined with relation to the other products? Some mills produce different kinds of products—lumber of many kinds and grades, shingles or lath, and perhaps excelsior. How much of the fixed charges and how much of the operating expense should be attributed to each product? It might sometimes be difficult to adjust the price of different kinds of woods so as to do justice to each section of the country. As long as there is competition between different sections of the country, this is regulated, but if once this competition were eliminated, it might be very difficult to find a satisfactory basis for the determination of relative values in the various markets of the country. It is possible that price regulation by a commission might result in an increasingly rapid destruction of our remaining forest resources. 366 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY If the commission established a certain level of prices, and then ad- hered to those prices in spite of the decreasing supply and increasing demand for timber, it would be encouraging rapid exhaustion of the supply. There would be no increase in price to discourage consump- tion. If, on the other hand, the commission were to increase the price as rapidly as competition would cause it to rise, there would be no particular reason for the existence of the commission. If a price- regulating commission were to try to keep lumber prices down, it would remove one of the chief incentives owners now have for pre- serving their timber. The expectation of a future rise in stumpage values is one of the reasons why many timber owners are not clearing their land as rapidly as possible, and this incentive would be removed by keeping lumber prices stationary. These are only a few of the difficulties involved in government regulation of prices. Detailed consideration of that policy would lead beyond the proper scope of this book, but it has seemed appropriate to point out a few of the difficulties in the way of such a scheme, just to bring out the appropriateness of another policy—increased government ownership of timber lands. INCREASED GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP OF STANDING TIMBER An increase in government ownership is one remedy which will prove helpful, whatever our view of the situation. It will obviate the fear of artificial price control, will insure stability im the lumber market, reduce waste to a minimum, and provide for proper refor- estation. The present unsatisfactory conditions in the lumber in- dustry are an inevitable result of the policy of private ownership and exploitation which the government followed previous to the adoption of the forest reserve policy in 1891; and the remedy for these ills is to be found in a return to the policy of government ownership. The wisdom—perhaps we might almost say the necessity—of government ownership, is the great outstanding lesson to be gained from the study of the United States Forest Policy as outlined in the preceding chapters. Almost all of the advanced countries of the world have found it necessary to take over the management of their forests; and the United States must eventually enlarge her field of activities along this line. RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 367 Just how far and how fast the government should go in enlarging its forest domain, is a question which cannot be answered easily. Under the Weeks Law, the government is already buying up land slowly, — in some instances even virgin timber land, but that act does not look to any general scheme for the purchase of valuable forest land, and it is unlikely that the government will enter upon such a policy until there is a clear and urgent need for it. There are some regions where the government might even now extend her national forests te advantage. Some of the less accessible _ timber of the Northwest should perhaps be bought up. Much of it is in the vicinity of the national forests and could be cheaply protected and administered as additions to them. There are, for example, some 10,000,000,000 feet of privately owned timber on the headwaters of the Columbia in Idaho and Montana, which cannot be reached within the present range of logging costs in that region. The more accessible and high-priced timber in the pine belt of California is sufficient to supply its manufacturing industry, including any in- creased output that can be reasonably anticipated, for at least thirty or forty years; and there is left 48,000,000,000 feet of less accessible privately owned timber in the higher mountains, which by location is a reserve for the future. Many other billions are similarly located back in the Cascades of Oregon and Washington, and in various regions of the West. The recovery of such timber lands would be wise from the point of view of the public, and perhaps not disadvantageous from the point of view of the present owners, for the carrying of such timber for two or three, or even four decades, until exhaustion of other supplies has called it into the market, will involve a very heavy outlay, and will not likely prove profitable, unless lumber prices rise extremely high. Our national forests will of course play a more important part in the future than they do now. At the present time they are much less important than their area would indicate, because only part of the land is timbered, and the timber included is generally of poor quality and inaccessible. The Forest Service is handling the timber very conservatively, however, cutting less than the annual growth, so that the amount of government timber is increasing; while the pri- vately owned timber is being cut at a very rapid rate. Furthermore, 368 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY as already pointed out, the government is slowly taking over tracts of land under the Weeks Law. Thus the relative importance of pub- licly owned timber will gradually increase. CHAPTER XIII CONCLUSION Tue history and results of the United States forest policy have now been discussed in considerable detail. A rather depressing story it is, too, a story of reckless and wasteful destruction of magnificent for- ests, and of flagrant and notorious theft of valuable lands—a story that Americans will follow with little pride. The gradual growth of an interest in the preservation of our forests has been traced. Such an interest is not a development of the first decade or two only, nor even of the past half-century. Anxiety for the future timber supply arose even in colonial times, and expressions _ of concern were voiced at various times throughout the later history of the country. The idea of conservation gained momentum most rapidly, it is true, during the eighties and nineties; and the “con- servation movement,” in its present scope, took form during the early years of the present century, under the leadership of Pinchot. EUROPEAN INFLUENCES IN THE CONSERVATION MOVEMENT It is notable that from the earliest times down to the present, interest in the conservation of our forests has been fostered largely by men of foreign birth or training. Thus William Penn and the early colonial governors who evinced interest in the matter were reared in Europe and had European traditions regarding forests. F. A. Michaux, who wrote in 1819, was a Frenchman, and many of the others who later became interested in this question had studied or at least traveled in Europe. Carl Schurz and B. E. Fernow, two of the heroic figures in the conservation movement, were Germans. Gifford Pinchot and Charles Walcott studied forestry in Europe; and Theo- dore Roosevelt was strongly influenced by his close contact with European thought. 370 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY THE ATTITUDE OF CONGRESS In the study of the forest policy, nothing stands out more promi- nently than the unwise position Congress usually took. Of the im- portant timber land laws passed in the half-century during which our forests were disappearing or passing into the hands of private indi- viduals, only two—the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, and the act of 1897—stand out clearly as examples of intelligent legislation; and the first of these was secured because Congress did not get a chance to quash it, while the act of 1897 was drawn by a “theoretical” scien- tist, and pushed through Congress on an appropriation bill. During the seventies, eighties, and nineties, timber-steal measures of almost any kind could get a favorable hearing in Congress, while conservation measures were promptly eliminated from the calendar. The insistent call of department officials and others for better legislation seldom elicited a favorable response, while the complaints of timber tres- passers who got caught in their illegal operations frequently received a sympathetic hearing, and sometimes even legislative relief. For. the fact that the United States finally got some national forests, with a scientific system of administration, credit is due, not to the wisdom of our national legislature, but entirely to administrative officials— Schurz, Cleveland, Sparks, Walcott, Fernow, Bowers, Pinchot, Roosevelt, and others; and these men had to fight Congress at almost every step. The attitude of Congress was due, in the first place, to the in- ability of most of the members to understand the necessity of forest reserves. Most congressmen are “practical men”—lawyers, farmers, merchants, successful business men—and not men of broad education and scholarship. Few of them knew anything of the history of forestry in European countries, in some of which the policy of private owner- ship of timber lands had been tried and abandoned. It was the “mad theorists” who first urged the establishment of reserves; and, after the reserves had been established—by the President, not by Con- gress—some of the men in Congress began to understand the prin- ciples underlying the new policy. Probably at the present time a majority of them understand why timber land should be owned by the government, but that was not true twenty years ago. A second reason for the failure of Congress to adopt a more intel- CONCLUSION 371 ligent policy regarding the timber lands, is the inability of Congress to pursue an intelligent policy regarding anything. Congress is not usually interested in intelligent action, but is interested rather in trading votes, and talking to the “home folks” in anticipation of the next election. To what extent dishonesty and corruption have been responsible for the attitude of Congress, it is impossible to say. The writer has no disposition to attribute unworthy motives to most members of the national legislature, however unwise their course may now seem. Yet there is no doubt that if the whole story of forestry legislation could be told; if all the inner secrets of timber statesmen could be revealed ; if all the collusion and vote trading with the railroads and with other powerful interests could be brought to light, and all the lobbies and secret conventions and bribe funds and committee machi- nations could be exposed, it would make very interesting reading. This is true not of the Federal Congress alone, for in some of the states matters were worse. Politicians in Wisconsin still speak of the ‘saw log dynasty” which controlled the politics of the state for nearly a generation. Recently a student at the state university of one of the other Lake states wrote a thesis on the history of-the pine lands, which he did not dare publish because of the ight it threw on members of the state legislature. The history of the wild lands of Maine would doubtless make interesting reading if it could be written in full. It has been stated that large tracts of timber lands in Maine were ac- quired by men who held state offices at the time, and that the influence of this timber ownership extended even to some of. the members of the state supreme court; although the writer is unable to vouch for the latter statement.» New Hampshire and New York have no reason to be proud of their records in dealing with their timber lands; and this is true of most of the states which had any considerable areas of such lands. THE ETHICS OF TIMBER STEALING Perhaps it may be worth while to point out once more that it would be easy to exaggerate the moral turpitude involved in stealing timber. lands, or in passing a law to facilitate such stealing. Speculation and frauds have always characterized the frontier; and of course moral 1 New England Magazine, July, 1907, 515. 372 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY values have corresponded to the environment. The men who could seize the largest amount of natural resources and waste them most rapidly were not infrequently regarded as doing most for the “devel- opment of the West.” The writer recalls, in this connection, a con- versation he once had with the editor of a Portland (Washington) newspaper regarding the conviction of Senator Mitchell for com- plicity in land frauds. This editor admitted that Mitchell was guilty, but asserted that the prosecution of Mitchell for so common an offense was “the most brutal outrage ever perpetrated on a mortal man.” It will be remembered that Binger Hermann was elected to Congress less than a year after he had been dismissed from the Land Office. Underlying to some extent the exploitative attitude of the West was the idea that resources which could be appropriated, in some way pried loose from the public domain, belonged to the West; while those which remained under Federal control belonged to the East. This explains why many men who, from the point of view of straight-laced conservationists, should have been socially ostracized or put in prison, have been regarded as “leading citizens” in some of our western states. They have “led” merely in the work of appropriating Federal lands— “saving”’ it for the West. The West has always been too much saturated with the idea of rapid exploitation. The people saw the apparently unlimited lands and other resources awaiting development; and entered upon their task with the energy which has generally characterized the frontier. They were, as indeed they still are, “boosters” of the most enthu- siastic brand, partly because optimism was in the very air, and partly because many of them had appropriated some of the resources, and were engrossed in an effort to get more, not always with the intention of using them to establish homes, but rather in the hope of selling to someone else at a profit. That was one reason why they opposed any policy which seemed to discourage the coming of people from farther east. Another reason was of course that they realized, as business men generally do in all sections and in all countries, that a growing population increases the value of real estate and other limited natural resources, and so increases the wealth of those who “got there first.” Like business men everywhere, those who got there first were inclined CONCLUSION 373 to regard their own interests as identical with the interests of the people as a whole. The people of the West have not been alone in placing too great an emphasis on increasing population, growing cities, and rising real estate values; but they have represented the most extreme development of this commen error. The characteristics of many of the western people, as of the frontiersmen at all times, were such that they would not possibly have been friendly to the reservation policy at first. Their boundless opti- mism made them unreceptive to predictions of future danger, while a certain shortsightedness made them generally slow to consider any- thing but the very near future. Their individualism and dislike of restraint naturally made them hostile to the bureaucratic govern- “ment of the forest reserves; and the goodness or badness of that gov- ernment was not in their eyes an important matter. Many western people wanted to govern themselves; and a corrupt and inefficient government has not infrequently suited them quite as well as any other. Their lack of respect for experience, their deep-rooted dislike for experts and “theorists”—taking the form of a contempt for all special training or learning—would have made them hostile to the administration of the forest reserves, no matter how efficient and intelligent that administration might have been. The fact that, by the elimination of land stealing and other frauds, and by the avoid- ance of the wasteful destruction and blasted barrenness which goes with unregulated private exploitation, the reservation policy pre- sented certain ethical and aesthetic gains, would not have seemed very important to a people who pride themselves on being extremely *“practical’’—a people who really are practical and materialistic to the extent of overemphasizing the cash side of most social and eco- nomic questions. In further extenuation of the western attitude toward conservation, it must be granted that conservation has been something of a fad and a hobby with some of its advocates. Pinchot once stated that one of the beauties of “conservation” was that no one could say he was opposed to‘it. As President Taft once said: “The subject of conservation is rather abstruse, but there are a great many people in favor of conservation, no matter what it means.’” 2 Outlook, May 14, 1910, 57. 374 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY In the question of the conservation of any natural resource, there is usually a problem of balancing benefits against costs; but some advocates have been insistent on the conservation of all things, and almost regardless of cost. The Americans have been a wasteful and extravagant people in their use of all natural resources; but there are circumstances under which this wastefulness was not only in- evitable, but even wise. The people of America could not possibly have treated their forests with the same care that Europeans have shown, for there were too many forests and too few people. Just as it would be easy to judge too severely of the moral obli- quity involved in the attitude of the western timbermen and con- gressmen, so it would be possible to exaggerate the virtue involved in the efforts of the eastern men to conserve the public timber. In the early history of the country, the eastern men wanted to keep the public lands as a source of revenue, and in later times some of them desired to preserve the public timber in order that the whole country, but especially the East, might have a future supply of timber. The East was of course the section which would first feel the pinch of scarcity. As Representative Martin of Colorado once said: “I notice that the less public domain and the less natural resources a member has in his state, the more enthusiastic he is about conservation.” Perhaps there was. in the attitude of some of the eastern men an ele- ment of selfishness not altogether unlike that which characterized the West. This must not be construed as denying or belittling the truly unselfish and heroic work of many of the leaders in the conservation movement. It may be worth while to point out that the wasteful exploitation of the forests, unfortunate though it seems in many ways, provided consumers with very cheap lumber for the time being. In the seventies and eighties, the white pine of the Lake states was being cut with almost no regard for the future; but, while this meant scarcity and high prices in the future, it meant cheap lumber of the finest grade for some of the early settlers who were building homes on the prairies of the Middle West, many of whom suey had sufficient difficulty securing the comforts of life. 3 Cong. Rec., Apr. 7, 1910, 4376. CONCLUSION 375 WASTE AND THEFT OF OTHER RESOURCES Forests are not the only natural resource that has been stolen and pillaged and wasted in this country. All other natural resources have been treated in much the same way—coal, oil, gas, iron, copper, water power, and the tillable soil itself. Wherever a valuable resource is given away, or sold for far less than its real value, it is, as Professor Ely has said, merely “subsidizing the speculator, endowing monopoly, and pauperizing the people.” The anthracite monopoly of Pennsyl- vania controls one valuable resource, the Standard Oil Company con- trols the marketing of another; a few gas companies control what is left of our natural gas; and all these monopolies may be traced to the unwise policy which has been pursued by the Federal government, and by the states which had valuable resources under their control. Monopolies are not the only result of our unwise policy of alienation, however, nor even the worst result. The criminal and unnecessary waste with which some of our resources have been exploited is even more unfortunate. It has been estimated that we have wasted, ren- dered inaccessible, as much coal as we have taken out of the ground, and the waste of natural gas has been relatively even worse. It is true that some of this apparent waste has been unavoidable, in a country where labor is so expensive and resources so cheap; but if the reservation policy had been applied, not only to forest lands, but to all mineral deposits, some of this waste could have been elimi- nated. The Federal government, and those states which had valuable resources, should have alienated only one thing—the surface of the soil, of ordinary agricultural lands. The policy of reservation should have been applied to everything else, not only to forests and mineral resources, but, in some measure at least, to irrigation lands, swamp lands, and to arid grazing lands. This would have delayed exploita- tion or development, but it would in the long run have resulted in a saner and healthier development of the country. _ It may be noted that Congress recently took a very unwise step in dealing with the grazing lands, by passing the Stock Raising Homestead Act of 1916, which provides for the entry of grazing lands in tracts of 640 acres. The act has already resulted in the alienation of large areas of the public domai, largely to speculators, who take up land with the intention of selling later to cattle companies. It is 376 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY unlikely that many “homes” will ever be established under this act, and the government will lose control over one more resource.* A RATIONAL POLICY FOR THE FUTURE It is not yet too late to adopt a rational policy with regard to the remainder of these natural resources. The first step should be a care- ful classification of all public lands, and only such as are fit for agri- culture should be alienated. There are large areas of coal, oil, and phosphate lands in the West, some of them already withdrawn. All these should be permanently reserved, as far as the mineral deposits are concerned. Where the soil is fit for farming, it should be turned over to settlers, with a reservation to the government of everything below the surface.’ The Federal government should retain control of the swamp lands and irrigation lands which have not already been alienated. It has been demonstrated that irrigation is in some cases a work for the Federal government, and this is true also of drainage. The engineer- ing problems involved are often interstate in their scope, and entirely too large for individual enterprise. Furthermore, even if private individuals or corporations were financially strong enough to under- take large irrigation or drainage enterprises, it would not be wise to give them control over thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of acres of land occupied by tenants. Just how much control the Fed- eral government should retain over lands which have been irrigated or drained, is not a question for this treatise; but the work of getting the land ready for settlement is in many cases a work for the govern- ment, and probably it should always retain some control over such lands. If the need were for immediate development and exploitation of the resources of the public domain, there might be a question as to the wisdom of such sweeping application of the reservation policy; but the need is not for rapid settlement and rapid exploitation. Exploita- tion of our resources has proceeded with sufficient rapidity. The need is for greater sanity and intelligence and foresight than we have displayed in the past. The United States is gradually developing the 4 Stat. 39, 862. 5 Bul. 537, U. S. Geological Survey. CONCLUSION 377 knowledge and understanding necessary for an intelligent solution of her public land problems; and even if there were any doubt that the reservation policy will prove to be the ultimate solution, it has the supreme merit of postponing an irrevocable decision until a future time, when the nation is older and wiser. Lands which are reserved can be turned over to private ownership at any time. Lands which are once alienated are irrevocably beyond control, and beyond the reach of any wise and beneficent laws or policies that our developing intelligence may bring forth. Pinchot has put the problem clearly: “This nation has, on the continent of North America, three and a half million square miles. What shall we do with it? How can we make ourselves and our children happiest, most vigorous and efficient, and our civilization the highest and most influential, as we use that splen- did heritage? . . . Above all, let us have clearly in mind the great and fundamental fact that this nation will not end in the year 1950, or a hundred years after that, or five hundred years after that; that we are just beginning a national history the end of which we cannot see, since we are still young... . “On the way in which we decide to handle this great possession which has been given us, on the turning which we take now, hangs the welfare of those who are to come after us. Whatever success we may have in any other line of national endeavor, whether we regulate trusts properly, whether we control our great public service corporations as we should, whether capital and labor adjust their relations in the best manner or not—whatever we may do with all these and other such questions, behind and below them all is this fundamental problem, Are we going to protect our springs of prosperity, our sources of well-being, our raw material of industry and commerce, and employer of capital and labor combined; or are we going to dissipate them? According as we accept or ignore our responsibility as trustees of the nation’s welfare, our children and our children’s children for uncounted generations will call us blessed, or will lay their suffering at our doors.’ 6 Farmers’ Bul. 327. BIBLIOGRAPHY FEDERAL STATUTES, WITH REVISIONS, COMPILATIONS, AND DIGESTS United States Statutes at Large. (Stat.) Revised Statutes of 1878. Supplement to the Revised Statutes: Vol. 1, 1874-1891. Vol. 2, 1892-1901. LAW REPORTS Federal Reporter. (Fed. Rep.) 1880—. State Reports of the Various States. Supreme Court Reporter. (Sup. Ct. Rep.) United States Reports. (U. S.) PROCEEDI NiGrs IN CONGRESS Annals of Congress. 1789-1823. Congressional Debates. 1823-1837. Congressional Globe. 1833-1873. (Cong. Globe.) Congressional Record. 1873—. (Cong. Rec.) Congressional Directory. Published for each session of Congress, with frequent revisions. Document Catalogues, issued by the Superintendent of Documents at Washington. Also used Lists of Publications for Sale, issued by the Superintendent of Documents. Documents of the House and Senate. Executive and miscellaneous documents. (H. Doc., H. Ex. Doc., H. Mise. Doc.; S. Doc., S. Ex. Doc., S. Mise. Doc.) Journal of the House and of the Senate. Reports of the House and Senate Committees. (H. Rept. and S. Rept.) GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS Census of the United States. Since 1870 it contains figures regarding the lumber industry. Volume IX of The Tenth Census, 1880, deals entirely with the forest trees of North America, that volume being written by C. S. Sargent. Department of Agriculture, United States: Annual Reports. (Report, Dept. of Agr.) Yearbook. Department of the Interior, United States: Annual Reports of the Secretary. 1849—. (Report, Sec. of Int.) Circulars issued by the Secretary of the Interior from time to Hires relating to various public land laws. (Circ.) Decisions of the Secretary of the Interior Relating to Public ange 1881—. (Land Decisions.) BIBLIOGRAPHY 379 Forest Service, United States (In the Department of Agriculture) : Annual Reports of the Division of Forestry. 1886-1901. Annual Reports of the Forester, 1903—. Bulletins and Circulars. Use Book, Regulations and Instructions for the Use of the National Forests. Issued Annually. Land Office, Reports of the Commissioner (Report, Land Office) : 1825-1849, in reports of the Treasury Department. 1849—, in reports of the Secretary of the Interior. 1860—, also published separately. Message and Documents. A series of volumes issued by the Government at Wash- ington, containing the annual messages of the President and other documents, 1858-1901. Opinions of Attorney-General of the United States, 1852—. (Opinions, Atty.-Gen.) Donaldson, Thomas, The Public Domain, Its History, with Statistics. (H. Mise. Doc. 45; 47 Cong. 2 Sess.) Washington, 1884. (Donaldson, Public Domain.) Fox, William F., A History of the Lumber Industry in New York. U. S. Bureau of Forestry, Bulletin 34, 1902. General Public Acts of Congress Relating to the Sale and Disposition: of the Public Lands, with Instructions of the Secretary of the Treasury, and Com- missioner of the Land Office, etc. Two volumes. Washington, 1838. Geological Survey, United States. Twentieth Annual Report, 1898-1899. Part V on Forest Reserves. Hough, Franklin B., Report on Forestry, made in pursuance of the Act of Con- gress of August 15, 1876. Three volumes, published in 1877, 1878, and 1882 respectively. (Hough, Report on Forestry.) Laws of the United States, December 1, 1880. (H. Misc. Doc. ADS AY Cong. 2 Sess.) Laws, Treaties and Other Documents Having Operation and Respect to the Public Lands. Compiled 1811. Lumber Industry, The. Department of Commerce and Labor, Report of Com- missioner of Corporations. Washington, 1913, 1914. (Lumber Industry.) Pinchot, Gifford, A Primer of Forestry. U. S. Dept. of Agr., Division of Forestry, Bulletin 24. Preliminary Report of the Inland Waterways Commission. (S. Doc. 325; 60 Cong. 1 Sess.) Proceedings of a Conference of Governors, 1908. (H. Doc. 1425; 60 Cong. 2 Sess.) Public Timber Laws, Compilation of, with Regulations. Washington, 1903. Reform of the Land Laws. Extracts from recommendations of the President, the Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of the Land Office. (S. Doc. 283; 61 Cong. 2 Sess.). Report of the Public Lands Commission. Washington, 1905. (S. Doc. 189; 58 Cong. 3 Sess.) (Report, Public Lands Commission.) Report of the National Conservation Commission. (S. Doc. 676; 60 Cone: 2 Sess.) (Report, National Conservation Commission.) Reports of the National Forest Reservation Commission, 1911—. Annual Reports. Smith, George Otis, and Others, The Classification of the Public Lands. Geological Survey, Bulletin 537, 1913. Spalding, V. M., The White Pine. Revised and Enlarged by B. E. Fernow, as Bulletin 22 of the Division of Forestry, 1899. 380 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY FORESTRY PUBLICATIONS American Journal of Forestry. Cincinnati, Ohio, 1882-1883. American Forestry. Monthly Magazine of the American Forestry Association. Washington, 1910—. Ames Forester. Published annually by the Forestry Club of the Iowa State College. Ames, Iowa. Arboriculture. A magazine of the International Society of Arboriculture. Chicago, 1902-1907. Conservation. Washington, 1908, 1909. Forester, The. Published irregularly at Princeton, New Jersey. 1898-1901. Forestry and Irrigation. Published at Washington monthly, 1902-1908. Forest Leaves. Published bimonthly, by the Pennsylvania Forestry Association. Philadelphia, 1897—. Forestry Quarterly. Published by the New York State College of Forestry, 1902—. Garden and Forest. Edited by Chas. S. Sargent. 1888-1897, Harvard Forestry Club. Bulletins published at Cambridge, Mass. Society of American Foresters. Proceedings, 1905—. - STATE PUBLICATIONS Alabama: Department of Game and Fish. Biennial Reports, 1908—. State Commission on Forestry. Bulletins, 1908—. California: State Board of Forestry. Biennial Reports, 1887-1892. State Forester. Reports, 1905—. Colorado: State Forester. Biennial Reports, 1912, 1914. Connecticut: State Board of Agriculture. Annual Reports, 1876—. State Forester. Reports, 1901—. Hawaii: Board of Commissioners of Agriculture and Forestry. Reports, 1901—. Laws of the Hawaiian Islands Relating to Agriculture and Forestry. Hono- lulu, 1893. Indiana: Arbor and Bird Day Annual. 1902—. State Board of Forestry. Annual Reports, 1901—. Kansas: Commission of Forestry. Established 1887. Two Reports were issued. State Forester. Irregular Bulletins and Circulars since 1909. State Horticultural Society. Annual Reports, 1883—. Kentucky: State Forester. Biennial Report, 1913. Miscellaneous Reports issued by State Forester since 1912, and by State Bureau of Agriculture previous to 1912. Louisiana: Conservation Commission. Report, 1914. BIBLIOGRAPHY 381 Maine: Forest Commissioner. Biennial Reports, 1902—. Maryland: State Board of Forestry. Reports, 1907—. Massachusetts: Forestry Association. Annual Reports, 1898—. State Forester. Annual Reports, 1904—. State Forest Commission. Annual Report, 1914. Michigan: Commissioner of the Land Office. Annual Reports, 1842—. Forestry Commission of 1887 and 1888. Report. Forestry Commission. Annual Reports, 1905-1909. Game, Fish and Forestry Department. Annual Reports. Public Domain Commission. Annual Reports, 1909—. Report of Special Committee of 1867. (Mich. House Doc. 6, 1867.) Report of the Commission of Inquiry in 1908. Minnesota: Fire Warden. Annual Reports, 1895-1904. Forestry Commissioner. Annual Reports, 1904—. Montana: Register of State Lands. Biennial Reports, 1892-1909. State Forester. Biennial Reports, 1910—. New Hampshire: Forestry Commission. Biennial Reports, 1895-1896. Reports of Forestry Commissions of 1881, 1883, 1889, and 1893. (A Report issued in 1885 is especially valuable.) New Jersey: Forest Park Reservation Commission. Annual Reports, 1905—. State Geologist. Annual Report, 1899. New York: Arbor Day Annual. 1906—. Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 370. Forest Commission. Annual Reports, 1888-1894. Forest, Fish and Game Commission. Annual Reports, 1904—. Forest Preserve Board. Annual Reports, 1898, 1899. Forestry Commission. Special Report on Legislation, 1888. Special Forestry Commission. 1885, Report. State College of Forestry. Annual Reports of the Director, 1899—. North Carolina: Geological and Economic Survey. Economic Papers, issued from time to time since 1909. State Geologist. Biennial Reports. Ohio: Agricultural Experiment Station. Annual Reports, 1906—. State Forestry Bureau. Annual Reports, 1885-1890. Oregon: State Board of Forestry. Annual Reports, 1907—. 382 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY Pennsylvania: Commissioner of Forestry. Preliminary Report, 1896. Commissioner of Forestry. Report, 1897. Department of Forestry. Biennial Reports, 1901-1902. Forestry Commission. Report of 1895. South Dakota: Commissioner of School and Public Lands, Thirteenth Biennial Report. Tennessee: Department of Forestry, Fish and Game. Reports, 1903-1915. Vermont: State Forester. Annual Reports, 1909—. Virginia: State Forester. Forestry Leaflet No. 1, 1915. Washington: State Forester and Fire Warden. Annual Reports, 1905-1912. State Forester. Report, 1914. West Virginia: Forest, Game and Fish Warden. Biennial Reports, 1909-1910—. Wisconsin: Arbor Day Annual, 1906—. Report on the Disastrous Effects of the Destruction of Forest Trees, 1867. State Forester. Biennial Reports, 1903—. MISCELLANEOUS American Forestry Congress, Proceedings, 1882-1886, 1905. American Forestry Association, Proceedings, 1890-1897. American Lumbermen. Biographical Sketches. Chicago, 1906. American Lumberman, The Curiosity Shop, er Questions and Answers Concerning the Lumber Business. Chicago, 1906. Barret, J. O., The Forest Tree Planter’s Manual. Minneapolis, 1894. Brief on Behalf of the National Lumber Manufacturers’ Association, before the Federal Trade Commission, January, May, and July, 1916. Brown, D. J., The Sylva Americana. Boston, 1832. The Trees of America. New York, 1846. Brown, John P., Practical Arboriculture. Connersville, Indiana, 1906. Bruncken, Ernest, North American Forests and Forestry. New York, 1900. Canada, Convention Forestiére Canadienne, 1906, 1908. Report of the Commission of Conservation on Forest Protection in Canada, 1912. ; Chautauquan. June, 1909 (55:21). A special number devoted to conservation. Compton, Organization of the Lumber Industry. Chicago, 1916. Copp, Henry N., The American Settlers’ Guide. Washington, 1880. Coultas, Harland, What May be Learned from a Tree. New York, 1860. Defebaugh, James E., History of the Lumber Industry in America. Chicago, 1906. Dorrien, S. V., Forests.and Forestry. 1879. Protection of Forests a Necessity, 1879. Emerson, George B., A Report on the Trees and Shrubs Naturally Growing in the Forests of Massachusetts. Boston, 1846. BIBLIOGRAPHY 383 Fernow, B. E., A Brief History of Forestry. Toronto, 1907. Economics of Forestry. New York, 1902. Ford, Amelia, Colonial Precedents of our National Land System. Madison, Wis- consin, 1908. i Greeley, W. B., Some Public and Economic Aspects of the Lumber Industry; Dept. of Agr., Report No. 114. Gifford, John, Practical Forestry. New York, 1902." Green, Samuel B., Forestry in Minnesota. St. Paul, 1902. Principles of American Forestry. New York, 1907. Haney, Lewis H., A Congressional History of Railways in the United States to 1850. Madison, Wisconsin, 1906. A Congressional History of Railways in the United States, 1850-1887. Madi- son, 1910. Hart, A. B., The Disposition of our Public Lands. Quarterly Journal of Eco- nomics, January, 1887, 169. ' Hill, Robert T., The Public Domain and Democracy. Columbia University Studies. New York, 1910. Hodges, Leonard B., Practical Suggestions on Forest Tree Planting in Minnesota. St. Paul, 1874. Hotchkiss, George W., History of the Lumber and Forest Industry of the North- west. Chicago, 1898. Hough, F. B., The Elements of Forestry. Cincinnati, 1882. Japan, Forestry of. Bureau of Forestry, Department of Agriculture and Com- _merce. Tokyo, 1910. Kinney, Forest Law in America. New York, 1917. Forest Legislation in America Prior to March 4, 1789. __ — Bulletin 370, Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station. Knight, George W., History and Management of Land Grants for Education in the Northwest Territory. American Historical Association, Vol. I, No. 3. New York, 1885. Lake States Forest Fire Conference. St. Paul, 1910. Library of Entertaining Knowledge; Volume on Vegetable Substances. Boston, 1830. Little, James, The Timber Supply Question of Canada and the United States. Montreal, 1876. Marsh, George P., Man and Nature. New York, 1868. Michaux, F. Andrew, The North American Sylva. Three volumes. Paris, 1819. National Conservation Congress, Addresses and Proceedings. Published annually, 1909, 1910, 1911. Northup, B. G., Economic Tree Planting. New York, 1878. Nuttal, Thomas, The North American Sylva. Philadelphia, 1857. Orfield, M. N., Federal Land Grants to the States, with Special Reference to Minnesota. University of Minnesota, Studies in the Social Sciences, No. 2, 1915. Peaslee, John B., Trees and Tree Planting. Published by the Ohio State Forestry Association. Cincinnati, 1884. Palmer, Swamp Land Drainage, with Special Reference to Minnesota. University of Minnesota, Studies in the Social Sciences, No. 5, 1915. Phipps, R. W., Report on the Necessity of Preserving and Replanting Forests. Toronto, 1883. 384 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY Piper, R. U., The Trees of America. Published in several installments. Boston, 1855-1858. , Pinchot, Gifford, Biltmore Forest. Chicago, 1893. Forest Destruction. Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institute, 1901. The Fight for Conservation. New York, 1910. Price, Overton W., The Land We Live in. Boston, 1911. Proceedings of he American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1873, 1874, and 1878. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the National Lumber Manufacturers’ Association, 1903—. Puter, S. A. D., and Stevens, Horace, Looters of the Public Domain. Portland, Oregon, 1908. Roth, Filibert, First Book of Forestry. Boston and London, 1902. Forestry Conditions of Northern Wisconsin. Wisconsin Geological and Nat- ural History Survey. Bulletin 1, 1898. Sanborn, John Bell, Congressional Grants of Land in Aid of Railways. Madison, » Wisconsin, 1899. Sato, Shosuke, History of the Land Question in the United States. Johns Hopkins University Studies. Baltimore, 1886. Shimek, Bohumil, The Pioneer and the Forest. Proceedings of the Mississippi Valley Historical Association for 1909-1910. Volume 3. Shinn, Charles H., Land Laws of Mining Districts. Johns Hopkins University Studies. Baltimore, 1884. Treat, Payson, The National Land System, 1785-1820. New York, 1910. Turner, Frederick J., Contribution of the West to American Democracy. Atlantic Monthly, January, 1903. Dominant Forces in Western Life. Atlantic Monthly, April, 1897. The Middle West. International Monthly, December, 1901. The Ohio Valley in American History. History Teachers’ Magazine, March, 1911. The Old West. Proceedings of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1908. The Problem of the West. Atlantic Monthly, September, 1896. The Significance of the Frontier in American History. In the Report of the American Historical Association for 1893. Social Forces in American History. American Historical Review, January, 1911. Van Hise, Charles, The Conservation of Natural Resources in the United States. Victor, Frances F., Our Public Land System, and its Relation to Education in the United States. Quarterly of the Oregon Historical Society, Vol. I, 1900. Walker, Francis A., United States Census, 1880. Vol. III. Warder, John A., Report on Forests and Forestry, 1875. Warren, The Pioneer Woodsman as he is Related to Lumbering in the Northwest. Whitford, Harry N., The Forests of the Flathead Valley, Montana. University of Chicago, 1905. LUMBERMEN’S JOURNALS American Lumberman. Chicago, Illinois, January 1, 1899—. Formed by consolida- tion of Northwestern Lumberman and the Timberman. Canada Lumberman and Woodworker. Toronto, Canada, 1880—. BIBLIOGRAPHY 385 Hardwood Record. Chicago, Illinois. 1895—. Lumberman’s Review. New York. 1892—. Lumber Review: Title:-—Radford Review. Chicago. 1893-1902. Continued as Lumber Review, Chicago and Kansas City, March, 1902-1912; Continued as Lumber World Review. Chicago, March, 1912—. Lumber Trade Journal. New Orleans. 1882—. Mississippi Valley Lumberman. Minneapolis, Minnesota. 1876—. New York Lumber Trade Journal. New York. 1886—. Northwestern Lumberman. Chicago: Title:—Michigan Lumberman. February, 1873, to January, 1874; Northwestern Lumberman, February, 1874, to 1898; United with the Timberman to form American Lumberman, January, 1899. Pacific Lumber Trade Journal. Seattle. 1895-1913. Merged into West Coast Lumberman, October 1, 1913. Pennsylvania Lumberman. Scranton, Pennsylvania. 1903—. Pioneer Western Lumberman. San Francisco. 1884—. Title:—Wood and Iron, 1885 to 1888; Pacific Coast Wood and Iron, 1889 to 1909 (?) ; Pioneer Western Lumberman, 1911 (?). St. Louis Lumberman. St. Louis. January, 1888—. Schuster’s Yellow Pine Lumber Rate Book. Eastern Ed., St. Louis, 1896—. Southern Industrial and Lumber Review. Houston, Texas. 1893—. Southern Lumber Journal. Wilmington, North Carolina. 1898—. Southern Lumberman. Nashville, Tennessee. 1881—. Timberman. Portland, Oregon. 1899—. West Coast Lumberman, Tacoma and Seattle. 1889—. Succeeded the Pacific Lumber Trade Journal. Aare eee aps ye py ee Ape Pave LAN! Cat: By es Pay ea ay Wh tears t ) ‘ INDEX © eee Advertising by the Forest Service, 285, 287, 288 Advice to private timber owners, 154, 299, 300, 301 Agricultural college scrip, 48 Agricultural lands, inclusion in forest reserves, 164-168, 255-261; in the Southern Pacific grant, 250, 251 Alaska, game in, 304; homestead law in, 180 Alaska forests, attacks upon, 205 Alien government, opposition to, 282 Allen, Senator, 131 Allison, Senator, 136, 139, 181 Amalgamated Copper Company, 320 American Association for the Advance- ment of Science, 34, 35, 42 American Forestry Association, 95, 120 American Forestry Congress, 95 Ammons, E. M., 282, 289 Andrews, C. C., 32 Anti-conservation activity, 67, 68, 77, 78, 88, 89, 130, 136, 164-205, 228, 229, 933, 234, 241, 242, 256-258, 289-290 Anti-trust activity of the government, 339, 347 Appalachian Meuntains, serves in, Ch. Vi Appropriations for forest protection, Al, 100, 107, 141, 154, 155, 158, 159, 943 Arbor day, 29, 30, 95, 146, 147 Arid lands, trees for, 310 Arizona, forest reserves in, 179; lieu selections in, 182, 183; timber lands in, 54 Arkansas, timber lands in, 54 Attacks on the forest reserves, 130-141, 193, 194, 196-199, 201 et seq., 289, 290, 297 Austin, Representative, 211 Averill, Representative, 60 forest re- Bailey, Representative and Senator, 201, 208, 244, 298 Ballinger-Pinchot controversy, 150, 201- 205, 295 Bartholdt, Representative, 36 Beck, Senator, 104-106 Bell, Representative, 125, 138, 242 Bennett, G. G., Representative, 89 Bennett, Representative from New York, 205, 285 Benson, John A., 186, 187 Berry, Senator, 101 Beveridge, Senator, 196, 198, 208 Bliss, C. N., Secretary, 176, 197, 198, 296, 231 n., 240 Boles, Representative, 50: Bonynge, Representative, 174 Booher, Representative, 201, 256 Borah, Senator, 201, 205, 210, 255, 257, 273, 294, 298 = Boutwell, Senator, 52, 53, 60, 112 Bowers, E. A., 95, 111 Bowers, Representative, 130 Bradley, Representative, 211 Brandegee, Senator, 209, 210 British forest policy, early, 19, 20 Brown, Senator, 43, 51 Browne, Representative, 78 Brownlow, Representative, 209, 211 Bryan, Representative, 204, 294 Burdett, Commissioner, 58 Bureau of Corporations, Report on the Lumber Industry, 315, 316 Bureau of forestry, 155 Burned timber, sale of, 236, 237 Burton, J. R., Senator, 208, 209 Burton, Theodore, Senator, 219 Butterworth, Representative, 112 California, forests in, 54; early forestry legislation in, 34; frauds in, 47, 74, 224, 320; interest in forestry, 97; not . Canadian 388 hostile to reserves, 295; timber owner-.: ship in, 319, 331 Cameron, Senator, 112 Caminetti, Representative, 122 Canada, early interest in conservation, 20, 96, 97; forest policy, 59; migration to, 255 Conservation Commission, 152 Cannon, Joseph, Representative, 138, 156, 181, 210, 211, 218 Cannon, Senator, 140 Carnegie, 151 Carter, Senator, 131, 159, 173, 174, 197, 199, 201, 210, 233, 271 Castle, Representative, 137 Chaffee, Delegate and Senator, 57 Clark, Senator, 131, 133, 159, 174, 210, 219, 231 Clark, Representative, 205 Clayton, Senator, 50 Clayton bill, 50-53 Cleveland, President, 64, 87, 106, 120, 121, 129, 132, 137, 184, 228 Climate, forests and, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 93, 109 n., 310, 311 Clunie, Representative, 114 Coal claims in Alaska, 150, 202, 206 Coal, conservation of, 149, 375, 376 Coal lands, withdrawal of, 270, 271 Cockrell, Senator, 181 Cocks, Representative, 275 Coffeen, Representative, 123, 125, 242 Cole, Senator, 43. Colonial timber regulations, 20, 21 Colorado, early forest legislation in, 34; forests of, 54, 65; frauds in, 81; hos- tile to reserves, 295; interest in for- ests, 97; reserves in, 120 Competition among lumbermen, 345 Competition of woods and substitute materials, 344, 345 Concentration in the ownership of tim- ber, Ch. XI Conference of Governors, 151 Conger, Representative, 89 Congress, and conservation, 40, 88, 90, 100, 102, 105, 108, 114, 116-118, 182, 208, 227-229, 240, 242, 243, 249-952; INDEX oy and the National Conservation Com- mission, 153; incapacity of, 297, 370, 371 Connecticut, forest legislation in, 34; state forest reserves in, 145 Conness, Senator, 60 Conservation, as an issue, 39; cost of, 280; meaning of, 373, 374 Conservation movement, 39, 149, 369 Conspiracy to defraud, difficulty of proving, 245 Converse, Representative, 89, 112 Cost of buying timber lands, 216 Cost of national forest management, 984, Crumpacker, Representative, 216 Cummins, Representative, 257 Currier, Representative, 209, 210 Curtailment campaigns among lumber- men, 350-353 Cypress, ownership of, 322 Delano, Secretary, 59 Denby, Representative, 248 Dendrological investigations, 308 Depew, Senator, 163, 208 Desert Land Act, 49, 99 Destruction of timber, 26, 65, 81, 82, 84, 185, 238, 239 Deuster, Representative, 112 Development of the West, interference with, 131, 135, 136, 166, 254, 255 Dies, Representative, 256 Discrimination against the West, 135, 136, 262, 271, 272 Division of Forestry, 155 Dixon, Representative, 168 Dolliver, Senator, 196, 198, 275 Dolph, Senator, 78 Donaldson, “Public Domain,” 98, 99 Doolittle, Representative, 123, 184 Dovener, Representative, 211 Drummond, Commissioner, 32, 44 Dubois, Senator, 194, 195, 199, 231, 294. Dunnell, Representative, 42, 44, 60, 77,. 89, 117 Early conservation sentiment, 26-31 Early settlers and the forests, 19 Eastman, Representative, 41 INDEX Edmunds, Senator, 51, 68, 69, 104, 105, 112, 113, 114 Education in forestry, 147 Education, land grants for, 47, 48, 330 Educative work of the Forest Service, 288, 299-302 Elkins, Senator, 211 Ely, R. T., Professor, 375 Englebright, Senator, 201, 274 Erosion and forest conservation, 138, 151, 159, 212, 214 Extravagance of Forest Service, alleged, 201, 205, 284-292 Fall, Senator, 298 Fernow, B. E., 94, 95, 109n., 111, 122, 142, 369, 370 Fitzgerald, Representative, 985 Flint, Senator, 199, 265 Floods, forest preservation and, 215 Florida, early reserves in, 23, 24; for- ests of, 24, 46, 54; swamp lands in, 46; timber ownership in, 322, 330 Floyd, Representative, 201 Foraker, Senator, 248 Fordney, Representative, 156, 181, 248 ‘Forest conservation and irrigation, 138, 151, 159 Forest fires, 169; early laws against, 21; improvement in laws, 161, 162; need of legislation, 91; protection against, 221, 302; state appropria- tions, 147; state laws, 97 Forest Lieu Act, 139, 140, 176-190, 292, 331 Forest products, investigations in, 311- 314 Forest Reserve Act, 109-118; partial repeal of, 196-201 Forest reserves, creation of, 120, 129, 161, 191, 200; early advocates of, 110; first bill for creation of, 45 Forest Service, criticism of, Ch. 1X Forest Service, work of, Ch. X Forestation, work in, 309, 310. Timber Culture Act Forestry associations, 34, 95, 148 Forestry journals, 95, 148 Fort, Representative, 45 197, 256, See 389 Francis, Secretary, 130 Frauds, 47, 81, 320; encouragement to, 101, 102; need of a law punishing, 245; under the Forest Lieu Act, 179, 185-190; under the Free Timber Act, 65, 66, 238, 239; under the mining laws, 265, 266; under the Timber and Stone Act, 74-77, 165n., 224-296 Free timber, 133, 141, 159 Free Timber acts, 55-58, 62, 65-69, 238- 943 French, Representative, 167 Fulton, Senator, 159, 188, 189, 190, 197, 199, 210, 241, 249 Future, a rational policy for the, 376, 377 Gallinger, Senator, 209-211, 213, 214, 948, 257 Game protection, 302-305; opposition to, 134, 272, 273 Garfielde, Delegate, 60 Gibbs, Wolcott, 129 Gibson, Senator, 230 Gillett, Representative, 213 Glavis, 202, 203 n. Gorman, Senator, 133, 136, 139 Government ownership of standing tim- ber necessary, 366, 367 Government regulation of prices, 363-366 Graves, Forester, 277, 286, 295 Gray, Senator, 134, 136 Grazing fees, should be increased, 291, 292 Grazing in forest reserves, 121, 130, 157, 159, 160, 167-174, 193, 262-264 Grazing interests, assistance to, 305, 306, 308 Greeley report on the lumber industry, 300 Guernsey, Representative, 211 lumber Haldeman, Representative, 42 Hale, Senator, 153, 181, 201 Hamilton, Representative, 205, 285 Hansbrough, Senator, 163, 230 “Hardships of the settlers,” 69, 89, 132, 136, 165, 197, 233, 234, 260 Harris, Senator, 43 390 Harrison, President, 69, 92, 114, 120, Q41 Hartman, Representative, 124, 125, 137 Hatch, Representative, 112, 113 Haugen, Representative, 205, 285 Hawley, Senator, 104, 105, 136 Hawley, Representative, 201, 256, 275, QT Hayes, President, 38 Hazelton, Representative, 89 Health, forests and, 30, 93, 94 Heitfeld, Senator, 173, 194 Hemenway, Senator, 159, 160 Heney, IF. J., 187 Herbert, Representative, 89 Hermann, Binger, 123, 124, 178, 182, 182 n., 186-189, 229, 372 Herndon, Representative, 42 Hewitt, Representative, 50 Heyburn, Senator, 159, 172, 182, 194, 196, 199, 201, 210, 234, 235, 256, 257, 960, 272, 276-278, 285, 289, 292-296, 298 Hill, J. J., 151, 289, 298 Hitchcock, Secretary, 66n., 157, 171, 178, 183, 191, 197, 198, 226, 229, 232 n., 933, 234, 242 Hitchcock, Senator, 43 Hitchcock, Representative, 274 Holman, Representative, 51, 52, 67, 73, 78, 113, 116, 122 Homestead Act, Commutation, 48, 56; frauds under, 80; amendment, 99 Hostility to national forests in recent " years, Ch. VIII, Ch. IX Hough, F. B., 30, 34; “Report on For- estry,’ 43, 95, 97 Houk, Representative, 241 Howe, Senator, 53 Hubbard, Representative, 211 Hull, Representative, 89 Humphrey, Representative, 201, 203, 204, 205, 277, 279, 289, 292, 293, 294 Hyde, F. A., frauds, 186, 187 181, Idaho, timber land frauds, 84, 259; tim- ber ownership in, 320; timber pur- chase in, 367 Indian lands, forests on, 78 n., 106, 112 Indiana, state forest reserves in, 144 INDEX : Inefficiency of early forest administra- tion, 190 Ingalls, Senator, 51, 104 Inland Waterways Commission, 151 “Insolvency” of the reserves, 284-292 Instability of the lumber market, 354, 355 Investigations in forestry, 42, 108 Investigative work of the Forest Ser- vice, 307-314 Irrigation, and forest conservation, 138, 151, 159 Jenkins, Representative, 242, 248 Johnson, Representative, of California, 57 Johnson, Representative, of Washing- ton, 202, 205, 260, 277, 290 Jones, Senator, 50 Jones, Representative, 156, 182, 193 Joseph, Representative, 113 Keifer, Representative, 248, 274 Kelley, Representative, 60 Ketchem, Representative, 89 Kirkwood, Secretary, 66 Knowles, Representative, 137 Lacey bill, the, 166-168 Lacey, Representative, 131, 138, 163, 172, 298, 229, 233 Lafferty, Representative, 298 Lake states, timber ownership in, 318, 319, 322-324, 329, 331; timber pro- tection in, 41 Lamar, Secretary, 64, 87, 110 Lamar, Representative, 211 Lamb, Representative, 275 Lamoreux, Commissioner, 120, 121, 228 Large timber holders, Ch. XI; factors augmenting power of, 324-327 Lever, Representative, 210 Lindbergh, Representative, 211 Little, Representative, 244 Lodge, Senator, 159, 160 Louisiana, timber lands in, 54; timber ownership in, 322, 329; timber steal- ing in, 82 Lumber market, instability of, 354, 355 INDEX Lumber prices, government regulation, 363-366 Lumbermen’s associations, 335 et seq. McFarland, Commissioner, 87, 93, 110 McKenzie, Representative, 89 McKinley, President, 132, 161, 184, 208 McLaughlin, Representative, 279 McMillan, Senator, 108 McRae, 74, 117, 122, 126, 138, 181, 228, 282 McRae bill, the 122-128 Maginnis, Representative, 57, 60 Mann, Representative, 159, 160, 205, 274 Mantle, Senator, 131 Markham, Representative, 113 Martin, E. W., Representative, 167, 171, 256, 261 Martin, J. A., Representative, 201, 261, 267, 271, 272, 274, 275 Maryland, state forest reserves in, 144 Massachusetts, state forest reserves in, 144 Michigan, early conservation sentiment, 29, 33, 46; forests in, 29, 33; state for- est reserves in, 145; swamp land grants in, 330; timber stealing in, 81 Military bounties, 49 Miller, Senator, 112 Mining in the forest reserves, 125, 126, 127, 130, 133, 137, 138, 264-266 Minnesota, state forest reserves in, 144, 145; frauds in, 80; railroad grants in, 54 Mississippi, timber lands in, 54; timber stealing in, 82 Mitchell, Senator, 104, 187-189, 241, 372 Mondell, Representative, 156, 157, 167, 174, 181, 182, 196, 197, 201, 237, 256, 261-263, 275, 282, 285, 294, 296, 298 Money, Senator, 275 Monopoly, alleged lumber, 334 Monopoly, possibility of a future lum- ber, 353 Montana, timber stealing in, 82, 84 Moody, Representative, 181, 209, 241 Moore, Representative, 205 Mormon church and forestry, 296 Morse, Representative, 274 Morton, Governor, 30 391 Mt. Ranier National Park, 183, 184, 292, 332 Municipal forest reserves, 145 Murdock, Representative, 204 National Conservation Association, 153 National Conservation Commission, 152, 997 National forests, safety of, 296-298 National Lumber Manufacturers’ Asso- ciation, 336 National parks and forest reserves, should be under same _ jurisdiction, 304 Naval reserves, 22-25 Navigability of rivers, and forest con- servation, 212-214 Nelson, Senator, 153, 196, 236, 242, 257 Nevada, timber stealing in, 82 New Hampshire, state forest reserve in, 145; frauds in, 371 New Jersey, state forest reserve in, 145 New Mexico, timber lands in, 54; timber stealing in, 82 New York, conservation activity, 29, 33, 96, 97, 144; state forest reserves in, 111, 144; frauds in, 82, 371 Newlands, Senator, 154, 195, 199, 216, 931, 235 Noble, Secretary, 88, 111, 115, 120 North American Conservation Confer- ence, 152 Northern Pacific Railroad, 178n., 252, 253; lieu selections by, 184, 185; tim- ber holdings of, 317-322, 328, 331; trespass by, 84, 85, 89 Oglesby, Senator, 51 Oil, conservation of, 149 Oil lands, withdrawal of, 271 | Open price associations among lumber- men, 340, 350 Oregon, forests of, 110, 318, 319; for- feiture of railroad lands in, 246-252; hostile to reserves, 295; timber land frauds, 185-190; timber purchase in, 367 Oregon & California Railroad grant, 246, 247 392 Otis, Representative, 130 Overman, Senator, 209 Pacheco, Representative, 60 Pacific Northwest, timber ownership in, 318-324, 328, 329 Paddock, Senator, 92, 122 Page, Representative, 57, 60 Patterson, Senator and Representative, 57, 60, 80, 159, 197 Payne, Representative, 274 Payson, Representative, 78, 116 Pearson, Representative, 209 Penn, William, interest in forestry, 21 Pennsylvania, state forest reserves in, 144 Perjury, difficulty of punishing, 245 Perkins, Senator, 199 Perkins, Representative, 285 Permit Act, 239, 241, 242 Pettigrew, Senator, 108, 115, 116, 132, 133, 139, 140, 173, 180, 185 Pickler, Representative, 116, 123 Pinchot, Gifford, 122, 129, 141, 143, 149, 150, 153, 156, 158, 161,°172, 174, 175, 194, 196, 201-205, 227, 232 n., 254, 270, 282, 284, 288, 293, 295, 367, 370, 373, 377, 378 Platt, Senator, 173 Plumb, Senator, 92, 110, 115, 116 Poehler, Representative, 89 Political party platforms, 149 Pollard, Representative, 210 Pools in the lumber industry, 340 Portland, Astoria & McMinville Rail- road, 249 Posterity, objection to saving for, 53, O71 Power, Representative, 229 Pray, Representative, 237 Predatory animals in forest reserves, 306 Preémption Act, 48, 56, 79, 99 “Press bureau” of the Forest Service, the, 287, 288 Price regulation, government, 363-366 Prices, efforts by lumbermen to fix, 338- 350 Pritchard, Senator, 208 INDEX ay Private ownership of standing timber, cost of, 357-359 Private timber owners, advice and as- sistance to, 154, 299-302 Profits of lumbermen, 354, 364 Profits of timber owners, 355, 358 Progressive party, 149, 201-205 Protection of forests, act of 1897, 133, 141; appropriations for, 41, 100, 107, 141, 154, 155, 158, 159, 243; difficulties in the way of, 84, 85, 90, 91; need of, 119-122; under Secretary Schurz, 40, 86 Public Lands Commission of 1880, 98, 99 Public Lands Commission of 1903, 150, 297, 264 Public Lands Convention at Denver, 174, 175 Public sale, 49, 56, 58, 59, 72, 99, 331 Puter, S. A. D., 187, 225 Quarles, Senator, 229 Quay, Senator, 69 Railroad Indemnity Act, 54, 55, 86 Railroad land grants, 53-55, 102, 104- 106, 246, 253, 327-330 Railroads, tree planting by, 30, 37, 38, 149 Railroads, trespass by, 83 Range lands, conservation of, 149, 308 Ranger stations, objection to, 260, 261 Rawlins, Senator and Representative, 124, 125, 134, 140, 158, 173 Receipts from national forests, 284 Recreational uses of the national for- ests, 305 Redwood lands, 319, 320 Reeder, Representative, 236 Reforestation, 309, 310, 361 Remedies for present situation in the lumber industry, 362 Republican party, hostile to reserves, 201-205 Resources, withdrawal = other than timber, 270 Retailers of lumber, price activities among, 342 INDEX Richards, Commissioner, 150, 245 Road and school fund, from national forests, 273-276, 297, 298 Roads in national forests, 276, 278, 279 Robinson, Representative, 90, 237 Roosevelt, President, 147, 150-152, 156, 161, 172, 175, 188n., 191, 194, 200, 201, 205, 227, 234-236, 270, 303, 369, 370 Ross, Senator, 43 Rucker, A. W., Representative, 201, 256, 962, 275 Rucker, W. W., Representative, 215 Ryan, Representative, 89 Sale of lands, 49-53, 58, 59, 99, 101, 331 San Francisco Mountains serve, 179, 182, 183, 198 Sanders, Senator, 68-70 Sapp, Representative, 89 Sargent, Charles S., 108, 122 Sargent, Representative and Senator, 57, 60, 97, 108, 121, 129 Sayers, Representative, 139 Sayler, Representative, 60 Schools of forestry, 147, 148; efforts to secure land grants for, 108 Schurz, Secretary, 40, 64, 66, 76, 86, 89, 91, 93, 98, 100, 112, 369, 370 Scott, Representative, 210, 212, 218, 274, 975 Scrip, land, 49, 56 Senate, hostility to conservation, 137, 138, 141, 158, 197, 257, 258 Settlers in the national forests, value of, 980, 281 Shafroth, Representative and Senator, 156, 174 Sheep, grazing of, 168-175, 263 Sherman, Senator, 112, 113, 114 Ship timber, conservation of, 20 Shoup, Senator, 140, 173 Sibley, Representative, 41 Silvicultural investigations, 308-311 Simon, Senator, 241 Simpson, Representative, 123, 124 Sinnot, Representative, 251 Size of holdings and relative values, 324-326 Forest Re- 393 Slater, Representative, 60 Smith, E. D., Senator, 215 Smith, Hoke, Secretary, 121, 128, 228 Smith, M. A., Senator, 167, 173, 241- Smith, S. C., Representative, 167, 197 Smith, W. I., Representative, 248 Smoot, Senator, 195, 199, 235, 255, 265, 294, 296 South, abolition of private sale in, 101; sale of lands in, 49, 50, 51-53 South Dakota, state forest reserves in, 145 Southern Pacific Railway, forfeiture of land grant, 246-252; timber holdings, 317-321, 328 Southern pine region, timber ownership in, 318, 323, 324, 331 Sparks, Commissioner, 72, 74, 87, 88, 110, 111 Speculation in timber lands, 332, 333, 355-357 Spooner, Senator, 69, 199, 208 Squire, Senator, 241 Stanley, Representative, 274 Starvation of animals on public ranges, 307 State conservation activity, 33, 34, 96, 97, 144-147 State conservation commissions, 152 State forest. reserves, 29, 111, 144, 145, 216 State grants for education, 47, 48, 330 State land grants for forestry purposes, 246 State lands in the national forests, 281, 282 State timber culture laws, 37, 146 Stealing of timber, ethics of, 79, 371- 374 Steele, Representative, 89 Steenerson, Representative, 205, 285 Stephens, Representative, 211 Stewart, Senator, 180 Stockmen, attitude of, 263, 264 Stone, Representative and Senator, 139, 205, 285 Streamflow, influence of forests on, 212- 214, 310, 311 Sulzer, Representative, 275 394 Summer homes in the national forests, 305 Summer resorts in Appalachian Moun- tains, 213 Swamp land grants, 46, 330 Taft, President, 153, 201-205, 217, 227, 236, 240, 242, 270, 373 Tariff on lumber, 93, 94 Tawney, Representative, 153, 159, 196, 197, 274, 285 Taxation of forest lands, 146, 279 Taxing power, loss of, 273-281 Taylor, E. B., Representative, 113, 114 Taylor, E. T., Representative, 174, 262, 968, 272, 275 Teller, Secretary and Senator, 63, 64, 66, 67, 83, 86, 110, 127, 163, 173, 210, 947, 248, QT1 Tillman, Senator, 247, 248 Timber, amount of standing, in each state, 318 n. Timber and materials for railroad con- struction, 55 Timber and Stone Act, 58-60, 70-78, 87, 294-936, 259, 332 Timber bonds, 357 Timber culture, 35-37, 154, 310 Timber Culture Act, 43, 99 Timber sale policy of the Forest Ser- vice, 289 Timber thieves, the “bill to license,” 88- 90 Tongue, Representative, 181 Townsend, Representative, 122 Transfer of forest reserves to Depart- ment of Agriculture, 155-158 Trespass, timber, 23, 24, 41, 64, 71, 81, 82, 83, 88, 119, 243, 244 Trespassers, authority to arrest, 162, 163 Turner, Senator, 134 Turpentine, boxing of trees for, 245; distillers, trespass by, 83 Utah, not hostile to forest reserves, 295; timber lands in, 54 Van Hise, Charles, Dr., 153, 363, 364 Vance, Senator, 105 INDEX p Vermont, state forest. reserves in, 145 Vilas, Secretary, 88, 111 Votes on conservation, 53, 57, 60, 90, 91, 126, 139, 141, 211 Wadsworth, Representative, 197 Walcott, Charles D., 132, 369, 370 Walker, Thomas B., 47 n., 224, 319, 330, 337 Wallace, Representative, 163 Walthall, Senator, 101, 116 War, forest products research and the, 313 | Warren, Senator, 157, 173, 195, 199, 275, 294. Washburn, Representative, 89 - Washington, forests in, 47 n., 54; hostile to forest reserves, 295; timber land frauds, 81, 83, 84, 259; timber owner- ship in, 318, 319 Waste and theft of other resources than timber, 375 Waste of timber, 25, 26, 359-361 Water power, conservation of, 132, 149, 271; influence of forest cover on, 213; in the national forests, 267-270; pur- chase under Weeks law, 221 Water reserves, withdrawal of, 271 Weeks law, 210, 211, 212, 220, 221 Wells, Representative, 81, 126 Western attitude, analysis of, 294-296, 371-374; expression of, 83, 192 Weyerhaeuser, Frederick, 235, 289 Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, 317- B20 aol White, Senator, 140 White Mountains, demand for reserves in, 209 Williams, Representative, 89 Williamson, Commissioner, 66, 110 Williamson, J. N., Representative, 189, QAI Wilson, Commissioner, 32 Wilson, James, Secretary, 172, 208, 217, 961 Wilson, Senator, 83, 135, 184, 185 Wilson, Representative, 193 Windom, Senator, 42, 50, 53 Wisconsin, “saw log dynasty” in, 371; INDEX 095 state forest reserves in, 144, 145; for- | Wren, Representative, 57 ests in, 33, 54; timber stealing in, 41, | Wright, Senator, 43 81 Wright, Representative, 89 Wood preservation, 311, 312 Wyoming, reserves in, 120 PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ee peur vs at es esa Ee wae aad Te ah eal wh phat b Wear he WV nena Ste Litt ne he W bee rien We sees Neb Ueaiew Kou is NSE er pe hve LIBRARY OF CONGRESS HMMM Petes ideas 1 ‘ son 1s Me peheies ross ehue truce er