Proceedings of the Southern Forestry Congress

Material Information

Proceedings of the Southern Forestry Congress
Uniform Title:
Lumber World Review
Added title page title:
Proceedings of the ... Southern Forestry Congress
Southern Forestry Congress.
Place of Publication:
Chapel Hill, N.C.
Little Rock, AK
Southern Forestry Congress,
Publication Date:
7th, 1925, Jan.19-22
Physical Description:
12 v. : ; 23 cm.


Subjects / Keywords:
Forests and forestry -- Congresses ( lcsh )
Forests and forestry -- Congresses -- Southern States ( lcsh )
serial ( sobekcm )
conference publication ( marcgt )


Dates or Sequential Designation:
1st (1916)-12th (1930).
Numbering Peculiarities:
Published in Feb. 25, 1922 issue of Lumber World Review.
Numbering Peculiarities:
Suspended 1917-1919.
General Note:
Publisher and place of publication vary with each edition.
General Note:
Title varies slightly

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact Digital Services ( with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
LTUF ( ACW4218 )
OCLC ( 06241304 )
AlephBibNum ( 000540771 )
Aleph ( 021419758 )
SD118 .S6 ( lcc )


This item has the following downloads:





































































































































































Full Text


Southern Forestry


DuRHAm, N. C.




PRESIDENT------------------------------.J. S. HOMES, State Forester
VICE-PRESIDENT--------------------------------.H. L. KAYTON,
Vice-P-es., Carson Naval Stores Co.
SECRETARY-TREASURER--------------------------.C. B. HARMAN,
Secretary, So. Sas, Door & Mill Work Association.
Pres. Western North Carolina, Inc. ASHEVILLE, N. C.
Director, Southern Forest Experiment Station.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE-The above officers, together with all former
Presidents of the Congress, constitute the Executive Committee.

COL. JOSEPH HYDE PRATT, Chapel Hill, N. C--------.1916
HON. HENRY E. HARDTNER, Urania, La----------------.1920
MR. ROY L. ROGUE, Jackson, Miss------------------------.1921
MR. W. D. TYLER, Dante, Va------------------------------.1922
MR. BONNELL H. STONE, Blairsville, Ga . 1923

The Southern Forestry Congress was organized in Asheville, N. C., in July 1916, at a meeting which had been called by Dr. Joseph Hyde Pratt, then State Geologist of North Carolina. Participating Associations in this Convention were: North Carolina Forestry Association, Association of Eastern Foresters, American Forestry Association, Society of American Foresters, North Carolina Pine Association, and Appalachian Park Association. This Congress resolved to perpetuate itself as the Southern Forestry Congress, but owing to the War the second meeting was not held until January 1920. Since that time the meetings have been annual.
The proceedings of each Congress have been printed for distribution to delegates and others interested in Southern forestry through contributions made by patrons, most of whom are Southern lumbermen. Most of these volumes are now out of print but an occasional one can be secured from one or other of the State Forestry Associations which purchased a portion of some of the editions for distribution to their members.
The present volume includes all the papers that were presented at the Seventh Southern Forestry Congress, but the discussions, many of which were of exceptional interest, have been omitted, principally because it has been necessary to hold the cost within the resources of the Congress. The Secretary brought all the papers together and made copies of a number of them; but partly because the printing was to be done in North Carolina, the final revision work was turned over to the present Editor. The apologies of this same Editor are hereby made to some of those who contributed papers, as well as to the readers, for certain changes which have been arbitrarily made. The desire to get this volume out before the next Congress is the chief excuse for not consulting the authors in certain cases.
J. S. HOLMES, Editor.
December 10, 1925.

WELCOMING ADDRESS, Cov. Tom J. Terra! . 7 RESPONSE, Mr. W. D. Tyler . 8 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: "Public Ownership of Forests,"
Mr. J. S. Holmes 9
Hon. J. R. Hamlen 18
Mr. J. G. Peters 23
AND FIRE PREVENTIVE SYSTEMS," Major Page S. Bunker 30 "DEFERRED TAXATION," Hon. Henry E. Hardtner . 36 ''How MAY STATES BEST FINANCE FORESTRY,'' Hon. Geo. Vaughn 40
Mr. W. K. Williams 53
UNITED STATES," Mr. Shirley W. Allen .69


Mr. Boiling Arthur Johnson 74
Mr. E. F. McCarthy 76
Mr. R. W. Fannon 95
Mr. Vance P. Edwardes 105
Mr. J. H. Allen 110
Mr. 0. H. L. Wernicke 143




The Seventh Southern Forestry Congress was called to order by President J. S. Holmes in the Auditorium of the Hotel Marion, Little Rock, Arkansas at 9:30 a. m., Monday, January 19, 1925.
After a brief invocation by Rev. C. B. Waller, D.D., of Little Rock, the Congress was welcomed to Arkansas by Gov. Tom J. Terral.
It is my pleasure to welcome you to Little Rock, in the State of Arkansas. I am interested very much indeed in the conservation of the State's natural resources, among which is its great timber resource. What we in Arkansas desire to do is to make progress along all such lines of effort, and as Governor of this State I am for you, and I expect to back any bill that will help protect our forests. You introduce your bill and I will get behind it. What we want is definite results. You can expect me, good friends, to stand up and give to Arkansas a constructive business administration in the affairs of the State, as well as my heartiest support in putting through a measure which will conserve and protect the forest resources.
My friends, you have assembled here for a definite purpose, you have assembled here to get and give service, and let me say again I am back of you, for I realize fully that if any one thing in Arkansas is needed it is a definite forestry program. I have told Dr. Millar, a distinguished citizen of this state, and Secretary of the Honorary Arkansas Forestry Commission, to bring me a forestry bill, one which means something for the people and to the people and I will back the proposition to the very limit, fighting for the protection of Arkansas' forests.
In welcoming this body of great men to Arkansas, it is not necessary for me to say that we have a great State, one of which we are proud.


It is not necessary for me to state that Arkansas has bountiful natural resources, including the only diamond mine in the United States. It would be useless for me to rehearse that Arkansas stands high in the production of food supplies, and is a great timber state. We have long been one of the nation's chief producers of pine and hardwood timber, and we hope to continue as such for many years to come. In order to do so, we must have a system of standards for proper cutting and utilization. I was elected on a platform of stopping waste and I consider waste of our natural resources, prominent among which is timber, about the most serious waste we have.
I am well acquainted with the men in Arkansas who have worked hardest for the principles expounded by the Southern Forestry Congress. My opinion of them is so high that I will accept from them, without question, any bill for reforestation or protection of our forests, and will put the whole force of my administration behind it.
Arkansas is making progress at rapid strides. It is my whole heart's desire to make the State in all respects a better one in which to live, and it is my desire to give to this great sovereignty an honest business administration, not an oratorical administration composed of making brave promises, but one which will accomplish things for the people of this great State.
Now I am busy, those who live in Little Rock, and throughout the State know I have a problem to fight out. They who know something of Ex-Governor Lowden's problems and administration in the State of Illinois, know the kind of administration I am desirous of giving Arkansas, that being one of service. In closing I repeat what I stated a while ago, I am back of your proposition to the very limit, I will fight for the Protection of Arkansas' forests. Dr. Millar and gentlemen of the Southern Forestry Congress, I will fight with you to the end.

Mr. W. D. Tyler of the Clinchfield Coal Corporation, Dante, Va., and a former president of the Congress responded to the Address of Welcome as follows:
It is possibly peculiarly fitting that the duty has been placed upon me of responding to a welcome to Arkansas. Up to about a week ago I had not put my foot in Arkansas, and during the week just passed, I have been roaming around, trying to get a little of the much needed rest, and learning something of the State. I have been over to Hot Springs, with an old college friend of mine and seeing through his glasses, and under his direction, I have formed a very good opinion of at least a corner of Arkansas. Yesterday morning I happened to be out driving with others, in the country from Hot Springs on a breakfast party, and I was particularly struck with the forest situation around Hot Springs. While we have the same situation in


the State of West Virginia, and even Mr. Holmes will have to acknowledge a situation similar in North Carolina, I was impressed with the fact that Arkansas is interested in its forests and am now delighted to have heard from the Governor of this State such an emphatic expression of opinion as to his view on that subject.
As Mr. Holmes has said, the Southern Forestry Congress has been roaming over the Southeastern United States since 1916, holding meetings. We have been welcomed by the Governors of many of the States at these meetings; we have been welcomed by finished orators, in some instances, but this is the first time I have heard any Governor at any of our meetings express himself with such absolute frankness and steadfast support as came from the Governor of Arkansas. I sincerely hope that the legislators of this State to whom he is appealing, will see this situation through his eyes, and will endeavor to get results; that the waste places of Arkansas will not become blossom fields, but will become great tracts of young, vigorous growing trees to take the place of those that are gone.

We have met here at a critical period in the history of our forests and forest industries. The transition is now well advanced from old growth mature timber, timber grown almost without cost to the land owner, to the new conditions when timber will be grown as other crops, with costs for seeding, thinning, protection and other overhead charges. We shall have completed the change before we realize it. Even here in Arkansas, where I was expecting to find one of the few remaining stands of the old hardwoods, I am told that only 12 per cent of the virgin timber remains uncut. Our future protective
policy will no longer emphasize the protection of the old timber, but of the young seedlings and saplings. We, by our presence here, show that we recognize the situation. We are here to take council and lay plans for growing the crop which should make unnecessary the long trip and consequent high freight bill for lumber ships from the Pacific coast through the Panama Canal to New York, or the even more expensive rail trip across the continent.
Twenty-five years ago with the establishment of the National Forests in the West, and ten years later by the passage


of the Weeks Law, the Federal Government took a lead in working out a forest policy which it has continued to maintain. The Weeks Law has made a good beginning in the acquisition of forest lands on the headwaters of streams to be held as National Forests chiefly for stream protection, and it has thoroughly established the policy of cooperation with the States in forest fire protection. This law has been the greatest single agency in bringing forestry to the place it has reached today in this country.
We have recently passed through years of struggle between proposed Federal regulation and State guidance. We have chosen the latter in securing the enactment of the Clarke-McNary Law. This measure, like the Weeks Law, recognizes the prevention of fire as the basis of practical forestry by authorizing a large increase in appropriation for cooperation with the States in this work. Unfortunately our economical Congress, backed by a still more economical Budget, is allowing for the coming fiscal year only a small increase in this appropriation over that of the present year. Instead, however, of confining assistance to that one forestry measure, even though it be one of supreme importance, it has included several other measures of scarcely less importance.
To briefly summarize its other features, it goes to the root of the forest taxation question by offering cooperation with one or more States in a fundamental study of the tax situation relating to forest lands. A good deal has been said and written about reforming tax methods and about just methods of taxation, but we seem as far as ever from arriving at a solution which will be satisfactory and fair to all parties. This matter must be approached not only from the view-point of the forest land owner, but also keeping in mind the fact that local and State revenues must be maintained and increased and fairness shown to all parties. It is to be hoped that sufficient funds will be quickly available to begin at least one State Study. This matter, however, will be discussed a little later in the session.
The assistance offered under the Clarke-McNary Law to States in the growing and distribution of forest planting material emphasizes the importance of this branch of forest, which in some States is the leading feature of a forestry program and


in all is of far reaching importance, not only for the actual encouragement in growing timberbut for its educational value in the effort to prevent fires and secure the interest of the public in the forestry program. The appropriation proposed is pitifully small, but undoubtedly can be raised as the demand for help is increased.
The advice and assistance to farmers owning forest land provided under Section 5 of this measure emphasizes the importance of interesting the small land owners and furnishing them expert yet practical advice on improving their farm woodlands. This has been a practice in all States which have done anything in forestry, but it is well to emphasize the duty of the States by such a measure. In this case as in the preceding one, it is not the size of the appropriation but the emphasis on this feature and consequent stimulation of the work which will accomplish results. The plan to deprive the State Forestry Departments of this work and give it over entirely to the Agricultural Extension Service seems hardly fair to the States which have been building up this work for many years.
The various features of the Clarke-McNary program just enumerated and their application to the forest lands of the South will be taken up more or less thoroughly in subsequent discussions here. I will, therefore, direct your attention for a few minutes to a very important feature of forestry, which at the present, we are apt to think of as rather apart from a practical program, namely, the public ownership of forests. By this I do not mean an occasional area of a few hundred acres devoted here and there to a city water supply or a State Park, but I refer to a large and comprehensive program for the gradual, but not too gradual, acquisition by the public of lands not adapted to agricultural use.
In order to stabilize the annual production of material essential to our industries and to insure proper protection to streams which are valuable for domestic water supplies, waterpowers and navigation, it has always seemed necessary for governments, either National, State or local, to own and administer a considerable proportion of the absolute forest land of the country, i.e., that not fit for a more remunerative use. In some of


the leading European countries for example the percentage of publicly owned forest land is as follows: France ---------------------------------- 35 Switzerland ------------------------ 72
Germ any ------------------------------ 53 A ustria -------------------------------- 35
Sw eden -------------------------------- 24 R ussia ---------------------------------- 67

or an average of 50 per cent or more. In addition to this a percentage of the privately owned land, especially that valuable for stream protection, is subject to some kind of government regulation in order to prevent devastation. But this is not only an old world practice. Ninety-three per cent of the forests of Canada belong to the State while the forests of Mexico, Central America, and South America, are all largely in public ownership. While 21 per cent of forests in the United States are owned by the public, this ownership is almost entirely in the West and is far removed from our eastern markets and the great majority of our people. It seems to me that perhaps we have been looking at the tax burden problem from the wrong angle and that at least part of it really is an ownership problem. Our eastern forest lands have in the process of settlement been given away to any who would ask for them. It would have been fairly easy to have prevented the dissipation of this National treasure house, as has been done in Canada, the Phillipines, India, and the republics to the south of us, but to return this land, after being denuded of its timber, its only marketable asset, is a slow and expensive yet quite likely a necessary process.
As a beginning the American Forestry Association in t901 asked Congress to make an appropriation for the purpose of buyin'- lands on the head-waters of streams in the White Mountains and Southern Appalachians. After ten continuous years of effort the Weeks Law was enacted, and now after fourteen years of operation under this law the Government owns little more than three million acres of forested lands out of a total forested area in the eastern United States of something like 400,000,000 acres; less than one per cent of the forest area, though the west with half of this forest area has 75 per cent of it in public ownership. Are we prepared to accept forever an ever increasing toll for freight on Pacific Coast lumber? A


sustained effort is now being launched by the same association to put the acquisition policy on a saner and more enlarged basis. It seems to me that a Government which can spend hundreds of millions annually on battleships, which are scrapped within a few years, could well afford to spend money on forests which will bring in a perpetual return and will forever be retained as a public asset. I am very glad to say that an official of the American Forestry Association is here and will a little later present this matter to the Congress.
This leads me to go somewhat further. There is a growing feeling throughout the east that the States can exercise this privilege of buying and holding forest land as well as the Federal Government. Some go as far as saying that the State only and not the Federal authorities should own and control such lands within the States. It is my own opinion that there is no immediate danger of having too much of our forest land publicly owned, certainly not in the cast where it has to be purchased at market price. We are constantly advocating intensive forest protection and other activities looking towards a larger production of timber and a greater helpfulness of the forests to the public. This all costs money and it has been a question as to whether the owner of poor land, say land worth in the open market less than $5. or even up to $10. per acre, can meet all the costs of ownership and management and receive any profit.
The rather recent public movement throughout the country for forests devoted to recreation and aesthetic pleasure is just now centered upon National Parks; chiefly, I believe on account of the advertising value, and therefore, the money value of the name itself. To my mind large eastern National Parks held and administered as the large western parks, of which the American people are so proud, have only a small place in the scheme of public forest ownership. National Forests can supply all the advantages of National Parks except the name and in addition their administration is so elastic that different areas having different values for public use can be adapted to their special use. Certain areas can be devoted to scenery, to recreation, to the preservation of plant and animal life, as well as more economic uses of supplying water power, city water sup-


plies and timber supplies for local and more distant industries. The Government is already buying land for National Forests, and the Constitutional and Legislative difficulties are behind us; whereas no Government money has been used for the purchase of National Parks and some claim that Congress cannot grant that power.
State Forests do not have the same advantage over State Parks, which National Forests seem to have over National Parks because the administration of State Parks varies to a much greater degree. However, the recreational feature is the chief one in State Parks whereas it is only one of the several uses for State Forests, though there is a growing tendency to emphasize recreation to a still greater extent in State Forests. This is in line with the object of public ownership, namely, the greatest use of the F ' crests to the people concerned, and whether State land is held as Forests or as Parks the greatest possible use should be made of it by the public.
The people of the various States are going at this problem in a number of different ways. Some are contemplating large programs of acquisition for State Forests. Two years ago Colonel Joseph Hyde Pratt, at a meeting of the North Carolina Forestry Association, urged a plan for purchasing 300,000 acres of land scattered throughout the State, an average of 3,000 acres a county, at an estimated cost of one and one-half million dollars. He figured that the State could well afford to issue bonds for this amount for this purpose, calculating that in 50 years time with interest, maintenance and protection charges on the land, the States would have spent $6,000,000. At that time he figured that the timber alone would be worth anywhere from 12 to 22 million dollars, leaving a net profit to the State of from six to sixteen million dollars. He is an idealist and the idealist looks further into the future than the common man, so that this has not yet been tried. The rest of us, even if we have not the vision, can have faith and follow on behind. There is another idealist in Pennsylvania, the chief executive of action as well as of vision, and that State is proposing a bond issue of $20,000,000 for the purpose of adding to their more than 100,000,000 acres of State Forests. Nearly all States having forestry laws encourage the purchase of forest land for this purpose and


already 23 States including Pennsylvania own about six and one-half million acres of land as State Forests. The chief difficulty so far has been in getting the money to buy or the generous owner to give lands for this purpose.
But public ownership does not stop here. It has been carried into our county, township, and city Governments. The Massachusetts Forestry Association has been doing a big service through its program to secure a "town" or township forest in every township in the State. Let me quote from a recent report issued by this Association: "For ten years the Massachusetts Forestry Association has published bulletins and special article on the advantages of town forests. Scores of editorials on the subject have appeared in the press and hundreds of columns have been devoted to it. Thousands of citizens have heard lectures on forestry in which the value of the town forest was emphasized. The most effective argument of all, however, is the record of the towns that have established or voted to establish such forests. Of these 41 municipalities, 29 have appropriated $25,372.00 or $875.00 per town; 36 have set aside 3,454 acres or 96 acres per town; 28 have planted 464,500 trees or 16,600 trees per town. There are 107 other towns that have appointed official committees to report on the subject at the next town meeting. In other words over 40 per cent of our cities and towns have taken some action toward the creation of Town Forests." This shows what a real live Association can do through interesting the people in forestry. Again in Connecticut the State Forestry Association has recently succeeded in purchasing what it calls the People's Forest through public subscription.
Here allow me to digress long enough to emphasize the value of a State Forestry Association, whether the State has secured a Forestry Department or not. Having been connected with such an Association for 14 years, I can speak with some measure of experience. Although the results often seem small or altogether lacking, and although in some cases the State Forestry officials have to do a large part of the work, the common interest of even the few faithful men and women continues from year to year as a very decided and helpful effect on the public opinion of the State. The ideal Forestry Association is one entirely


separated from the State Forestry Department, for it wields a much larger influence upon the public and the legislature than one maintained tinder the guidance of a State employee. So far as I know the Massachusetts Forestry Association mentioned above is the only organization of the kind with a full-time paid secretary. One or two others have a secretary paid part-time but most or all of the Associations especially in the South pay their officials nothing. This is a great handicap to their effectiveness but is a sad necessity. I do want to emphasize the fact, however, that every State in the South should have a Forestry Association and that all the people interested in Forestry and Forest Fire Prevention should make a point of supporting that Association.
In my own State of North Carolina there are now some 25,000 acres of forest land owned and protected by the municipalities of 20 or more of our mountain towns for the purpose of protecting their water supplies, and this total is gradually being increased. Undoubtedly the same conditions hold in many other States. These areas are held as necessary parts of the city water systems, and as a rule no other use of the land is permitted. The city of Asheville bases a large part of its popularity on its pure water supply and it considers its 18,000 acre watershed as not merely a profitable but an essential investment.
The value of public forests for education, as well as for recreation and commercial use, must be emphasized. This is being done in the most recent proposition in the South. The establishment of a Community Forest by the city of Savannah was sti-ested at our last Forestry Congress. This idea seems to be taking shape. Plans are under way to secure a considerable area of forest land not far from the city so that the citizens could use it freely and often for all legitimate recreation. The larger part of it would be used to grow timber and probably the timber sold at a suitable time and the area reforested according to the approved plans. In this way the people of the city would learn what forestry was and the advantages of better f orest practice. It is maintained that "A well located tract of land purchased cheaply and set aside for natural reforestation would be a good investment in two ways: first, it would pay as a source of timber for pulp wood or fuel, of naval stores and


other forest products. The second (and perhaps it is the greatest) value might come from making this an experiment reservation and carrying on various experiments in planting, natural reforestation, protection from fire and hogs, etc." The advantage of such an object lesson owned by the people themselves would be incalculable.
In advocating public ownership we are, I think apt to magnify the first cost. This is a mistake because in practically every case lands are not likely to decrease in value so will eventually become probably the most visible asset which the State can show for its annual expenditures. I feel that this Congress would make no mistake in emphasizing along with its policy of Forest Fire Prevention this companion policy of public ownership of the poorer forest lands.

Balance from former Secretary . $ 408.05 Donations from individuals, firms and Associations A labam a . $ 115.00 F lorida . . 308.04 L ouisiana . . ----------------------------------------------- 200.00
M aryland . . - . . . . 10.00 Missouri (to Chairman Finance Committee) . 95.00 T ennessee . . - 50.00 V irginia . 75.00 W est V irginia . 10.00

Stationery, 1924 . $27.25 Stationery, 1925 . 50.00 Directory, by former Secretary . 2.11 Stenographic work and postage . 10.00
- $ 89.36

Balance on Hand, August 15, 1925 ---------------------------------------------------- _$1,181.73
C. B. HARMAN, Secty.-Treas.
The President announced the following committee:
Resolutions Committee-W. D. Tyler, E. W. Gates, Page S. Bunker, D. V. Dierks, Frederick Dunlap, Mrs. Florence H. Stone, 0. 0. Axley, Dr. A. C. Millar, T. C. Rosbrough, George


Vaughan, E. Murray Bruner, J. B. Woods, W. L. E. Barnett, J. G. Peters, Goodrich Jones.
Committee on Nominations-E. 0. Siecke, H. E. Hardtner, Chapin Jones, W. L. Hall, C. A. Plymale.
Committee on Place of Meeting-Dr. Herman Von Schrenk, James Boyd, W. D. Tyler, Eugene Baker, W. L. E. Barnett.

When Mr. Roosevelt was President, we often heard, many of us for the first time, the phrase "Conservation of Natural Resources." I wonder, how many of us then appreciated the profound sense of that appeal. We knew in a general way what the words meant, but only a few of us, then or since, went further and attempted to apply the force of a conservation policy to our own immediate and pressing requirements.
The result finds Arkansas, today, at the threshold of one of her most vital problems, which unless solved, is quite likely to produce effects of a far reaching character upon her commercial future. I refer, of course, to the alarming shortage of our timber supplies and the necessity of replenishing them-a task, the immense importance of which cannot be over-estimated.
It is hardly necessary to mention the reasons for this shortage. It is sufficient to say, that reckless cutting, without foresight in days gone by, and in a sense of lavishness which indicated a never-ending supply of timber, is one of them. A prodigality of carelessness towards the ever-present dangers of forest fires, is another. And the continued destruction of forests without any fixed thought or plan of replanting them, is still another.
Tardy, however, as we have been to recognize the pending consequences of this short-sighted policy, there is still opportunity left to us, to make amends and prevent a death blow to an ancient, honorable and profitable industry. But those of us, who now realize the dangers of a complete obliteration of our forests and of the problems which confront us, are not able by ourselves, alone, to solve them. It is far too large a task to


accomplish without the combined influences of all our agencies
-professional, industrial and political alike, within the State.
Therefore, I desire to call upon the legislature, now fortunately in session, and also the citizens of Arkansas, to combine their forces and help us fix upon a policy and enact effective legislation which will ultimately do more for the State than anything I now have in mind. The Honorary Arkansas Forestry Commission, which was appointed some time ago by Governor McRae, has submitted after careful consideration, a Forestry Bill, simple in language, but powerful in intent and we hope the present General Assembly will promptly pass it and thereby make the first step towards permanent forestry relief.
So far, Arkansas has done practically nothing as a State to protect, preserve or perpetuate its forests. It hasn't even a State Fire Warden. And yet information gathered officially by the United States Forest Service shows that 2137 fires occurred in 1923, and were reported to the Forest Service in Washington. These fires burned over 675,000 acres of standing timber with a damage of three quarters of a million dollars. I am told that these figures do not anywhere nearly represent the total number of fires that occurred in the State that year, or the total burned acreage or damage thereto.
Thirty-five States out of the forty-eight have enacted some sort of forestry legislation creating State forestry bureaus or departments and most of these States are cooperating with the Federal Government in fire control work. Until Arkansas follows suit, adequately, she is not permitted by law to benefit from the use of Federal aid, as provided under the Weeks' Law for fire prevention.
I have been asked to briefly discuss "What Forestry Can Do for Arkansas." Perhaps I may best answer this question by stating how Arkansas will suffer if nothing is now done to stem the tide of complete timber shortage.
There are an endless number of purely economic reasons why we should fortify our present timber supply and prevent further waste of it. The lumber industry of Arkansas has greatly added to her prosperity and the ratio of increase or decrease of this industry, in the future, will affect the welfare of the State in the same proportion. Forest products enter


into almost every one of our economic agencies. Even American standards of living have developed upon abundant timber supplies and the relatively low prices thereof.
The cut-over timberlands in many parts of our -state are only fit for reforestation. The land area of Arkansas may be roughly estimated at 33,000,000 acres. Only 277o of this vast expanse is "improved," by which I mean, fully or partly cultivated with a larger proportion only partially used for crops.
During the 10 years between 1910 and 1920, the population of the State increased 11%, but during the same period, the farm land area increased only one-tenth of one percent or 40,000 acres. In other words, the farmers of the State are not turning her soil into crop cultivation nearly as fast as they should in order to keep pace with her increasing population. It is a debateable question whether this inequality will ever materially change. But as I see it, the plain inference is that other means should be found-in fact, must be found, for the use of her great uncultivated area and for what is infinitely more important still, the continued maintenance of her prosperity.
The farmers of Arkansas who naturally make the largest .part of her population and who will surely suffer or prosper, in proportion to the degree of productivity of their lands, have failed so far, undoubtedly due to educational neglect, to understand the importance of the earning capacity of timber growth upon their lands. This is an alarming situation for them to be in. If our forests are to be cut without replenishment, what is to prevent a great industrial depression in sections of the State which now depend almost wholly upon timber operations? Is there any other comparable activity suitable for quick and successful substitution? I know of none.
The commercial success of the regrowth of the softer species of timber in Arkansas has been assured by practical experience. Reforestation is being actively carried on by certain lumber companies in the State. They have realized the necessity of doing something to protect their interests. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of land in Arkansas, which are only
-suited for timber growth, and which, if administered properly, may be made an agency for producing inestimable wealth for years to come.


Other States in the Union have recently become aware of this great problem which confronts them. They are showing their interest in a practical manner. For instance, in 1923, New York State appropriated over a million dollars for forestry purposes alone. Pennsylvania appropriated $860,000, Louisiana, $60,000, and Texas, $40,000. New York State has set herself to the task of making her forest lands grow enough trees to meet her needs in lumber. This is exactly what Arkansas should do.
Lumber production in Arkansas reached its peak in 1909. Up to that time, the production had steadily increased. Since then, it has steadily decreased. This falling off in cut has by no means been due to a decrease in the demand for our timber, but has been due solely to a decrease in our timber supply. The production of lumber in this State has decreased 317o, or practically one-third, in the eleven years from 1909 to 1920. If the same rate of decrease holds good in the future, we may readily fix almost a definite day, when our timber supply will be merely a matter of ancient history.
The original forest cover of Arkansas appears to have been about 250 billion feet distributed over approximately 30,000,000 acres. By 1920 the States total stand of merchantable timber had been reduced to about 44 billion feet of hardwoods and 16 billion feet of pine, or a total of 60 billion board feet, spreading over substantially 21,000,000 acres.
The great pine lands of all the South have decreased from 130,000,000 acres to about 23,500,000 acres. The United States Forest Service tells us that the present rate of timber consumption throughout the country, including loss by fire and other destructive agencies, is nearly four times greater than the timber growth.
The value of the products of timber is only exceeded by the value of the products of the farm in Arkansas. No other single industry within the State, in which the wages paid for labor is a very considerable item, compares in value to the manufacturing of our forest products.
There are at present 1500 establishments in the State, manufacturing lumber and other wood products, the value of the annual output of which amounts to something approaching one hundred millions of dollars. Is not the perpetuation and pro-


section of this collosal industry of tremendous concern to the counties where these plants are located, and to the countless number of people who are either directly or indirectly dependent upon them for a livelihood? In many counties the revenues for government, including funds for all kinds of improvements, are almost entirely derived from forest resources. What will happen when there are no such resources available?
The farmers of the country use about one half of all lumber consumed, annually. From reliable Forest Service statistics, there are over seventeen million acres of Arkansas land in the hands of its farmers. Nearly half or eight million acres are actually woodlands.
If properly cared for, by which I mean protecting these woodlands from fire, cutting the larger trees and keeping the smaller ones until they reach their full stature in size and value, these eight millions of acres owned by the farmers should produce each year, in the neighborhood of a billion board feet of forest products. Even without intensive administration, nearly eight billion dollars worth of products of the forest were sold from 26,000 farnis in 1919 or an average per farm of $290, a very tidy sum.
Any forestry program for Arkansas should, therefore, make the amplest provisions for the care of this potential investment, owned by the farmers of the state.
Much of what I have said in this brief address, will be "ancient philosophy" to the members of the Southern Forestry Congress, here present. I hope, therefore, I have not bored you too much with our own local problems. My appeal is perhaps more for home consumption than to make my paper interesting to those, who by very reason of the fact that they are here at this meeting, give evidence that they are sympathetic toward our forestry situation.
In behalf of the Honorary Arkansas Forestry Commission and the Arkansas Forestry Association, I want to thank you for the tribute you have paid us by selecting Little Rock for your annual meeting. From your interesting deliberations,
much help will be given us. And from your stimulating influence and knowledge of the subjects under discussion, a direct path will, I am sure, lead to forestry relief for us.


Generally speaking, the adoption of legislation by the States depends both upon the kind of legislation, or the specific legal remedy which the legislature is asked to consider, and in large measure upon the legislature's belief that not only is the proposed legislation desirable, but really wanted by the public, or "the people back home." Other things being equal, and leaving out of consideration the extent to which politics or personalities might affect the result, experience has demonstrated that legislation in its initial stages will receive the most favorable consideration if kept brief and simple and direct. Especially is this true as to forestry, an entirely new subject to many people. The public in many sections knows little about forestry, knows little about the serious economic consequences of the destructive practices in handling our timber supply and the lack of protection afforded our forest lands. Our people are generally ignorant of the subject, and do not realize the value of the forest and that it is worth protecting.
The purpose of forestry legislation is to provide the necessary rneans for growing timber. For the individual State, the aim is to grow at least enough timber to meet the State's needs. This will be achieved primarily by making it possible for private owners to grow timber at a profit. Private owners are beginning to consider forestry as a business proposition for no other reason than that they think it will pay. State forestry legislation, therefore, should be designed with a view to protecting the private owner in the legitimate pursuit of timber growing and to aiding him and cooperating with him through justifiable means in making the undertaking profitable.
For States such as many in the South which are just undertaking or are about to undertake forestry work, it seems to me that legislation should have two main objectives: Education and protection.
Education is basic, for unless the public is given the necessary information that will cause it to realize the value of the various uses to which the forest and its products can be put,


there is small hope of securing within a reasonable period the protective measures essential to the production of timber crops. The public, in fact the owners of forest land themselves, must be made to see the potential values of that which they are asked to protect before it can be expected that the necessary funds will be forthcoming for protecting it. The process of educating the public in forestry matters is a long one, requiring painstaking and laborious effort. The educational campaign should include not only work of a general nature in the form of publications, lectures, moving pictures, press articles, and the like, but that of special assistance on the ground to private owners in the management and reforestation of their forest lands. The importance and size of the undertaking demand the establishment of an agency designed especially to conduct such an educational campaign. Thirty-two of the States have taken this action. Even those which started the earliest, some as much as forty years ago, find their forestry programs by no means complete and have learned that a constant and extensive campaign of education is necessary to enable them to hold the ground already gained and to make reasonable progress in addition.
Legislation is only a means to an end; it is not an end in itself. A law prescribes that something shall be done and sets tip the agency for doing it, if one does not already exist. No matter how wise or how inherently beneficial a law may be, it is practically a dead letter if the agency fails to function either through inefficiency or lack of funds. In order, therefore, that a law may be executed effectively, its administration must be entrusted to competent hands, and funds must be made available which are commensurate with the importance of the work authorized. The matter of administration is fundamental; it is the starting point.
What is the best form of administration for conducting forestry work in the most effective manner,-to keep it free from politics and partisanship, to see that it receives the necessary helpful direction, and to expend the funds in accordance with sound business practices ? The States have organized their forestry work along two broad lines, either separately, under a special board or commission, or in combination with more or less kindred activities, all under the direction of a coordinating


head. There is an undoubted trend toward the combination form of organization, on the ground chiefly that it means a reduction in the number of State departments, which results, it is claimed, in bringing the head of the State Government, the Governor, into closer contact with the several State activities, and in greater economy in administration. The theory of the combination form is to keep the number of departments into which the State government might be divided to a minimum, each under the charge of a business or technical head directly responsible to the Governor, who in the final analysis is responsible to the people for the character of administration which the State receives. Where the appointees over such departments are restricted to persons with the proper and necessary business or technical qualifications, the results are for the most part satisfactory, that is, efficient and economical administration is secured, with added prestige and the ability to obtain adequate recognition f rom the legislature. Where, on the other hand, appointments are made for purely political or personal reasons with small regard for the essential qualifications, it can very readily be seen to what extent the administration of the department might suffer and the efficiency be lowered.
On the whole, I think, experience has demonstrated that the most satisfactory form of organization for a State just undertaking forestry work is a separate board or commission with as nearly as possible a non-political and non-partisan membership. The State, which represents the public, should have membership on such a board, and the several private interests in the State concerned with forestry, such as lumbering, farming, turpentining, and the like, have an unquestioned right to a voice in the formulation of the State's forestry policy. Such a board then would be composed of certain State officials as ex officio members, preferably officials whose activities are connected with or have an important bearing upon the State's forest resources, and of representatives from organizations or industries which have a private interest in the forest and its resources. An ideal arrangement for having the private interests represented is for the organized associations of such interests, where they exist, to nominate for membership on the board a member from each association who would receive his appointment to the board or commission from the Governor.


In order that the board might be removed as far as possible from politics, some of the States have found it desirable that the majority membership should be selected from the private interests, and that the terms of office of such members should be so arranged that only one would expire each year leaving the remaining appointees as an experienced nucleus. I have never heard any valid objection, other than a State's constitutional limitations, against appointees to such a board from the private interests concerned. Objection has been raised to ex officio members, other than the Governor himself, on the ground chiefly that they are as a rule officials coordinate with the State Forester, whom the board would be authorized to appoint, and that it is undesirable for a coordinate official as a member of what practically amounts to a board of directors to supervise the duties of the State Forester.
The job of a protective system is to prevent and suppress forest fires. How should it begin, and what legislative provisions are necessary in the initial stages of the development of protection are questions that deserve careful and practical consideration. Let us keep before us the objective of growing timber. Protection is the chief avenue for making this possible. It will succeed best if the public knows what is being done and feels that the cost is justified. A large part of protection, therefore, is necessarily educational in character. Especially is this so in the early stages. I believe that it is preferable to confine State-wide effort in protection in the beginning to education almost exclusively. On individual areas, such as the National Forests and any private tracts which have received special protection, the development of protection beyond education and into other phases, notably prosecution for violation of fire laws, may be justified. The work of a State as a whole, however, is most effective at first if limited to that which local patrolmen, rangers, wardens, and the like can do in convincing the public of the desirability from the economic standpoint of putting an end to the promiscuous burning of the woods, preventing fires due to other causes, and extinguishing fires that start. The only necessary legislative provision, therefore, to conduct this work is blanket authority to the State forestry department to adopt such measures in the prevention and suppression of forest fires as may be reasonable and practicable. Such general pro-


visions will be found, for example, in the Texas and Alabama laws, and these, I think, have proved sa isfactory, the former over a period of nearly ten years, in th2 development of fire protection in these States. In my judgrrent, it is a mistake in the beginning to propose lengthy and complicated legislative provisions that will set up a system of local wardens and fire fighters, the purpose and intent of which can very easily be misunderstood by the members of the legislature, in fact have been so misunderstood and have caused the defeat of protective legislation in numerous instances. A brief and simple provision, therefore, which will enable the State forestry department to adopt the system of organization that best meets the State's local conditions for educating the public in the prevention and suppression of forest fires is in my opinion all that is necessary as a first step.
By no means the least important question for consideration in the initial steps of State forestry legislation is that of financing the work of the forestry department. As in financing other State activities, the customary method is to appropriate funds from the general treasury. Most of the States follow this plan. There are, however, several interesting exceptions that have been devised, in some instances to avoid drawingg on the general fund and in others, to require private forest owners to share a part of the cost. The latter takes the form of special taxes. Some States have adopted both methods. Thus, Maine derives the larger part of its forestry moneys frcm a tax on the extensive forest holdings in the northern part of the State for protection purposes exclusively, and makes a general appropriation for protecting the more open forest areas in southern Maine and for other purposes; New Hampshire, Washington, and Oregon, not only make appropriations from their general funds but in addition require private forest owners to expend for the protection of their holdings up to a specified sum per acre. Louisiana, a number of years ago, initiated a severance license tax on timber and other forest products for the express purpose of supporting a forestry department, one of whose functions would be to protect the forest lands of thi industries which pay the tax. Unfortunately, this expressed intent was set aside, with the result that only about 15 per cent of the severance license tax on timber and other forest products is now devoted


to forestry work by Louisiana. Another Southern State, Alabama, has adopted the method of using for the support of forestry work the privilege or occupational taxes collected from establishments manufacturing lumber and other forest products. Such taxes had already been imposed by Alabama for a number of years so that what the legislature did was merely to provide for transferring the amounts thus collected from the general fund to a special forestry fund. It can, therefore, be seen that the question of financing forestry work is distinctly a local one for the State itself to decide.
The foregoing are briefly my ideas of the essential first steps in State forestry legislation. They deal only with such activities as the States which have undertaken forestry work have found through experience they could handle most advantageously at the start. Conspicuous by their omission are such important phases of forestry as investigations, the acquisition of State Forests, and modification of the procedure of taxing forest properties. Enough already is known without further investigation to enable a State to begin the formulation of its forestry policy on a sound basis. State Forests are not important at the start and come, as a rule, only as a later development in the State's forest policy. Forest taxation is distinctly a subject for further investigation either by individual States or groups of States. Provisions for these and other special phases of forestry can well be deferred for future consideration in the interest of keeping the initial legislation brief and simple, and limiting it to essentials only.
The adoption of these first essentials will enable a State to receive the benefits from the cooperative provisions of the recently enacted Federal forestry law known as the ClarkeMcNary Act. It may interest those of you who are not familiar with this law to know that it authorizes three appropriations to be expended yearly in cooperation with the States:
(1) $2,500,000 for the prevention and suppression of forest fires, a small portion of which may be used for studies of forest taxation and timber insurance.
(2) $100,000 for the distribution of young trees for planting on the farms, and
(3) $100,000 for assistance to farmers in the management of their forest lands.


Before concluding, may I ask you to turn your attention for a moment to what the States have done in forestry? Beginning in a very limited way 40 years ago and confining their effort merely to educational and investigative activities, State forestry departments have increased and developed beyond the most optimistic hopes of the followers of their remarkable progress. Today there are 32 States having forestry departments, in addition to several which, without waiting for their legislatures to establish a special department, have inaugurated forestry work at their agricultural colleges and appointed extension specialists in forestry. The combined appropriation for the present year made by the States for forestry, which is a practical measure of its progress in the States, is $5,500,000 divided about equally between forest protection and the purchase and maintenance of State Forests, forest nurseries, and reforestation work. Twentynine States have protective systems for the prevention and suppression of forest fires, and receive allotments from the Federal cooperative fund of $400,000 for the current year. Twenty States have established State Forests, with a total area of five and three-quarter million acres, and 15 States have forest nurseries which grow small trees for distribution to farmers and other forest owners. Ten States have modified their taxation procedure so as to defer the tax on young forests until the timber is mature and cut. Most of the State forestry departments offer assistance to private owners in the management of their forest lands, and all of them carry on educational and publicity work of a general forestry nature.
The development of forestry in the States that have made the most progress is the result of effort throughout a period of years, during which their activities have been built up from small beginnings, their legislation revised and added to, and in some instances their entire basic structure of forestry changed. The States which have yet to undertake forestry work, including no less than seven of the States covered by the Southern Forestry Congress, can learn their lesson from the experience of these States, which undoubtedly is to begin on a sound basis, with a simple and not too ambitious program.
In summarizing, then, experience in State forestry indicates that in the beginning the States will build the soundest and make the most satisfactory progress if they will limit their


activities to those of an educational and protective nature, and shape their legislation accordingly, so as to provide for(1) A State forestry department,
(2) A State Forester,
(3) An educational campaign, including assistance to private owners in the reforestation and management of their forest lands, and
(4) A system for the prevention and suppression of forest fires.

Organization presupposes varied and specific functions. Thus the organization of a State Forestry Department must be based upon the particular duties with which the department is charged. These duties, of course, are those directly stated in the organic act creating the department and those which by reasonable inference are corollary to the explicit provisions.
To assume a typical case, we may consider that the organic law directs the Forestry Department to:
(1) Investigate forest conditions in the State with reference to all matters pertaining to forestry.
(2) Promote among all classes of the population a proper
appreciation of the benefits to be derived from the
practice of forestry.
(3) Take such measures as may be reasonable and practicable to protect the forests against fire and other
harmful natural agencies.
(4) Afford private owners, as may be practicable, information, advice, demonstration, assistance and co6peration.
(5) Have sole charge of the State's public forestry
(6) Employ a State Forester who shall be the executive
officer of the Department, charged with carrying the
provisions of the act into effect.


(7) Perform such other duties as may be imposed upon it
by law.
The form of the organization, then, must be such as will most readily lend itself to carrying out the stated duties.
If the entire direction is placed in the hands of a single person, the further organization of the department can proceed expeditiously and exactly in accordance with the exigencies of the service as viewed by such officer. On the other hand, in most cases it appears that there are many matters affecting the development of forestry work in the State that hardly lie within purview of any one person, and are best represented through the aggregate familiarity with local conditions of a board or commission which may direct the broad policies of the department. To afford continuity or adaptive transition of the State's forestry policy, the members of such a commission should have overlapping terms of office so that changes in its personnel should be infrequent and ' only partial at any one time. To avoid cumbersomeness the membership should not be numerically great, five to nine members usually proving most efficient.
It is perhaps needless to say that the members of the Commission should be selected with primary view to their ability to assist in the development of a sound forestry policy, but the authority by which they are appointed should not be restricted in its choice to individuals selected or recommended by particular persons or organizations. If the appointing authority is the Governor, under every proper theory of statehood the chief executive should have freedom of action in impressing his individual policies upon the administration of public affairs during his term of office.
In general, we may say that with the exception of the Governor, and possibly the Lieutenant-Governor, there should be no ex officio members of the Commission. In most of the southern States public forestry is of sufficient economic and civic importance to be given full departmental grade on a par with the other recognized departments of the State. To include on the Commission the executive officer of another department tends in a certain degree to subordinate the Forestry Department to that administered by such ex officio member. Still less should an employee of another department be elevated to


membership on the directing Commission of the Forestry Department.
The executive officer of the Commission necessarily must be a professional f ' forester with considerable experience and proven ability in the lines of work indicated above. In addition to this, he should have the faculty of organizing and administering public activities. In view of the importance of records in connection with the work, the State Forester should also serve as Secretary of the Commission.
We may also assume that with reference to each of the duties and powers of the Forestry Department the law has used fairly general terms. This, of course, will permit the more detailed organization to adapt itself to the developments of the work as they occur. It is readily apparent that the specific procedures followed in one State may be inapplicable in another, and it would be a serious error to prescribe a uniform treatment for the problems of all of the States.
The creation of a Commission of Forestry and the employment of a State Forester in conformity with the general procedure indicated in the foregoing are the first steps in organization. The next step is fact finding. Before aggressive work can be scheduled it is necessary to ascertain the forestry needs of the State, the general and local conditions under which measures must be applied, the present and prospective facilities for the application of such measures, the sentiment of the local communities, the geography of the State, the character of the channels by which the public is most effectively reached, the principal components of the fire hazard and its relative intensity both geographical and temporal, principal forest types, the traditions, history and civic conditions of the various sections of the State and numerous other factors of great importance in determining the extent and character of the procedures that may prove feasible in the development of public forestry work. Fact finding along these and similar lines is so important that I place it before all other activities of the department. Any procedure based upon inadequate ascertainment of facts is obviously more or less haphazard in character and more than likely to defeat its own object.


With a working knowledge of local conditions the department may then proceed to divide the work to better carry out the intent of the law. It is at this stage that we must be careful not to commit the error of over specialization. To the inexperienced organizer a ramified system of allocated functions may appear attractive. As students we used to adm ire the diagrams showing the different departments, branches and offices, with their corresponding interrelations, of a large industrial concern, a railroad circus and an army corps. When we reflect, however, that it would be fatal for a country store to, copy Wanamaker methods or for a rural blacksmith shop to adopt the Taylor system, we can readily see that over-organization may have a disastrous effect.
Both in human affairs and in nature, efficient organization has been a matter of development. We may safely follow this rule in the inauguration of State forestry work. Thus in a newly created department we may conceive that the division of labor will be somewhat informal. Later, with the increased demands upon the department there will develop a natural differentiation of functions. Even at this stage, however, a safe rule is to require each professional member of the department not only to know as much as possible regarding his particular duties, but also to know enough about his fellow foresters' work to help out in time of need. This is parallel, within the field of forestry, to the old saw that it is well to know everything of something and something of everything.
After a reasonable amount of preliminary publicity and educational work, State forestry must be carried into the woods. We have spoken of work on the basis of kind. We now have to consider it on the basis of place. The same locality is often in need of various kinds of forestry work. The same landowner may require both assistance and instruction in fire protection, planting and management.
Shall all of these functions be performed by one local forestry employee or by several? Or shall part of them be performed by a local man and others by visiting specialists? Obviously it is to the landowner's interest to encounter no confusion in his relations with the State in connection with his forestry interests. A single local forester may appear the


logical solution of such questions. Under present conditions, however, it is very exceptional that persons trained in forestry can be found in many of the local communities. This raises the question as to whether the local man shall be selected from the residents of the community or assigned to the locality from elsewhere. In the South, it may be regarded as a rule that as much of the local work as possible should be done by men selected from among the local residents. This is particularly true in the case of fire protection. The reasons for this are obvious and need not be detailed here.
Local employees will rarely have an advance knowledge of forestry methods in any line. Assuming that they possess good native qualities and a common school education, the next step in the organization of the field service is the instruction, training and development of these men in the simple elements of fire protection, mensuration and utilization. Other phases of elementary forestry should be placed before them as time and opportunity permit.
The development of the local field force ranks next in importance to the fact finding work that I have referred to. In fact, the latter can hardly proceed independently of the former, since the State Forester must depend to a very great extent for his facts upon the reports of the field force. If the members of the latter have not a clear conception of the meaning of an acre, a thousand feet B.M. and other elementary units of computation, their reports as to area and damage covered by forest fires will be valueless. Other considerations of this sort will readily occur to all of us.
By local employees I mean the men in direct contact with the woods and the local public; in other words the man who actually fights the fires, visits the rural schools and is directly responsible for the condition of a certain specified territory, having no paid employees serving under him at any time. In other words, he is the actual point of contact between the State's forestry policy and the forest. Next to the State Forester himself this man is the most important member of the organization, and no pains are too great to spend upon his selection and development.


We are familiar with the so-called stepladder system of field organization whereby the local force is the last term of a geometrical progression starting from the State Forester. Under this system several men are designated, each of whom designates several others who in turn select a number of subordinates and so on down until the local communities are reached. To a student of organization it immediately occurs that the efficiency of such a system must depend chiefly upon good fortune. It is axiomatic that transmission should be as direct as possible and intermediate elements held to a minimum. Under the stepladder system it often is almost impossible to secure dependable information as to actual conditions in the field, and it becomes exceedingly difficult to distinguish between success and failure.
Even in the best organized department, however, there may come a time when there must be intermediaries between the State Forester and the local men. An example of this is the establishment of a branch of forest protection immediately under an assistant chosen on account of long and successful experience in protection work of the kind that he is called upon to supervise. Still later, as the number of districts increases, this specialist may require one or more assistants of his own. However, this latter step should be undertaken only with the greatest caution.
Inspection of the field work is extremely important. As a matter of fact, unless it is carried on quite thoroughly the State Forester is likely to find that his assumed facts are badly awry, and that policies and procedures based upon what were conceived to be actual conditions are comparatively futile. Inspectors should be also chosen on the basis of long and successful experience in doing the kind of work that they are to inspect, tinder conditions similar to those governing its present perform.ance. Naturally, all inspection work should be undertaken in the spirit of comradeship and friendly cooperation. From these requirements, it will be evident that competent inspectors will be very hard to obtain. Often they will have to be developed from among the members of the local force.
I will say then, that the primary organization of a typical Forestry Department in a southern State may consist of the creation of a Forestry Commission composed of members with


overlapping terms which will direct the broad forestry policies of the State, the selection of a competent State Forester by the Commission to serve as its executive officer, the building up of a force of carefully selected local men, close inspection of the work of these men, with formal division of the State's forestry work into distinct branches to follow when clearly necessary. The tendering of paid employment contingent upon the occurrence of forest fires is fundamentally wrong and has but incidental place in a practical protective system. The success of fire protection work must depend chiefly upon the individual effectiveness of the local men and upon volunteer assistance by the residents and landowners of the community.

I hesitate to discuss a subject so important, so little understood and vet of such deep significance to all our people as deferred taxation. Tax reforms come slowly because 'of the indifference of the people towards any changes in accepted policies or customs of years' standing. "Deferred Taxes,"
"Severance Taxes," "Yielcl Taxes" are synonymous terms and usually mean taxes levied on a product at time of severance from the soil.* I believe that Louisiana was the first State to attempt this advanced reform in taxation. In 1908 a Conservation Commission was created for the purpose of recommending laws for the conservation of Natural Resources, which at that time was a popular subject due to the wide publicity given through the "White House Conference of Governors" which had been called by President Roosevelt. I was made Chairman and Hon. Harry P. Gamble Secretary of this Commission; and with the assistance of the other members we
* Looked at from another point of view however the terms "Severance tax" and "Yield tax" are not synonymous. Prof. H. H. Chapman in a letter to the Editor ated October 5, 1925, quotes Prof. Fairchild of Yale on this subject as follows: He (Prof. Fairchild) says that it has always been his understanding that a severance tax was an additional tax levied on the process of removing natural products from the soil, which is not the same conception that has been advocated by foresters as a yield tax. The true yield tax is a substitution of a tax on yield for an annual tax an property value and not an additional tax. It is true that a severance tax might be based on yield. Whether the one is distinct from the other in practice can only be judged by knowing the circumstances in each case."-Editor.


worked out asbest we could, plans that meant the conservation, protection and perpetuation of our State's natural resources.
Funds were needed for administrative purposes and as usual the State had no funds to spare. We were told by Gov. Sanders that while our work had his approval we must find the money from some new source, if conservation was to be made effective. Hon. Harry Gamble, a deep thinker and skilled in law presented the Severance Tax plan which was in reality then a "License Tax" on all natural resources severed from the soil, such as oil, gas, timber, salt, sulphur, etc., and this additional tax was to be used only for conservation. An Amendment to the Constitution was necessary before the new laws could be made effective. In time it was found that the severance tax was an ideal revenue producer, just and fair to State and tax payer, especially when applied to taxation of hidden, fugitive and exhaustable resources such as oil, gas, sulphur, salt and in a measure to renewable resources such as timber. The State was not realizing the taxes to which she was entitled from these hidden, exhaustible resources, because it was not possible to levy an ad valorem tax on properties where these resources were supposed to be. The severance tax was then made a lieu tax and was levied on these products when they were mined or brought to the surface. These resources were now visible and subject to the same rate of taxation as other properties-a "Deferred Tax" if you will, and immediately the revenues of the State were increased $2,000,000 annually and from this source the Greater Agricultural College at Baton Rogue is being built.
Great wealth had escaped full taxation for years, because our State had not yet grasped the idea of "Deferred Taxes." These taxes are sure-no guess work-the production may fall off for various reasons but whenever visible, whenever mined, the tax is levied against the value of the product. Production is not hastened-new fields not hastily opened up-the State is in no hurry because the deferred taxes are sure. De f er, meaning to put off to a future time, to postpone, to delay, is probably the best term that can be used to explain the method of taxation of immature products or crops, and yet there should be no thought of taxation against that which is not visible, unripe, immature and yielding no revenue, for deferred tax-


ation is speculative on crops or products having only a future or potential value. Land needed for agriculture in its natural state has a value as unimproved land; when cleared and placed in readiness for cultivation the value increases, but only when crops are produced are values for taxable purposes placed at full value.
The ploughing of the land, the planting of seed, the cultivation and finally the harvesting of the crop, after months of labor places an additional value on the land and crop, and at harvest, when money comes from the crop to pay all necessary expenses, taxes are paid. But it would be very unjust if taxes were exacted monthly while the crop was growing. Thus the value of the land in January or June is not nearly so great as in December. So deferred taxation on agricultural land or the crop that is produced thereon, goes over for twelve months, the time necessary to produce the crop when there is money to pay taxes. The same principle applies to deferred taxation on timber, only the time necessary to grow this crop is 40 to 60 years and while the crop is growing in value year after year, it is only when something can be sold therefrom that a tax on the timber in addition to the land is levied. Deferred taxation on timber means a fixed annual tax on the cash value of the land for forest purposes and an additional tax on the value of the timber produced thereon at the end of a certain period or when the timber is harvested, and this is known or called the "Severance Tax," a "Yield Tax," or a "Deferred Tax." No one advocates any tax exemptions. The man who grows trees can and will pay his just share of taxation. He simply asks that taxes be not pyramidied while the crop is growing and before be can expect returns from his crop to pay taxes.
The ideal system as I see it to encourage the practice of forestry on cut over, idle forest lands, is to place a fixed value on the land for annual taxation and a deferred, severance or yield tax on the timber when cut and marketed of at least 10% of the value. If after 40 years, which is really a short period in which to grow any timber of value, the land would yield 20 cords of pulpwood to the acre, worth $150.00 the "deferred or severance" tax would be $15.00 more per acre and this tax should be divided 60 per cent to the County, 25 per cent to the State, and 15 per cent to the Department of Conservation which


has charge of the natural resources of the State. By this method there is no chance for any one to evade taxation and the State gets the maximum.
In many states the Constitution will not permit a severance tax as a lieu tax on timber when it is cut. In Louisiana the Department of Conservation is authorized to enter into contracts with land owners to grow useful trees thereon-to reforest cutover lands-for a period not exceeding 40 years during which time the land only is taxed; the minimum valuation being $3.00 per acre. At the end of the contract the land is then taxed on its value for land and timber. At 40 years if there is 10,000 feet per acre or 20 cords of pulpwood the assessment jumps from $3.00 to $100.00 per acre and at 60 years to $150.00 per acre. The timber is not yet ripe, is taking on its fastest growth-will not be cut for many years, but there is now a value to the crop and it is right that the deferred tax be paid. Louisiana in addition levies a severance tax of 2 per cent when the timber is cut.
And State that makes it possible for a land owner to reforest his idle lands plays the game of "Heads I win, tails you lose." To give a concrete example, twenty years ago I commenced the protection of a certain area of cutover land which was in the midst of a million acres of similar lands. My land is no more valuable today than similar lands all around and no increase in value over 20 years ago. But there is this difference. My lands will estimate 20 cords of unripe timber to the acre while the adjacent lands have grown poorer and more sterile and in 20 years more my lands will pay deferred taxes on a valuation of $50.00 to $100.00 per acre while the surrounding lands will still pay at the rate. of $3.00 per acre unless the State or Government has acquired ownership for non-payment of taxes or a small purchase price. The State had everything to gain by making it possible for rne to reforest my idle cutover lands. It is very plain to anyone who will think that it would be unjust, unwise, and unbusinesslike to levy an increased value on forest lands when seedlings were five years old, and again when the saplings were ten and fifteen years old, and again when the immature trees were thirty years old-pyramiding taxes year after year on which compound interest still further increases the burden. It is a man-sized job to pay the cost of


growing a crop of timber even when You already own the land
-it requires nerve, courage and vision to pay out 20 to 25 cents per acre annually for growing a crop which requires 40 to 60 years to mature, and no man, however able he may be, will undertake such a venture unless he knows in advance just what annual taxes he must pay on the land and the deferred taxes on his timber after he grows it.
There are many owners of cut over lands who would gladly undertake the work of reforestation if the State would encourage and deal justly with them, for they have no wish to keep vast areas idle and unproductive. Louisiana has 12,000,000 acres of forest lands and the South has over 1,000,000,000 acres unsuited and not needed for any other purposes than reforestation. What are we going to do about it? It is the peoples business. It is not too late to tackle the problem. You cannot get away from the question of taxation-that is paramountit must be settled in advance if any land owner is to grow new forests. And then comes the reward-compensation. Deferred, severance or yield taxes in large annual sums on lands that would otherwise remain idle wastes-man made deserts. And what is the still greater reward that comes from the proper use of forest lands ? What will my 50,000 acres of re f rested lands mean to the nation 20 or 30 years hence? $1,000.00 per acre for the products delivered to the markets of the country of which fully 85 per cent goes for labor.
Lest we forget. By cultivation a crop of 15,000 feet of timber can be grown in 40 years where nature alone in the past required 150 years and where nature alone will never grow a crop of timber in the future unaided.


Forestry, in most of our Southern States, is a new and pioneer undertaking. Much has been said regarding the fundamental necessity of the adoption of a scientific forestry policy. Concededly, it deserves the Federal support which has devel-


oped within forty years a major public function challenging the admiration of all farseeing patriotic citizens.
Federal cooperation with local, public, and private activities in fire-prevention, the forests'greatests menace, has been accomplished through the wise provisions of the Weeks Act of 1911, and now promises tremendous expansion through the ClarkeMcNary Act of 1924. Twenty-eight States were the recipients of $396,479.82 of the total expenditure of $1,869,564.78 made for fire-prevention in the year ended June 30, 1924; while thirty-two States participated in various Federal forestry funds to the extent of more than $50,000,000.
The subject of forestry finance, therefore, in its broader aspects is eminently worthy of the attention of State governments and budgeteers. But because of the lesser individual resources of the commonwealth, progress in these areas has been less marked; albeit there is a spreading recognition of the desirability of organized State activity, upon which Federal aid is conditioned.
Notably aniong States which have joined the advance movement in organized forestry work are Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon and Washing-ton, Alabama, Louisiana, and score of others are yet in the initial stages.
Col. W. B. Greely, Chief U. S. Forester, in his recent (1924) annual report, declares: "The building up of State policies in forestry and of adequate and competent State agencies backed by intelligent public sentiment in every State having important areas of forest land is one of the most important developments that should be pressed forward."

Of prime importance in launching a forestry program are funds. with which to operate. The history of State legislation discloses that nearly everywhere the beginning was along modest lines. For the requisite "sinews of war" recourse has usually been had to appropriations from the general treasury.
The general treasury is indeed a not inappropriate support of any policy of conservation of natural resources. The systematic practice of forestry undoubtedly tends to the "maximum social advantage," since, according to Gifford Pinchot, "wood


is the most generally useful of all materials, and the storage and high price of wood affects all industries and all people."
The first stumbling-block in financing a comparatively unknown project, however meritorious, is the difficulty of impressing the public at large with the wisdom of the indispensable financial investment. Legislators are chosen at random from this same public-at-large, and too frequently they shy at any proposal for expenditure whose returns are long-deferred.
Hence it is that repeated efforts have sought to discover some kind of special revenue, the use of which will not perceptibly deplete existing resources needed for causes already entrenched in the tax-payer's heart. If the dollar needed for forestry is to be taken out of a scant community purse upon which, for example, the common school must draw, our legislator will ponder long before approving the shift. But if a new dollar may be unearthed in an unexpected spot the proposal is more readily entertained, especially if this new-found dollar has some easily traced connection with the special purpose to which it is to be applied.

In the severance tax law of Louisiana, originally devised by the inventive genius of our distinguished member, Senator Henry E. Hardtner, this benefit theory found conspicuous expression. And, although the Louisiana tax was designed to apply to forest products and the proceeds therefrom to be dedicated to the perpetuation of the forest's life, a portion only of the yield as now administered is retained for the original most laudable purpose.
Pressing necessities of other governmental functions have bred inroads upon the new tax, so that only one-sixth of the collections from forest products now goes to the Division of Forestry. This modicum, however, amounts to over $60,000 per annum, a fund sufficient to fairly well support the reforestation and fire-protection program of this most forward Southern State.
In Arkansas, a bill for a severance tax law was first introduced in 1919. The initial measure (S. B. 322) was based upon the economic principle of, and patterned in its provisions after, the Louisiana law. One-fourth of the proceeds of the


tax on timber products was to have been devoted to "the promotion of the cause of reforestation," and a like share of the mineral products tax to "completing and publishing a geological survey of the mineral resources of Arkansas." The law, however, was not enacted until 1923 (Act No. 118) and now produces all-told about $1,000,000 per annum, not a dollar of which is devoted to conservation. Five-sixths of the entire net yield goes to the common school fund and one-sixth to public highways.
The severance tax in essence, if not in name, exists in a dozen or more States of the Union, and has been found to be a thoroughly workable and constitutional mode of raising revenue.
Some idea of the significance of these production taxes is conveyed by the subjoined partial list, with approximate recent annual yields:
A labam a, coal and iron ore . . $1,000,000.00 Arkansas, all natural resources . . 1,000,000.00 K entucky, oil . _ . . 200,000.00 Louisiana, all natural resources . . 2,300,000.00 M innesota, iron ore . . . - . 5,000,000.00 M ontana, oil . - . 500,000.00 O klahom a, oil . . _ 7,000,000.00 Pennsylvania, anthracite coal . . 6,000,000.00 T exas, oil . . ----------------------------------------------------------- . 5,000,000.00
W est V irginia, sales . . . 3,000,000.00
From a legal standpoint, this revenue instrumentality is classified as a privilege rather than a property tax. In perhaps every State the validity of the privilege or license tax is already judicially established.
The privilege tax indeed offers an appropriate form of tax for the support of the cause of forestry, since in its economic and legal essence it constitutes a special exaction for the privilege of engaging in a special business. Such a tax might be levied at a specified rate upon the operation of manufacturing forest products, and in order to obtain a wider distribution, it could logically be extended to all those business operations which depend upon the products of the forest. Conspicuous among these are the publishing and printing business, that of dealing in newspapers, magazines, books, and all printed liter-


ature, the transportation of wood materials, their utilization in construction operations, etc.
All forms of taxation are traditionally odious. But recent experience has shown that a tax against which there is a minimum of protest is that upon the use of gasoline and oil in motor vehicles used upon the public roads.
The motor fuel tax is rapidly becoming the backbone of the enormous revenue demands for construction and maintenance of the highways of this country.
Can we not trace the reason for the almost universal acceptance of the gasoline tax to the obvious fact that it is a most appropriate source from which to secure funds for good roads?
In like manner it should readily be recognized that a privilege tax, applicable not merely to those who sever or remove forest resources from the soil but to those as well who engage in the business of manufacturing, selling and distributing such products would rest upon as reasonable basis as does the gasoline tax.
By these remarks, I do not mean to say that forestry should be supported by this tax alone; but such a tax should be a dominant ingredient of the financial substructure upon which the forestry of the future must be fashioned. There are other plans, of course, equally as sound from a legal standpoint which are proving effectual in solving the revenue problem.

In the time at my disposal only a few typical State financial schemes can be noted, and that very briefly:
The Maine Forest Service is supported by a system of taxation within the "forestry district," which embraces all wild townships and plantations. The land in the district, while subject to the regular State and county general tax, also bears the district special tax of 2Y4 mills.
For the New Hampshire Forestry Department the legislature appropriates out of the general treasury $75,000 annually. In addition to this the department has available other funds including, of course, the Federal Government allotment amounting to $8,500. The towns bear half the expense of fighting fires; also,


the railroads spend annually $38,000, and the Timber Land Owners Association tax themselves on an acreage basis for $10,000, for patrol work in cooperation with the State. Pennsylvania's expenditure through her Forestry Department in 1923 was nearly $900,000, as a direct appropriation from the general revenue fund.
In the representative Western State of Oregon the 13th annual reportof the State Forester (1923) discloses an interesting statement of the sources of "funds for protection" as follows: Timber owners and logging operators . _$269,375.82 75% W eeks law appropriation (Federal) . 16,877.24 Revested 0. & C. R. R. grant lands appropriation . 30,000.00 137o State legislative appropriation . 39,135.90 110/0 Counties . . . 3,400.00 10/0
$358,788.96 100016

A total of $98,767.22 of these funds was expended for fire fighting and the balance of the available resources was spent "for patrol, improvement, law enforcement and administration."
The Alabama Commission of Forestry, launched in 1923, is financed by the simple expedient of diverting to the forestry fund a definite share of the general revenue derived from the long established system of State license. The portion so appropriated consists of all taxes collected from forestry industries, which amounts to $30,000.
The Louisiana financial expedient-one-sixth of the severance tax proceeds derived from exploitation of forest products and amounts to $60,000 per year-has already been noted.
In Arkansas the severance tax derived last year from products of the forest at the statutory rate of 7 cents per thousand was $132,000, and if one-sixth of that yield, as in Louisiana, had been applied to forestry, that worthy cause could have enjoyed a net revenue of $22,000.
If forestry's share had been one-fourth, as stipulated in the original Arkansas proposal, the net would have been $33,000.
But it required a cut of 1,871,300,000 cubic feet of timber in Arkansas to produce at 7 cents the actual total of $132,000; whereas, in Louisiana the same amount of exploitation at 2 per cent ad valorem, the rate there applicable, produces at least $180,000.


Other auxiliary financial devices have been seriously considered; e.g., camp-fire permits in California; and a direct State bond issue in Pennsylvania and North Carolina.

Finally, in this brief paper, I have refrained from any estimate of the amount of funds actually required for forestry operations.
The needs of the States vary because of varying conditions and extent of forest wealth and potentialities. The experts and technicians present can throw light upon this phase of the subject with far greater insight and ability than is at my command.
It has not been my purpose to point out, even if I could, a Northwest Passage to easy finance in the frontier field of f orestry, but I have tried to show that your fiscal problem is not more baffling than that presented by any other public project, since it can be solved through at least five practical expedients:
(a) The general treasury, as in Pennsylvania.
(b) Special benefit taxation, as in Maine.
(c) A severance tax on raw material, as in Louisiana.
(d) A privilege tax, as in Alabama, on businesses utilizing finished and unfinished products of the forest.
(e) A special tax.

On May 13, 1924, Governor Thomas C. McRae appointed the following citizens as an Honorary Arkansas Forestry Commission: J. R. Hamlen, chairman; A. C. Millar, secretary; Adam Trieschmann, F. W. Scott, C. A. Buchner, C. J. Mansfield, B. A. Cannon, W. N. Bemis, R. E. L. Wilson, 0. 0. Axley, D. B3. Dierks, T. W. Rosborough, A. B. Cook, Seth C. Reynolds, V. C. Kays, Chas. A. Overstreet, J. T. Bucholz, G. W. Donaghey, H. C. Couch, W. R. Stuck, H. G. Stephens, E. B. Kinsworthy, T. S. Buzbee, G. C. Hardin, J. H. Mcllroy, Carl Hollis, J. J. Hughes, P. C. Ewan, D. T. Gray, Hugh Critz, Frank Horsfall, Moorhead Wright, and A. B. Hill.


In his letter of appointment Governor McRae stated his purpose as follows: "For the purpose of studying, formulating and submitting a plan for the protection, preservation and perpetuation of the forests of Arkansas, I hereby appoint an Honorary Arkansas Forestry Commission."
On May 28 the Commission met and organized by electing J. R. Hamlen president, A. C. Millar secretary, and Moorhead Wright treasurer, and authorized its executive committee to prepare for a later meeting by securing all necessary information and creating public interest in the proposed measure.
On December 12 the Commission again met, and after consideration of laws of other states and the tentative draft of a measure, agreed that the bill which follows should be offered to the legislature for adoption.
As the chief object of the Commission is to secure an organization charged with the responsibility of initiating a forestry policy, the bill was made to cover only necessary items, leaving to the next legislature the task of completing legislation after the conditions are fully understood. The simplicity and directness of the measure should recommend it to all friends of conservation. The expense of inaugurating this policy will be small, but the financial returns to the State will be large.

For an Act to be entitled: "An Act to create and establish a State Forestry Commission; and to prescribe its powers and duties; and to provide for the creation of a State Forestry Fund; and for other purposes."
Be it Enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas:
Section 1. There is hereby created and established a State Forestry Commission, hereinafter called the Commission, composed of seven members as follows: The Commissioner of Agriculture, the Dean of the College of Agriculture of the University of Arkansas, and five citizens of the State to be appointed by the Governor, of whom at least three shall be owners of timber land or interested in the manufacture and sale of forest products. The terms of the five appointive members shall expire on December 31, of 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, and 1929, the term of each to be designated by the Governor.


Their successors shall be appointed by the Governor for terms of five years each, except as vacancies are filled for unexpired terms; provided that the term of a member shall continue until his successor is appointed and qualifies. The members shall receive no compensation for their services, but they shall be reimbursed for actual and reasonable expenses while performing their duties.
Sec. 2. The Commission, on the call of the Governor, shall meet at Little Rock within thirty days after appointment, and organize, and shall meet at such other times and places as may be designated by the Commission, or on the call of the chairman, or of any three members. The Commission shall elect a chairman and a vice chairman, and fix the terms and the duties of their officers. The State Forester, hereinafter provided for, shall serve as secretary of the Commission, and shall be the custodian of the books, records, and papers thereof.
Sec. 3. The duties and the powers of the Commission shall be:
(1) To employ a State Forester who shall have been technically trained in the profession of forestry, and who, in addition, shall have had adequate experience in technical and administrative work in forestry, and to fix his compensation, subject to the approval of the Governor; to provide and equip office quarters for the State Forester and his assistants, and to allow the State Forester and his assistants such expenses as are necessary to the performance of their duties; to employ such administrative, supervisory, and clerical assistants to the State Forester as may be deemed necessary, and to fix their respective compensations, subject to the approval of the Governor; and to intrust to the State Forester the immediate direction and control (subject to the approval of the Commission) of all matters relating to forestry as authorized by law.
(2) To formulate and put into effect such reasonable rules and regulations as may be necessary to prevent, suppress, and control forest and woodland fires, and to encourage and promote forest, woodland, and tree planting and growing for the production of timber and wood crops and other beneficial purposes; to cause to be made such studies concerning forest conditions as may seem proper, including the subjects of marketing forest products by farmers and other owners of timber tracts ;


to encourage public interest in forestry and forest conservation by suggesting school programs and using other means of publicity pertaining to the protection and extension of forests and the utilization of forest products; to cooperate with any Federal or State department, or institution, county, town, corporation, association of land owners, or individual, in the preparation and execution of plans for the management, protection, replacement, or extension of the forest, woodland, and other tree growth in the State; to control the expenditures of any and all funds appropriated or otherwise made available for the purposes of this Act; and under proper regulations and restrictions, specifically to authorize any officer or employee of the Commission to incur necessary and stipulated expenses in connection with the work upon which such person may be engaged; and to submit biennially to the Governor and the Legislature a report of expenditures, proceedings, and results achieved, together with such other matters as are deemed necessary, including recommendations concerning such legislation as is germane to the purpose of this Act.
Sec. 4. All moneys appropriated or made available for the use of the Commission shall be placed by the State Treasurer in a special fund to be known as the State Forestry Fund, out of which fund it is contemplated that moneys shall be paid for expenditures as the Commission may direct in carrying out the purposes of this Act.
Sec. 5. The Commission is authorized to receive any gifts or contributions that may be made by persons, associations, or corporations interested in promoting the cause of forestry, and may direct all or a part of such gifts or contributions to the maintenance of a chair of forestry in the University of Arkansas. The commission is further authorized to accept deeds, executed in the State of Arkansas, to lands that may be conveyed to the State for the purpose of creating a State Forest Reserve and to provide rules and regulations for the management of such lands.
Sec. 6. It is hereby made the duty of all peace officers in this State to enforce the provisions of this Act, and the rules and regulations adopted by the Commission.
Sec. 7. All laws and parts of laws in conflict herewith are hereby replaced; and the immediate passage of this Act being


necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Act shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage.

The forestry problems we encounter in shortleaf pine are not very different from the problems presented in other forests. Such differences as do exist are mainly differences in the emphasis we must place on the different phases of our common problem.
There is an old English recipe for Baked Hare that starts with the admonition, "First, catch your hare." In applying forestry to shortleaf pine it is necessary not only first to catch your pine but to catch it in the hands of an owner whose resources permit him and whose disposition inclines him to follow forestry practice. There are, in the language of the silviculturist, certain minimum requirements owners must haveminimum requirements in financial resources and minimum requirements in the importance they attach to the business of growing timber. An owner may have the best of intentions but lack capital; he may have large capital but be averse to this use of it. He is as negligible in the one case as in the other.
No doubt the day is approaching in the shortleaf pine country when investments in growing timber will be sought after. But for the present the problem presents itself as one not for the investor with free choice, but for the owner who finds himself in possession of cutover land for which there is no acceptable market.
Foresters of course recognize that it is easier to begin the practice of forestry with a stand of timber than with cut-over land, but there are few such opportunities. It is usually the lumberman who has cut out and failed to find a market for his cut-over land who turns to us for help. What can we do for him?
For the sake of brevity and to open this discussion, I propose to assume certain conditions which are fairly general and


to base on them an outline of the successive steps which will produce a new growth of shortleaf pine at a reasonable cost.
At the very beginning and of prime importance stands the problem of fire protection. Shortleaf grows not in remote and unpopulated parts of the country but here in the middle of the nation where there is a population that is concerned with what happens in the woods and that must be reckoned with. Fire in shortleaf is not a natural phenomenon but a social problem and must be so handled. Fires are set by men either carelessly or for a purpose. Our first business is to learn the facts. In its early stages our program is not one of policing our forests, but of educating our community. We must first enlist the support of the whole community in fire protection, and to secure this support requires an intimate understanding of local sentiment for the better. The advantage of effective community co6peration are so great and initial failure to get it is so costly that this is no job for a novice and no job for one not in fullest sympathy with the problem of the community in which he is working. The broad principle is that you must get community cooperation. The actual problem is to get it under local conditions which vary widely. There is no general procedure that will insure success. Once community cooperation is secured it must be supplemented by as much patrol work as may be demanded, taking care always to keep the patrol supplementary to community effort and never let it supplant it.
The second problems is reproduction to adequately restock the erea. Fortunately this offers no particular difficulty in shortleaf. Logging has left a few trees, even if they are not exactly what we would like and where we would prefer them. Shortleaf seeds so frequently and scatters its seeds so widely that the ground is well covered with seedlings in a few years. But seedlings require full sunlight for their best growth and where pines occur in mixture with hardwoods this is not available unless the hardwoods are cut. Do this if the hardwoods are marketable. If they are not marketable move the defective trees and weed species from the hardwoods by deadening. This will reduce the hardwoods by about one-half and correspondingly benefit the pine. Cut the merchantable hardwood at the


first opportunity. To prevent restocking with hardwoods by running hogs in the woods to clean up the mast.
The third problem is financial, to keep down costs and discover possible sources Of immediate income. Taxes and some supervision to prevent adverse possession are necessary charges against the mere ownership of land. Fire protection costs money and whatever measures are taken to improve restocking add to this cost. Income from second growth timber usually begins after a wait of ten to twenty years and to offset current expenditures some kind of current income is most desirable. Local conditions may afford now this and now that source of income, but usually in shortleaf pine live stock will offer the most generally available supplementary source of income. This is a business in itself and one to be treated more f ully in the course of the discussion to follow.
But in the long run the financial success of the operation is going to depend on the net income from the timber grown. The first wood cut will be small in size and volume and low in quality. It is all the more necessary to make this cut economically and to market it advantageously, and not to accept it as a necessary expense against the operation. Careful planning is necessary to turn a liability into an asset, but it must be done if we are to reduce and not increase the charges against the business.

Mr. Charles A. Plymale, Forest Supervisor in charge of the Arkansas National Forest, Hot Springs, was on the program to tell about growing pine in those forests. He said he did not know until he was handed a program that he was expected to speak, so he did not prepare anything. From his 16 years experience in the National Forests he had discovered that reproduction will take care of itself if the fire is kept out. Fire control is a community problem, and its solution is chiefly education. He tries to remove defective and diseased trees and species not merchantable like scrub oak that interfere with growth. If this work is a success the acreage is increased. Some lumber


companies are becoming much interested in practical forestry. The Dierks interests are trying to practice the same methods as those of the National Forest. They leave a nucleus of seed trees for a second crop to be harvested in 60 years and trim up and burn the brush. In the National Forests trees under 14 inches breast high are not cut unless it is necessary to remove those that interfere with young growth. The lumber sales average from 2,000 to 3,000 feet to an acre. The forest is a pine stand, not oak. The fires destroy both the young and the old trees. There are fires every month of the year. In 1924 there were 443 fires in this National Forest and 121 outside which threatened damage, so the force of the forest were obliged to handle them. The total acreage affected was 14,000. The fire control problem is necessary for production of shortleaf pine. In so doing we must have the cooperation of communities. The question is chiefly one of education.

In the past little attention has been given to the important question of improvements in the methods of logging for the purposes of protecting and encouraging the growth of young timber. Virgin timber being plentiful, and being heralded as inexhaustible led timber operators to direct their attention to problems at the mills. Such operations as sawing for grade, proper edging and grading, utilization of short pieces, kiln drying, and scientific operation of planers commanded their concentrated efforts. Studies involving the effect of regulated timber cutting on the economic situation in the community or State and its effect on the wood-using industries had not been worked out. However, certain factors such as the increased demand for lumber, depleting timber resources and the knowledge of extensive unproductive areas have in recent years been an incentive to studying the situation. Enlightenment which has come about through studying and working on the problems mentioned, has given us an insight into the timber situation,


and an appreciation of the great importance of improved logging practices.
Although somewhat slow in recognizing the present situation, with experience and knowledge gained, we are enabled to take a good foresight on the opportunity which is still ours to do something genuinely constructive in averting a timber shortage and in conserving timber resources for future requirements.
In this connection, I quote in part what President Coolidge said in his address before the Washington Wood Utilization Conference, "Handled by the best timber-cropping methods, our present forest lands could be made to grow even more timber each year than we now use." He went on to say "But much of our cut-over land, lying idle or half productive is now an immeasurable loss, it pays little or no taxes, it keeps few hands busy, it turns few wheels, it builds no roads."
The conditions mentioned can be partially remedied through systematic regulation of the methods involved in cutting timber. Improved logging methods is one of the steps in rational forestry practice, which will bring about closer and more effective utilization of the timber now being cut, and in addition, it will put the area being cut to work growing trees, thus bringing about the development of a great deal of future timber wealth in the South.
The Crossett Lumber Company through its manager, Mr. E. W. Gates, began as far back as 1909 in working out the solution of the timber cutting problem, a diameter limit of 14 inches was first prescribed, only trees above this limit being cut. The cutters were given small rulers for the purpose of assisting them in determining diameters to be taken or left, thus eliminating all guess work.
The diameter limit worked well for several years, while the sizes of the timber, for which the limit was made, remained constant. The chief objections to the diameter limit were: ( 1 ) In stands of large sized timber the diameter limit was found to be too low the result being clear cutting or leaving but an insufficient number of trees on the ground which were of the wrong sort and unable to effect immediate and complete reseeding of the area after cutting. (2) In dense stands of small sized


timber the diameter limit left the reverse of the conditions mentioned above, taking out but few trees, hence leaving the trees too thick on the ground where they should have been somewhat thinned out. In the application of the diameter limit there can be no selection of trees best suited to be left. In old virgin stands, suppressed and rot infected trees with poorly developed crowns and possessing little or no capacity for either quality or quantity seed production were often left. This method of providing for the reseeding of cut-over lands proved ineffective and inadequate.
The second step in the improvement of timber cutting practices was the working out of systems for cutting different stands of timber; briefly two systems for regulating the cutting of loblolly and shortleaf pine timber were worked out. These systems now being applied by the logging department at Crossett are: (1) Clear cutting leaving scattered seed trees; this method is used in old virgin timber. (2) Leaving trees for a second cut. This system leaves a sufficient number of the trees on the ground, properly spaced, constii:uting a basis for a cut in the future.
In the first system that of leaving seed trees, only one kind of a tree is left, that being one capable o I producing an abundant crop of seed right away. All other kinds and classes of trees such as the runt, pole, suppressed or rot infected, and the old veteran ready to go over during the first storm, are insufficient, dangerous, and wasteful of time, and money. The healthy tree with a well developed crown and extending well down the trunk to approximately one-half of its length has been found to give the best results. Two of such trees per acre and averaging 14 or 15 inches in diameter at great height are sufficient for reseeding that area.
The second method, that of leaving a second cut is applied only in thick virgin, hurricane, and old field stands, approximately 85 per cent of the volume of the stand is removed, leaving 15 per cent of the volume in young thrifty growing trees, well spaced and in a condition to put oil the growth.
The success of the two systems is dependent upon the kind of logging equipment used in putting the cut timber on the right-of-way. Skidders and other forms of power rehauls are


ordinarily agents of destruction to the young growth in the stand being logged, and to any trees being left for reforesting purposes. For the combined purpose of taking out logs and protecting the young growth, team logging is the most successful.
Our company's cut over lands reflect the value of team logging. A survey of the cut over holdings brought out the fact that the greater portion was reseeded with a good stocking of pine timber.
In putting into practice the described systems of cutting timber, at Crossett, care was taken to instruct all loggers of the problems to be encountered and the regulations to be Observed.
If our logging department issued written instructions setting forth the principles of utilization and protection observed in the cutting of pine timber they would read something as follows:
1. Marked Trees. Trees marked with 3 or 4 spots of white wash are not cut. The spots indicating that they are to be left as seed trees or as trees for a second cut.
2. Diameter Limit. No trees 12 inches or under in diameter on the stump are cut unless a cutting is being made in a thick stand and it is deemed necessary to thin out the same.
3. Stump Heights. The height of stumps in all cases does not exceed the diameter of the trees. The maximum stump height is 24 inches, for trees greater than 24 inches in diameter.
4. Tree Felling. Before notching a tree the cutters decide on a place to throw it, so as to avoid felling it into, against or around a tree marked to be left.
5. Protection. No trees are thrown into groups of young vigorous growing pine, this can be avoided in most instances by proper notching and by pulling the tree to the right or left of the group in question. Where cuttings are made in dense stands, effort is put forth to throw the trees so as to bunch their tops in the openings.
6. Breakage. No trees are felled across stumps for in so doing great waste is incurred, through breaking and splitting. Care is exercised in the use of fall logs to prevent breakage.
7. Stripping Areas. The king swamped in stripping off cutting areas indicates the boundary line of each area by blazing hardwoods and pines which will be cut. Trees to be left are left unblemished so they can better withstand the changed conditions.
8. Measuring for Grade. After felling the tree, it is measured with strict observance as to log length and log quality or grade. In case of indecision or doubt due to the presence of rot or other defects, advice is sought from the foreman in charge. Briefly, the grade of the lumber produced is no better than the grade in the log, and for that reason it is particularly stressed that logs be measured and cut so as to have the surface clear to come in one log and the knotty portion in another log.


Straight logs are wanted. Crooked trees in many cases can be made into straight logs by cutting the crook in the center.
9. Top Logs. Logs of suitable sizes are cut out of tops in so far as it is economically possible. This is dependent upon the size of the log and the number and size of the limbs present. Close utilization of tops reduces the fire risk.
10. Slash Disposal. No limbs cut from logs or other slash is thrown around standing trees or into valuable young growth.
11. Bonfires. No bonfires are made in the woods during dry seasons. Fires built in winter for warming purposes are made in the open and not against stumps or standing trees. In building a fire the builder is required to see that necessary precautions are taken in raking back all inflammable slash and forest litter.
The key to putting the above mentioned regulations into action is in securing the happy cooperation of the men engaged in the cutting of timber. The logging department believes in seed trees for they will bring back the cut-over lands into heavy stands of timber again. They take pride in their work which is a glorious work composed of not only making provisions for the present generation, but also for making provisions for future generations of men. It is a work which not only develops economic stability in a commonwealth but it also affords that commonwealth satisfaction in that they are giving something of permanent value to their native land and to posterity.
In this connection, as a notable example, we can find none more convincing than the operations of Solomon in building his temple. Jehovah commanded Solomon to get cedar trees out of the mountains of Lebanon for the building of the temple and suggested that he use the Sidonians in so doing "For they knew how to cut timber." When Hiram, King of Tyre, heard of the contemplated plans for the erection of the famous temple, he advised Solomon that he would be glad to supply him with the necessary cedar and firm timber from Lebanon and he further advised that he would assist in getting the timber out. Solomon very graciously accepted the offer and agreed to furnish food and men to carry on the logging operations.
Undoubtedly Solomon can be justly proclaimed the king of all loggers, as he furnished 30,000 men such as hewers and carriers to get out the immense quantities of timber from Lebanon.
Since Solomon's time approximately 3,000 years have elapsed and Lebanon is still heavily wooded. The population


has increased and the inhabitants in the cities and country surrounding the Mountains of Lebanon where Solomon did his log ing, still have bountiful supplies of timber. The question arises as to what measures were used to perpetuate the timber growth.
When Jehovah commanded Solomon to build the temple, he suggested that they use the Sidonians "For they knew how to cut timber."
Gentlemen, we must cut our forests so as to make proper provisions for the immediate establishment of new stands of timber. We in Arkansas want future generations to have such timber resources as we have had the pleasure of enjoying. We want them to be able to say of us, as was said of the Sidonians
-"For they knew how to cut timber."

Mr. E. W. Gates, of the Crossett Lumber Company, Crossett, Ark., enlivened the meeting by an interesting and instructive talk based on fiis 33 years experience in Arkansas. He began by saying that someone said you can tell a man from Texas anywhere, but you can's tell him much. He was reminded of this because a man from Texas had asked about the rate of growth and no one answered him. There are acres that will grow 200 feet of timber a year and others that will grow 600. The average land in Arkansas and North Louisiana not logged with a skidded will grow 200 feet a year. One can figure how many feet he will get an acre and how much the yield is, just the same as he can obtain his costs from his books. At $8 a thousand this would give $1.60 an acre a year. The mistake made is to capitalize too high. This should not be more than $3.00 an acre. The $3.00 is the capital stock and the expense on the 58,000 acres the company is reforesting under contract with the State of Louisiana is 9% of which 3 % is taxes and 6 7o interest. Any one owning 5,000 acres or more is overlooking a bet, if he does not look into this game. Don't be so hard headed; get right and be doing something for yourself and for the world. Fire in March or in the early


sap part of the year doesn't kill the tree, but it won't grow very much that year, except on the side that did not feel much heat.
Mr. R. D. Forbes said Mr. Gates meant by 200 feet growth an acre a year, that if he had a 40 year stand, he would at the end of 40 years have 8,000 feet to the acre; while at the rate of 900 feet a year, he would in 50 years have 45,OW feet per acre.
All day long the people who were in the Marion hotel were attracted to a man wearing a coonskin cap. Mr. E. W. Gates introduced him to the congress as Mr. Eugene Watt, one of the fire wardens of the Crossett Lumber Company, who has seven sons, was the seventh son himself and has three sons-inlaw. He raised cotton in the season, looked out for fires and extinguished them, and trapped after the other excitement was over. He controlled 14 votes. His sons, his wife, his daughters and sons-in-law all are looking for fires. Mr. Watt is interested in keeping out fires because if they burn the forests, he doesn't get his hogs.
Mr. Watt said he was a warden, a trapper and farmer and a little mixed. He had a lot of trouble, for people would fire the woods. One day he loaned his pony and before it was returned, he saw smoke of a iire, so sent one of his boys to put it out. If he had had his pony, he would have caught the man, which would not have amounted to anything but he would have known who did it. When patrolling, Mr. Watt carries a fire broom and a scythe rake. He beats out fire with the broom and makes a fire line with the rake, which can also be used for cutting brush. There are 200 trappers in Ashley county. At an average earning of $250 a season for each man in this business amount to $50,000. If fires continue to burn and destroy all the fur bearing animals this is a total loss to the trappers of Ashley County, Arkansas.
A get-together dinner was held at the Marion Hotel at 6:30 p. m. ($2.00 per plate). The Congress was again honored by the presence of Governor Terral. A number of members of


the State Legislature and other public officials also attended. Following the addresses of Mr. E. A. Sherman and Dr. Herman von Schrenk, Mr. H. N. Wheeler Special Lecturer, U. S. Forest Service, gave a most inspiring and informing illustrated lecture entitled, "The Lure of the Forest." This was followed by a two reel movie, "The Forests of Tomorrow."

I feel that it would be most appropriate for me to preface my remarks this evening with a few words of testimony expressing the debt of gratitude which the Forest Service officially, and I personally, owe to the President of this association. For a number of years past we have consistently relied upon him to back our efforts in Congress to secure urgently needed appropriations for forestry. More than once when Congressional hearings have been scheduled I have wired Mr. Holmes and he has always responded in person, and, in his capacity as State Forester, has thrown the weight and prestige of the great State of North Carolina into the balance on our side. Not once has he ever failed to rally to our support. We would be ungrateful indeed should we ever forget the favors of the past.
In this connection it is not out of place to remark that in the halls of Congress the conservation of our forests has generally received unstinted support from the South. In the House of Representatives, Gordon Lee, of Georgia, who for the past thirteen years has been a member of the National Forest Reservation Commission, has done marvelous missionary work in informing the southern members so that invariably we receive the backing of the solid delegation, not as a political or sectional policy but an economic one. We have many champions among the southern senators. For many years the senior senator from Louisiana has been one of the leading forestry advocates in the upper house. The senior senator from Mississippi introduced the resolution which resulted in the appointment of the Senate Select Committee on Reforestation, and be


and the senior senator from Florida were members of that committee which submitted the report bringing about the Clarke-McNary Law. And "lest we forget," be it always remembered that in the dark days of Ballingerism Senator Fletcher gave loyal and unstinted support to Pinchot and the policy of conservation.
When your president complimented me some weeks ago by asking me to attend and address the seventh session of the Southern Forestry Congress, he kindly gave me the choice of speaking at the regular session during the day, or at the banquet in the evening. I promptly chose the evening opportunity. There were very good reasons f or this; I know a good meal guaranteed your attendance as it did mine, and I wanted to really make your acquaintance as a sure enough human being. It is said one never really knows a man until he can recognize him in a crowd by a glimpse at the back of his neck. Certainly you never get acquainted with a man by making him a speech from a platform. But, when we have gathered about the board as tonight, I may, under the old Arabic custom, claim the privileges of the household's guest, having broken bread and partaken of salt with thee beneath thy roof.
It has been a long journey from out of the past to this banquet board. I do not refer to the distance between Washington and Little Rock, nor do I knock the efficiency of the Missouri Pacific as a transportation agency. My reference is prompted by the fact that in my twenty-two years service in National Forest work this is the first opportunity I have had to attend a meeting of your association. To become really acquainted, we must each know something of the other's past experiences. I know something already of the Association's past seven years. My introductory autobiographical sketch will be brief. I was born in Iowa. The first pine tree I ever encountered too tall for me to look over was at Chickamauga Park in the Spanish-American War. Shortly after that war, I was engaged in more dangerous warfare as an editor in Montana during the Daly-Clark senatorial feud, and finally landed in the Forest Service as a Forest Supervisor during the reign of Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot. I have been licensed to practice law before the Supreme Court of the State of Utah, but have never practiced. From a more or less inti-


mate acquaintance with the woods and woodsmen of the eleven western public land States I have assumed the right to practice forestry, unlicensed, before the bar of public opinion in any State in the Union whose people either produce wood or consume it. But if you are expecting from me an erudite exposition of some highly technical or scientific phase of the forestry problem you are going to be disappointed. My forestry talk is not taken from the books of Mr. Holmes' old buddy, Bill Schlick, but is all expressed in barnyard or street car English.
It has been suggested to me that for my subject tonight I might paint the progress of forest devastation in the westward march of the woodsman's axe and the saw mill from the Atlantic coast to the last great stand of virgin timber on the Pacific slope. I have decided not to do so. The story is not a new one and anything which I might tell you in connection with it would no doubt simply be a variation of a recital which all of you have heard many times before. The 81 million acres of desert land left in the path of forest exploitation is a lamentable fact known to all. Equally well known is the diminution of our stands of merchantable timber and the deplorable condition of millions of acres of cut-over lands. The more or less sadly wrecked condition of the 179 million acres of the forests of the South is a solemn fact which needs no emphasis to secure your appreciative understanding. It is needless to dwell upon details of the picture of desolation. Sufficient for the moment to admit and record that the forest problem in the United States has not yet been solved.
A few months ago a newspaper correspondent came into my office in Washington and stated that he understood our national forestry problem was solved and that there was no longer any danger of a shortage of timber in the United States. He claimed that this statement had been made by a forester of national reputation, whose name he could not recall at the time. However, he gave me the reference to the interview in which it appeared and I found that he was referring to a statement made by our dear forester friend, Austin Cary, who, returning from his year's work in the Southern States, spoke enthusiastically of the rapidity of growth of the forests of the South, and how these forests would furnish ample regional supplies of timber for the future if protected from fire and properly managed.


I read the interview, then sadly shook my head and in sorrowing tones told my enthusiastic newspaper friend: "You disappoint me: I was in hopes from what you said that somebody had found and applied a remedy. The remedy referred to here has always been known but has never yet been applied. Dr. Cary is right, but you overlook that tremendous little word 'if.' So long as our nation consumes more wood each year than it produces from the soil our forest problem remains unsolved. As yet it is only 25% solved, for we are consuming timber four times as fast as we are growing it. This would not be the case, as Dr. Cary says, if we protected our forests adequately from fire and managed them properly."
I am no ' t going to ask you tonight to expend your emotions in crying over spilled milk. In forest devastation we have, from an economic standpoint, spilled milk enough to make a Niagra compared with which the original would be as trivial as the trickling rainfall from a cottage roof. As foresters we are all inclined to expend our emotions in sorrowing. The discussion of forest devastation has reached a stage where it is comparable to the weather, of which Mark Twain said "everybody is complaining and talking about it but nothing is done about it."
In the past the greatest obstacle to doing anything effectively to prevent forest devastation has been the absence of basic enabling federal legislation. Until Congress acted, the rest of the public, including even the timber operators and land owners, to a limited extent had a perfectly good alibi, but on the seventh of June last Congress called our hand and enacted the ClarkeMcNary law, covering a great many of the things which we all believed to be essential to a sound forest program.
It is my purpose tonight to call your attention to the ClarkeMcNary law and to some of its possibilities and limitations. In the first place, it must be clearly recognized that the passage of the Clarke-McNary bill did not in itself directly increase our forest area by a single acre, did not plant a tree, extinguish a fire, put an additional board in a lumber yard, or add a single shake to a cabin roof. Congress authorized a great many things. By itself it could accomplish nothing.
The first three sections of the Clarke-McNary law provide for the protection of forest lands from fire by cooperation be-


tween the Federal Government, the State and the private owners. They also provide for a study and investigation of the forest tax problem. The appropriation of not to exceed $2,500,000 for these purposes is authorized. Another section of the law extends the scope of the purchase provisions of the Weeks law so that lands desirable for timber production may be purchased on the water shed of any navigable stream, which means practically anywhere in the United States. The provision that no lands shall be purchased in any state unless the legislature of that State shall have first given its consent to the acquisition of forest land by the federal government, quite properly remains unchanged. Donations of land and their acceptance by the federal government are also authorized. There are a number of sections dealing with public lands but these do not apply in most of the territory covered by your Association. Sections four and five deal with farm forestry, one authorizing the appropriation of not to exceed $100,000 a year for cooperation with the states in the distribution of forest seeds and planting stock, and the other a like amount for cooperating with the States in assisting farmers in the proper management of their timber lands. The cooperation with any State under these two sections, as well as cooperation in fire protection, is conditional upon the State spending at least an equal amount for the same purpose.
Unfortunately the present condition of the nation's financial affairs did not permit the Bureau of the Budget or Congress to increase forestry funds so rapidly. The appropriation bill, as passed by House and Senate and submitted to the conferees, provides $50,000 for each of the two farm forestry bills, or fifty per cent of the total authorization, $669,000, for fire cooperation with the States, or 26 per cent of the amount authorized, and one million for land purposes, or one-third of the amount recommended. No additional funds were appropriated to provide for increased activities under any of the other sections of the law. Obviously, accomplishment under the new act for the next fiscal year, is limited by the volume of the funds provided by the appropriation. We must keep within it. We must endeavor to get the maximum mileage out of the gas furnished us, but we must not expect this new car to call at the financial filling station again until July 1, 1926.


Meanwhile, there is much that can be done. States, such as Arkansas, that have not yet qualified to receive financial aid from the government for fire protection, may well take advantage of the interim by passing the requisite enabling legislation. With the $100,WD available for farm forestry, a start can be made; the machinery of cooperation, distribution and service organized and basic principles threshed out and established. Consideration and study may also be given to the broad public question of the place of reforestation in our economic and fiscal program, that this work of ours should be given preference. In the last analysis that is a question for Congress to decide, as the taxpayers' official representative. In other words, the volume of forestry appropriations, must be determined by the force of public opinion. If the wood-growers and wood-users of the nation wish more money spent on reforestation they must make the real conditions known to their representatives and "sell" it to them as a public policy.
Even without additional funds some progress is already being made under the provisions of the Clarke-McNary law. You will recall that section nine of that law authorizes the President to create National Forests out of existing military reservations, where practical to do this, while still leaving the area available for use by the War Department in case of military necessity. Under this provision the President has already created three new National Forests, the Benning National Forest, near Columbus, Georgia, with an area of 79,000 acres, the Jackson National Forest, near Columbia, South Carolina, with 20,500 acres, and the McClellan National Forest, with 15,350 acres, near Anniston, Alabama. Nine other projects scattered from Florida to Northern New York, are under way. This is an admirable example of constructive planning for both the general welfare and the common defense. When war came upon us in 1917, it was necessary for the nation to acquire these reservations at a heavy cost of both time and money. Now through times of peace, the War Department retains the buildings and grounds needed for peace time purposes. The rest of the reservation is handled as a forest, but with the terrain available for the use of troops for maneuvers and training purposes, which will in no way materially interfere with the productiveness of the forest. Then should a great war ever come


-which please God will not be for centuries, if ever-the entire area would immediately be at the unhampered use of our army at a mere word from the Secretary of War. This is almost pure magic. It is a case of eating our cake and still having it.
The other sections of the Clarke-McNary law deserving our special attention are the two farm forestry sections. Really I believe they present much greater possibilities than their author or any of the rest of us ever dreamed. I must admit that personally I never realized the part they might play in formulating the future forestry policy of our people until after the law was passed, and I had the pleasure of attending a forestry day picnic up in Congressman John D. Clarke's district in Delaware County, New York, where 3500 people gathered in a white pine grove on a farm eight miles from the nearest railway station and heard the owner of the farm explain how, and at what price, he had planted 220 acres of his farm to 250 thousand conifers, how the white pine grove in which they stood was volunteer stock forty years old, and would already cut over 25 M to the acre and bring out less than $10 or $12 per M on the stump, or from $250 to $300 per acre, without his turning a hand. We were in what had once been the premier dairy region of the Empire State*; but the cheap forage and feed of the Mississippi Valley, the Babcock cream separator and artificial refrigeration, has changed the economic equation and the specter of the "abandoned farm" is just in the offing. The better business minds of the region look upon intensive forestry upon the poorer land and soils, coupled with intensive farming of the better soils, as their economic salvation.
While the farmer proprietor stood on an improvised table in the grove and told his farmer neighbors all about tree planting, Forest Commissioner Pettis of New York State took orders for over 400,000 small trees for farm planting, to be delivered to his farmer neighbors at the cost of their production, just the sort of business contemplated by Section four of the new law. Let us hope that by cooperation such stock may soon be furnished in every state on a similar basis.
This picnic gave me a new vision of the place of farm forestry in our economic equation. We have 150 million acres in farm woodlots. On the average they should be our most productive forest acres from the point of total production, total


value of products, and low production costs. The lumbermen and wood-working industries throughout the country, and the members of this Association particularly, will do well to give every encouragement to farm forestry. It seems to me that the farmer holds the key to the solution of the forest tax problem. So long as the question of forest taxation is debated with a few large owners of cut-over timber lands on one side and the general public on the other there is not the slightest chance of real justice being done. The public does not understand and cannot be made to understand by any amount of argument. But when the farmer and small land owner puts his money into trees and begins to raise wood as a crop he will soon become silviculturally wise. You can bet your last dollar that Charlie DuMond, the owner of Pine Grove Farm, whom I have told you about, up in Delaware County, New York, understands the essentials of the forest taxation question just as clearly as Professor Fairchild of Yale University: and when all is said and done that question is going to be decided by the Charles DuMonds of this country and not by the Weyerhausers. Think it over. Encourage the DuMonds of your region to practice forestry. The result will be beneficial to the Weyerhausers as well as the DuMonds and doubly so to the nation as a whole.
This looks like a good place to stop. If I should continue longer you would doubtless class me with the speaker who was criticized by "Jim" Hill on the grounds of inadequate terminal facilities. Besides I have enjoyed myself so much at this meeting that I would like to come hack another year, so must keep a few things up my sleeve ready to spring if it is my good fortune to meet with you again, and so, as our friend "Roxie" says over the radio, "Good night; pleasant dreams; God bless you.
Dr. Herman Von Shrenk made an interesting talk based on the timber acreage saved by the use of creosoted railroad material. He said he had that day visited the creosoting plant at Little Rock operated jointly by the Missouri Pacific and Rock Island railroads of which he is consulting engineer. He saw a lot of piling about 30 feet long, which he heard had come out of a comparatively barren field a few miles south of Little Rock.


He counted the rings and found the trees to be 25 to 30 years old. This piling when treated would be of sufficient strength to support the heaviest locomotives and trains. A few years ago their use would not have been possible for lack of preservative treatment, and there was thus a saving of trees and greater size suitable for different uses by reducing the number to be cut. Dr. Von Schrenk read the following:
Acreage to provide ties and lumber for the Missouri Pacific Railroad.
Used in 1923: Quantity *Acreage
T ies . 2,516,204 41,936 Lum ber . 62,500,000 f eet 28,000 Piling . __ . . 20,000 pieces 4,000
Actual Saving: 1910 1923 Saving
W hole line ties per mile . 392 272 120
120 ties equal two acres at 9,490 miles equals 18,980 acres a year.
In 1924 treated 2,000,000 ties which equalled 33,000 acres, instead of six years will get 12 years equaling saving of 198,000 acres.
Lehigh Valley Railroad: Average tie renewal 1898-1910, 226; 1923, 91, equaling saving of 135 ties, equaling 2.2 acres at 3,414 miles equaling 7,511 acres.
United States: Total ties treated 1909-1915, 228,830,151, equaling 3,713,736 acres or 530,534 acres a year. This acreage saved for at least six years from 1916 to 1922. The 3,713,73,6 acres is slightly in excess of the total area of Massachusetts.

The Congress was called to order by President Holmes at 9:45 a.m. in the Ball Room of the Marion Hotel.

* On basis of 60 ties per acre.


It is not with the claim that the idea of purchased National Forests is new or original that I ask your consideration of a program involving a considerable expansion in the work of acquiring National Forest lands for the country east of the Great Plains. It is with the idea that this end of forestry activity is not getting its share of public attention. Most of you are familiar with the operation of the Weeks Law which was passed in 1911 and which initiated the policy of purchasing lands for National Forests at the headwaters of navigable streams. The program conceived at that time had in mind the purchase of forested lands in the White Mountains of New England and along the Appalachian chain. So far, the work of acquisition has been confined to this section and the original plan of purchase is not yet 40 per cent complete.
Last June the passage of the Clarke-McNary Act, which has been so masterfully discussed at this gathering, enlarged the scope of the acquisition work authorized by the Weeks Law. It authorizes the purchase of lands anywhere on the watersheds of navigable streams for the strict purpose of raising timber. The actual advantage which the Clarke-McNary Law gives along this line is, so far, confined to a commitment on the location and purpose of land which may be acquired. You will remember that Section 6 which covers this matter in the ClarkeMcNary Act fails to authorize the expenditure of any money, or to state just how vigorously the people of the United States, Speaking through their representatives, propose to use this new authority. How then does this feature of the Clarke-McNary Act differ from the similar ones in the Weeks Act? This question can be answered by saying that the Weeks Law was passed at a time when, under the rules of both houses of Congress, first, authority, second, a fiscal program, and third, an appropriation, might be included in a single bill. In fact the Weeks Law did lay down a fiscal program for a period of five years and actually appropriated money for that period. Theappropri-


nations which have been secured for National Forest purchase under the Weeks Law, since the original appropriation was exhausted have been small. They have come in spite of the absence of a commitment of Congress to, any definite program of expenditure. Each year it has been necessary to plead with the appropriations committee, especially with the House, because the chairman could not be referred to such a commitment.
The people of the United States, through their representatives, have declared themselves on a policy of limited Government ownership and operation of National Forests. They have failed to say through their representatives in Congress that they mean business; that they want this important work of acquiring land pushed until it is completed.
The necessity for the people of this country to say that they mean business is all the greater in view of Section 6 in the Clarke-McNary Act which broadens the original Weeks Law.
It is with this size-up of the acquisition business that the American Forestry Association has addressed itself to a great task. This is the task of securing an expression of demand for a definite fiscal policy concerning National Forest land purchases. The Association has secured the introduction of the McNary-Woodruff Bill in the present session of Congress. This bill would authorize the appropriation of three million dollars a year for five years beginning on July 1, 1926, and five million dollars a year for five years beginning on July 1, 1931, in all a program for the expenditure of forty million dollars over a period of ten years under the provision of the Weeks Law as amended. This includes the Clarke-McNary provision. The bill was drafted after an exhaustive study of the reports of the Senate Select Committee on reforestation which a little over a year ago declared that no less than three million dollars a year should be provided annually for National Forest purchase work. The study made by this select committee is exhaustive and significant. It is the report to Congress of one of its own committees which went to work thoroughly and conscientiously to get at the truth. The bill also was inspired by careful study of the reports of the Forester and with the knowledge of the difficulty of holding together an efficient land and title examining force for the work, in the face of inadequate appropriations.


Furthermore the recommendation of the National Forest Reservation Commission, charged with the authority of making actual purchases, were consulted, and liberal use was made of economic facts of the forest history of that portion of the United States, east of the Great Plains.
It is of extreme importance that the purchase work in the White Mountains and the Appalachians be continued, so that an additional three million acres of land may be added to. the National Forests in these regions. The program suggests such action. Economy in administration will result here, from the consolidation of holdings which will be made possible by the additional purchases and it is from these mountain regions that immediate financial returns are flowing into the United States Treasury. As a matter of fact the existing group of National Forests in Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee, the Carolinas, and Georgia have more than paid their expense of administration and protection in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1924.
The program is designed also to extend to the once famous forest region of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, resulting eventually in the control of two and a half million acres in the Lake States region.
Of equal importance is the extension for the forest land purchases to the mountain and pine growing sections of the South, aimed at the acquiring of two and a half million acres of the land which now lies idle but which is potentially as productive as any forest land in the United States.
The industrial destiny of the South is inseparably tied up with its forests. With the possible exception of cotton, the greatest source of wealth in the South for more than a quarter of a century has been its forests. They have brought into your States 20,000 saw-mills representing an investment of more than one-half a billion dollars. They have created a business which stands first among the industries in six Southern States, second in four States and third in three. One-half million people are employed by these industries and the sale of their products has brought into the South, upwards of ten billion dollars in the last twenty years. It is a common saying that southern pine sets the price of soft wood lumber because of its


dominant competitive position. The tremendous stand of the original southern forests which included some one hundred and twenty-five million acres and contained close to six hundred and fifty billion feet have shrunk 80 per cent under the worlds demand for their products. One quarter of all the pine cut today in southern forests comes from second growth which has come back, not because of careful management, but because of the wonderful productiveness of southern forest soils. One and one-quarter million acres a year of this second growth is now being cut and the crying need is for an example of forest management which will make it possible for pine forests to reproduce themselves. Habitual woods burning, general neglect and the competition of less valuable species can quickly make cutover land in the South a liability rather than an asset. Two and a half million acres of the total tbirty-five million which are idle put under Federal management and well distributed throughout the denuded portions of the South, is the part of this great program of forest acquisition which you are asked to consider.
The figures which I have read,-three million acres in the eastern mountain regions, two and a half million in the southern pine country and two and a half million in the Lake States, seem to cover a tremendous area. As a matter of fact, the total eight million acres which it is hoped to secure under the program, would not make six National Forests of the size which now exist in the west. The areas listed constitute only a small portion of the land now forested or which must eventually be dedicated to the business of growing trees. Is it not proper that the richest and most experienced agency of the western hemisphere, namely, the Federal Government of the United States, should undertake in modest measure the business of demonstrating that it is possible to practice forestry east of the Great Plains?
State and private activity in this line, it seems to me, may properly be led and supplemented by Government activity. All that can be done by the three of these agencies will not be too much. We must come to the practice of looking more toward the solution of our impending wood shortage and less to that of wringing our hands and pointing sadly at the mistakes of the


past. The United States is not the first nation which has gone through a period of forest devastation before it learned that there is a way to eat the cake and have it. I believe that a note of optimism is needed. Let it be tempered of course by studying the mistakes of the past, but let it be vibrant with courage and assurance that our forest destiny need not be shrouded in gloom if we demand that the obvious relief measures be adopted. In other words there is a way out.
Fire protection, reforestation, tax laws which will support governments and still permit the private owner to practice forestry, wise utilization, and the matters of settling the ownership of our forest lands which ought to be at work-all these necessary activities must, in a measure, go forward abreast. But one or two of them are capable of being tackled with special vigor right now, and finished, so that we may have more energy to put on the others. Nothing seems to me to be of greater immediate importance than acquiring and putting to work Federal demonstration forests throughout the eastern half of this country. Universal support of the program suggested by the American Forestry Association and embodied, as far as its financial features are concerned, in the McNary Woodruff bill, will accomplish this. Whether the measure passes the present Congress or not, and as you all know this is a short session and a badly crowded one, resolutions supporting the bill are important at this time. They will help us to martial the friends of the measure at the first opportunity for a hearing. The supreme importance of well distributed National Forests in the South, I believe, merits the endorsement of the program by this body. I urge you to add to the movement, the momentum which your thoughtfulness and enthusiasm is bound to carry. No movement can stand still. We must either go forward or go back. This is no time to retreat.


"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
First Thessalonians: 5-21.

As long as grass grows green, and rivers flow, the sixteen Southern States of this Union, may account their forests and the products thereof, one of their chief natural resources.
Right there in that paragraph above are the words, which form the foundation stones, upon which will be builder, a superstructure of logic, based on all known facts, to prove that statement, so clear cut, and positive, in the end, that ANY man with an open mind who has followed through, will HIMSELF be convinced that every word of that statement is true; but to accomplish this history, the citizens of the South must do something more than sit down in a row and twiddle their thumbs, in the simple belief that FACTS may grow, out of hope ALONE!

(Thus began the interesting but long paper prepared by Mr. Bolling Arthur Johnson for presentation at this Congress. Owing to his illness the paper was mailed to the President at Little Rock and arrived too late to be included in the program. As the address is based on an article by the same author entitled "The South's Development," published in the Manufacturers Record of December 11, 1924, the paper is not printed here, the Editor quoting only the first and the last paragraphs which should be sufficient to induce the reader to go to the Lumber World Review for the up-to-the-minute news of, and opinions about, current forest problems.)
Mr. Johnson concludes his paper with the following striking statements:
"The Southern Pine Association, considered to be the largest commercial association in the United States, in any line of business, when looked at from the standpoint of its activities and amount of money spent in securing statistical information and trade extension-never has been satisfied with any existing


statistics in regard to the stand of southern pine timber, and has recently been-in its own way-gathering direct 'Timber Stand' information, in every southern pine bearing timberland county or parish of the southern United States, compiling these statistics by direct work of a corps of men employed for that purpose alone, the investigation in the hands of an expert statistician, who-for a similar purpose-covered the same territory four years ago.
This work is not finished and may or may not be given to the world when it IS finished, but I am privileged to quote from the "Long Leaf Letter" a monthly message sent out to the friends of the Industrial Lumber Company of Elizabeth, La., under the direction of Robert M. Hallowell, one of the best known and most successful yellow pine producers in this country-who says in his "Long Leaf Letter" for September:
"Mr. Dunham is now completing a survey for the Southern Pine Association. His report will show the annual cut of southern pine as fifteen billion feet, and the annual growth as seven billion feet. He makes the statement that the production (cut) of southern pine will never fall below seven billion feet."
When one has considered the LUMBER production of these sixteen Southern States, that-really-is only one item of the evidence of prosperity, for the entire South, in its timberland future.
There yet remains the great matter of naval stores, the traditional "tar, pitch and turpentine," staves, headings, hoops, box shooks, railway ties, telegraph poles and the like, the whole category forming such an interesting picture for the great commercial Southland, that makes it certain, that the South will not forget its duty in the present, when it comes to appreciate how surely that will assure its prosperity-in the future-in all matters of commerce, contemplated in the question of tree production-in the soil best fitted to tree production-in the known world.
Reforestation is necessary, and obligatory, and should be; and may yet be made compulsory-some think-in some of the States of the South, which have not yet seen the light-but I do not contemplate any such probability.


The South has already-in many States-the necessary machinery of forestry association, forestry operation by States, cooperation with the Forest Service of the United States and may rest assured that with even the most ordinary help which may be given, to the artificial growth of timber, in the South, that the production of lumber and all of the products we have mentioned above, in the first paragraph of this last division of this monograph-will last for many generations yet to come. And, if the statement may be any comfort to OTHER lumber and timber production sections of this country now in competition with the South, let it be known here and now, that the general prosperity of the South itself will in a few years practically consume all, of the soft lumber items, in the list we have mentioned above; but its hardwood will continue to be shipped all over the world.

The chief problems in the production of hardwoods, as presented in this paper, may be summarized as follows:
1. Proper capitalization of the land which must produce the forest crops.
2. Organization of forest property for timber production as a business enterprise.
3. The establishment of an adequate growing stock.
4. Rational expenditure of improvement funds in proportion to the producing power of the land.
The details of accomplishing these major objectives involve a multitude of minor tasks which cannot be enumerated in this brief time.
Categorically stated, the underlying facts are these, to which material objection will not be raised:
The hardwood forest in this country is in the East. It is found in the woodlots of the farms, on the swamp and overflow lands of the South, and on rough land unsuited to cultivation, chiefly in the Appalachian region, the Ozarks, the Piedmont Plateau, New England, and the Lake States.


Hardwood forest has very remarkable ability to re establish itself after the most abusive treatment, in fact it will produce some sort of timber crop even after cutting and fire, and only repeated abuse or very heavy grazing can entirely destroy its productive power. Planting on land which already has a potential hardwood crop, is not only unnecessary but a costly and doubtful procedure.
The history of logging in hardwood forest has been a series of repeated returns to the more accessible areas for poorer and poorer grades of material. If expediency continues to dominate the policy of hardwood management this will doubtless be the story until the forest is converted into a sprout growth where timber is never allowed to get to large sizes. The timber will be harvested for such uses as can be made of it, and since the best only will show a profit, the cull material will be left in the forest. This is the present outlook. It is a story which has already been written in its best style in the sprout hardwood forest of southern New England and New York and in other of the older and accessible regions. The significant fact is that the forest has persisted because there was no other use for the land, and so it will be generally over the hardwood region, until a long term interest in future crops succeeds the present demand for immediate returns.
This same haphazard policy is not only the history of past decades but it is current practice and the reason why it is not supplanted by a wiser, more far-sighted plan may be summed up in a single statement. No one feels assured of financial profit from a long time investment in hardwood forest. This is the outstanding problem of hardwood production. We have no experience in the business because no one has ventured into it. The reasons advanced amount to a general profession of doubt and ignorance of the problems to be met. The lack of a quick turnover stops even venturesome business men before they start.
There is one sound financial starting point-a. minimum capital investment in each acre of potential forest land. The question of whether any private owner shall make a profit upon the future timber crop depends solely upon whether he capitalizes his present holdings too high. If this is accepted as a basic


principle the real impediment to the continuous production of hardwood timber is the owner who has set such a value upon his forest lands that neither he nor the prospective purchaser can afford to hold them for a succeeding crop. If he has charged a sufficient amount of the original cost of the land and timber against the timber crop already removed, he may look to the production of the new crop without too great a burden of cost against it. With a proper recognition of value of forest land by the owner and by the public for taxation purposes, every acre of forest can be made to pay a dividend when the next crop is harvested. This will be especially true if protection and administration charges are prorated in accordance with the earning power of each acre. To deny this statement is equivalent to saying that the hardwood forest is not worth protecting from fire, or that if protected from fire the financial returns will not pay even this small charge.
Let me repeat my belief that the economic troubles which are today preventing the proper management of these forests are purely false paper valuations set up by owners through trading in forest property and by the public in assessing that property for taxation purposes. Both these errors have their source in the same evil, the evil of speculative trading in land. The so-called free purchase and sale when carried to a sufficient extent becomes the measure of value both for the owner and assessor and very few such sales of forest land have involved the slightest attention to the true value derived by careful computation from the annual net returns such forest land can make.
There is nothing new in the creation of false values for real property because in all cases of short time ownership there is the element of speculation, and the speculative buyer will pay any price which he can exceed or, as a last resort, duplicate in a sale. This is our measure of forest land values; this has been the measure of farm land values, and periodically some farm owner is forced to restore the natural balance in red ink on his balance sheet. This is just now happening in parts of the Northeast where the post-war prices of farm land cannot be maintained on fifty cent potatoes, cabbage at five dollars a ton and other farm produce in proportion.
Forest land values cannot thus quickly reach a true balance


based upon production because the annual net yield is a thing no man has yet shown us on an organized hardwood forest. Still, this, the proper measure of forest land value, will prevail in the end and will set at rest all such phantom barriers as taxes and interest rates which, after all, are but reasonable charges upon a capital asset and are not burdensome if the capital value in itself is not too high. If we cannot pay with the products of the forest all the taxes, interest and overhead on the land at ten dollars per acre, then it is not ten dollar land. The forest must pay its fair share of taxes, so the rate should be that of other property, properly adjusted so that the tax shall not be duplicated. The financial world will demand a certain return upon its money so this factory, like taxes, is a fixed and not a relative term. The cost of administration must be met in accordance with other labor charges. When these are all viewed squarely, the one element which controls profit and loss which is capable of arbitrary fixing is the initial investment. It must be such a charge that the business of growing hardwood timber crops can start on a healthy basis.
Such a solution of a problem which has been vexing us for two decades will immediately suggest so many complications as to seem impossible. Practically, there are three major difficulties, the willingness of owners to give to land its true valuation, the willingness of the public to accept this valuation for taxation and underlying both these, the actual determination of the true value. In time all three will work themselves out even if it must be through the relinquishment of land for taxes. The problem is simplified because in general there will be no planting cost. The hardwood forest will reestablish itself at no cost beyond protection from abuse--by fire, by grazing, by shortsighted use of the axe. It has come back, it is continuing to come back, it will always come back until it is cleared away and ploughed up, and even then it will come back if the plough is laid aside, unless it is burned down or grazed down. This is the heritage you buy when you buy an acre of hardwood forest land. It is all wrapped up in the purchase price, but-caveat emptor.
Let the buyer beware, because an error in capital investment is a fundamental error which will be a mill stone about his neck.


The question of what an acre of forest land is worth must be answered carefully and conservatively. The problem involves a detailed knowledge of the forest property in question which must be supplied in each case by a careful examination and a general knowledge of the laws of forest growth. This is the field of the experiment station.
Since market values of forest products will, in large measure be fixed by supply and demand, it will be well to survey the region capable of hardwood production. It is a comparatively definite entity, all in a portion of the East favored by soil and climate. The woodlot part of it is shrinking. Swamps are being drained for agricultural use and some of the most productive mountain valleys are being flooded for storage of water. Any attempt to extend the area of hardwood forest to other regions will mean a high initial cost for land and planting. An accurate statement of the acreage of this land, its soil quality, and the present condition of its forest cover would be extremely valuable. It has been estimated in part from the available data, but nothing beyond a very uncertain estimate is possible until a survey is made of timber resources. The best estimates indicate an annual yield, under the best management we can hope for, but little in excess of our present annual hardwood consumption. This will only happen when all the land is producing, and in the meantime a period of extreme shortage of hardwood saw timber is inevitable.
We are amply justified in expecting a general upward trend of stumpage values for any grade of hardwood material. For the best saw timber we are still far from the crest and are without any means of predicting what it will be until the cost of growing timber becomes a dominant factor in the lumber market. Long before the best grades have reached the crest of their value, the low grades will have flooded the market, because the proper management of a forest property will mean the removal of large quantities of low grade material. It seems logical, therefore, to assert that any computation of land values based on present day stumpage prices will be conservative.
Like the digging of gold, the placer mining stage of hardwood logging paid well in the best places. That stage has now largely passed to the working of low grade gravels and ledge


rock. It is now time to incorporate on a larger scale and look forward to the period of future profits. Timber production has one feature that the gold mine does not: the value of the product will rise. A hardwood industry organized on a long time basis will have a plan; it will look the existing facts squarely in the face and, I venture to predict, it will succeed in acquiring land at a price which will permit the payment of dividends.
When such an organization approaches the question of land purchase and asks itself, "What is an acre of forest land worth?" it will find in looking forward that it is comparatively free from the market domination of Pacific Coast softwoods and that the inertia of the great bulk of hardwood land owners will make it unnecessary to count upon the competition of an entire organized hardwood region. It will find only a moderate barrier in the timberland speculator because the field of purchase is so large that natural laws of speculative interest will eliminate him, and the local public will see the justification of permanent enterprise and be reasonable in the adjustment of taxes upon it.
Valuation of every forest acre will then come down to a measure of the forest itself, to the principles of inventory and bookkeeping of a forest property. The first outstanding fact will be that dominant characteristic of the hardwood acre-it will reproduce itself without care, without capital, even with abuse. The problem is then reduced to a determination of how much care, protection, and improvement will be justified by the returns in increased growth and better materials.
The facts upon which the whole structure of hardwood forest management is built must either be acquired by experience or provided through research, on a small scale, in advance of the need. Organization of a forest property must follow the logical sequence dictated by its character and location, as well as by the purpose of the owner. Boundaries must be established, the area divided into its natural units as a farm is divided into fields, and all this information collected on a map. An inventory of the property is needed which will give, for the smallest unit recognized in the plan, the volume, age, condition, and growth rate of all timber, by species. Out of this accumulated material will arise the plan of management.


Since the forest is the reservoir of raw material which must supply the wood-using industries, they in turn must be considered in the plan and will welcome an inventory of available raw materials and an assurance of a continued supply. Whatever the source of materials, their value will eventually be established above the cost of production.
When these essential facts of the forest property are accumulated, when the period of years needed to mature the forest crop is known, another principle of forest management becomes apparent. That is the recognition of a growing stock. The growing stock is equivalent to half the amount of timber the forest can product in its full rotation. If the growing stock is depleted, the annual volume of growth of mature timber is reduced. That is one of our present troubles. The hardwood forest is not in its best producing condition because not only has its growing stock been very much over-cut, but the merchantable timber is largely past its most active growth. It is true that cutting has induced active growth in a large part of the hardwood region. Following the earlier cutting, which was very light, the young growth was largely choked out by the remaining older stands. During the past 25 years a vigorous young growth has started up. That is well, but since it is young and because it will be hindered by a poor grade of older trees which were not worth taking at the last cut, there is still a great gap in the age classes of our hardwood forest with no prospect of the present stocking being adequate to meet the annual demands. The trees which must produce our saw timber twenty years hence should now be twelve inches or more in diameter. These we lack. Because we lack them they will be in keen demand when the time of shortage in hardwood saw timber is felt. Shortage of saw timber will result in the sawing of smaller material and in this way our growing stock will be further reduced. The case is similar to that of using all the calves for veal to the point where none are left to grow to beef size.
Under these conditions, when we think of 10,000 acres of timber, growing 200 board feet a year per acre, we commit a mental error, because if this 10,000 acres is going to continue to produce 200 board feet a year a reserve supply of trees of all ages of its rotation must be properly proportioned throughout


the area. The young acres are not growing any timber which can yet be sawed, so the more mature acres must grow enough more to bring the average up to 200 board feet per year. If the oldest timber is 80 years old and the youngest is just starting, the average age is 40 years. In 40 years the average annual growth on the whole tract will be equivalent to 8,000 board feet on each acre. This is working capital-the normal growing stock. If all our hardwood timber were counted in we would have far less than a normal growing stock: still we commit no economic error in cutting the mature forest. just as we commit an error in killing calves for veal when we lack beef cattle to stock our range, so we commit an economic error in cutting fourteen-inch white oak into railroad ties, getting only wages for our labor, when the supply of oak saw timber is in its present plight. Of course this reasoning is subject to the law of supply and demand; but it is far more subject to contingency, the need of a dollar at whatever price to pay the taxes. Contingency admits of no argument but there is no place for it in the plan of management of the hardwood forest.
Closely allied to this proper conception of the character and need of a growing stock is an understanding of the relative growth rates of timber on the various qualities of land. Too great zeal for the improvement of all acreage can only result in loss of money and effort, for here again the principle of capital value enters. Profit must be computed on the investment, and some acres of hardwood forest land will merely swallow each dollar which is expended upon them. The best practice will dictate that expenditure for improvement be made first upon the best acres until a return can be definitely foreseen on the poorer land. The well known errors made in the clearing of poor farm lands should serve as an object lesson against too great haste in trying to develop the thin-soiled, dry hardwood lands.
A material improvement in all hardwood forest may be expected through protection from fire, and without fire protection the task of hardwood timber production is a very unpromising undertaking. Fire protection must be general, covering the good and poor acres alike, since all are involved as one hazard. Burning is followed by decay, and between the damage done


directly to young timber by fire and the decay of larger trees as the result of fire scars, the profit in holding land for a timber crop is largely consumed. Continued fires will change an acre of good young growth into a liability, by encumbering it with crippled and inferior trees incapable of paying their own carrying charges or even of paying the cost of removal so a better crop can take their place.
just as the lumber business has progressed through unknown business hazards and physical handicaps, so this task of timber production can be met by proper organization, foresight, and conservative investment. The progressive business man will realize that when the facts of forest value are common knowledge the opportunity for a profitable business venture has passed.
A period of years will be needed to acquire even a reasonably full knowledge of the laws of reproduction, growth, and yield for our very complex hardwood forest, and there will always be a chance for far-sighted men to forecast market conditions and work toward perfection of their forest property.

Whenever the subject of hardwood management is raised for disctission a picture flashes before my mind's eye; a picture illustrating the extent to which scientific management of hardwoods can be carried. The scene is in that forest region of Bavaria called the Spessart, a rolling country of splendid oak. Not far from a certain roadside tavern a patch of very large and very old white-oaks stands like a run-down orchard, only one or two on an acre, their tops dying gradually from the inroads of decay.
One of these monarchs is down, pushed over after two hours of root-grubbing and hand-pumping by an hydraulic treefelling machine. The local forester is instructing his workmen in great detail just how to cut up every part of this tree. But also he is busy with tape and caliper, measuring bole and


branches and comparing these figures with a record he finds in a little hand-book, while a score of American forest students look no. This is logging in the famous Orchard Forest, where every tree is known by name and where the dimensions and even the infirmities of every tree are a matter of official record.
Someone asks the forester why this particular tree has been harvested instead of some other, and he explains the theory of management of the Orchard Forest. The contents of each tree are known, but of course the quantity is diminishing, for decay does not stand still. Similarly, the value of the wood in eacii tree is known, but that value is increasing, for market prices of stumpage are advancing. The forester watches his orchard closely, and when the loss of merchantable wood balances the stumpage appreciation, so that the total value of any individual tree ceases to increase, that tree is harvested.
It is a long jump from the Spessart to the river-bottoms of Arkansas and Louisiana; geographically and with respect to timber values. The Bavarian forester represents one extreme of the application of forest management. Possibly some Americans in the poorer stands of hardwood represent the other, the extremity of being unable to manufacture anything at a profit but obliged to operate nevertheless. Between these extremes is a wide variation of logging practice, but I believe that the majority of hardwood operators today find themselves in positions where some consideration of timber management is worth their while. And by timber management I mean the handling of forests over a period of years for the purpose of harvesting more than one crop of merchantable timber.
Never mind how indefinite this definition may appear regarding the length of the period and the number of crops. If we can dig out the fundamentals of hardwood management and apply them and accept such application as sound business the rotation period will take care of itself, and the crops will follow one another as often as is profitable. To cut over a hardwood tract and hold it unwillingly for ten years and then log over it again profitably may be purely an accident; but if the owner realizes finally that with the exercise of some little care the process can be repeated a second time, he has discovered one phase of forest management.
Such occurrences are not uncommon in these two states.


Ten years ago the standards of merchantability were more difficult than today. We left trees in the woods as too small which today are considered excellent; and we ignored species of hardwood which today are coming into their own. Thus two factors have been at work changing standards of utilization and growth. The factor of increased merchantability will contintie to apply, extending to smaller sizes of logs and to such by-products as fuel and acid wood; and of course growth will go on so long as young trees are left upon the land.
Selective cutting offers the hardwood operator a chance which amounts almost to eating his cake and having it too. By selective cutting is meant of course cutting to certain standards of size and quality, with the dual purpose of producing profitable logs and leaving the woods in good condition for maximum growth. The close operator emphasises the yield per acre, thinking principally of distributing his fixed charges over larger quantities of logs and thereby reducing logging costs. His saving in costs may amount to something, but if he puts into his mill a considerable percentage of small and poor logs which will barely pay their way, he reduces the profit per thousand feet upon his annual cut, and often overbalances all of his operating savings. Further, when he finishes logging a tract there is so little thrifty stuff left upon it that the day when it can be relogged is pushed indefinitely into the future.
A white oak tree ten inches in diameter at the stump may not be sufficiently valuable to return a margin above the cost of converting it into lumber. If that be the case its stumpage value is little or nothing. Yet that little tree already has lived from sixty to eighty years or maybe more, and now has reached a point where ten or twenty years additional growth will add very greatly to its merchantability. Today it is worth nothing: in ten years it will have grown into a profitable log: thus all of the value increment comes in the last ten years of its life. Selective cutting spares such trees so that they may earn some money before they die. It can be shown that under normal conditions of land value and taxes, selective logging of a large hardwood tract over a period of twenty years is considerably more profitable than close logging.
But how is the lumberman to know where to draw the line between timber production and agriculture as the more profit-


able use for his land. We know that much of the hardwood land of Arkansas and Louisiana is alluvial in character and very fertile. Such land when free from unseasonable inundations and therefore available for cropping may sell at from twenty to sixty dollars per acre even though covered with stumps and slash. But the taxes upon such land are burdensome: for that matter they are mighty burdensome upon all forest land. So, if land is to be held for logging it certainly should pay its way. We can examine the land to determine its character and we can determine the earning power of the young growth. Then, with our tax and other cost data we can estimate the value of such land as a forest investment over a period of years. If we find that such land can be sold for agricultural use at prices which are in excess of our valuation figures (making due allowance also for increasing stumpage values), we scarcely can be blamed for letting the land go and looking elsewhere for forest investments.
However, much alluvial land is not immediately available Tor farming because of protracted and uncontrollable inundations. Drainage and levee enterprises are going forward constantly but they are frightfully expensive and not always successful. The value of overflow lands, regardless of fertility depend chiefly upon the flood factor, and range from one dollar to ten dollars per acre. Upon such lands hardwood timber, be it ever so slow of growth, offers a source of income attractive and reliable. In my opinion we can well afford to move slowly in the matter of forcing alluvial lands upon the market, when costly reclamation projects are involved. Rather should we attempt to keep these lands stocked with hardwoods of the more valuable kinds while agriculture settles upon the lands which are ready for it.
The rates of growth of the various hardwoods in general are uniformly slow. Such valuable species as forked-leaf and over cup white oak, ash, persimmon, hickory, sweet gum and cypress increase in size very slowly. Red oak, pin oak and cow oak are almost alone in their ability to grow rapidly. Such being true it is desirable to develop a forest which is at least partially stocked with the more rapidly growing species. This can be effected gradually by selective cutting and by introduction of seeds and transplants of the desired species. The results


may seem rather trifling in terms of income, but over a period of several years the forest that is leavened with a fairly large percentage of fast growing species will show a higher yield and more frequent cuttings than the collection of slow-growers.
As an illustration of the difference in earning power of different species, I have in mind a certain creek bottom not over forty miles from Little Rock, where two even aged pole patches stood side by side. They are practically pure stands; one of sweet gum, the other red oak; and both contain something like two hundred trees per acre ranging In size from four to ten inches at stump, which is excellent stocking. If growth continues during the next ten years as during the past decade, the sweet gum stand will increase by two thousand feet of merchantable timber or two hundred feet per acre per year. But the red oak will add more than five thousand feet per acre in ten years, in terms of merchantable timber, or two and onehalf times as much as the gum.
Much of the recent activity in applying forestry principles to the management of southern timberlands, has been among the people who manufacture pine. Pine grows more rapidly, is merchantable in smaller logs, and in other ways lends itself better to treatment as a crop. But many of the pine people own hardwoods either in creek bottoms or mixed with their pine. And some of them have seen their hardwoods grow in importance from an unmerchantable item to be left in the woods or used only for logroad ties into the major portion of their lumber output. So the pine men should be interested in certain phases of hardwood timber management.
In the upland portions of Arkansas and northern Louisiana hardwoods usually are found in mixed stands with pine. Such a typical mixture may contain both shortleaf and loblolly pine, white oak, post oak, red oak and hickory on the slope, and in the narrow branch bottoms, red oak, sweet gum, black gum and others. In volume the hardwood contents of such pine lands is surprising; averaging as high as two thousand feet log scale per acre upon thousands of acres. From the standpoint of marketability however, the hardwoods are relatively less important, because so Many of the trees are defective. They are twisted and shot through with decay, while their branches spread over the tops of young pines and hold them back. Yet


this land is excellent forest soil, capable of producing a splendid mixture of pine and hardwoods upon every acre.
Of course the reason is fire. So long as the pine lands burn over frequently the hill hardwoods will continue to be idlers. They cannot develop into good sawlogs under bad fire conditions. Yet it is desirable from many angles that we continue to grow hardwoods in mixture with our pine. We find spots where soil or other conditions will not permit pine to thrive; and it is my belief that the ideal selection type forest of shortleaf pine (with trees of all ages growing together) can be obtained only when we encourage the growth of some upland hardwoods in mixture with our pine.
No discussion of the problems of hardwood management would be complete without a word about taxes. Though an annual payment of a few cents per acre may seem little enough in comparison with the value of the land, the factor of compound interest changes this aspect when viewed over a period 6f years. Bad as this may be from the viewpoint of the lumberman who would like to carry a forest investment for a long term, the problem has another and worse angle. The man who pays twenty-five cents per acre taxes, today has no guaranty that the levy will not be thirty cents next year. In fact he has good reason to believe that taxes will increase as time goes on. They always have increased; perhaps not yearly, but often enough to disturb one's budgeting. So this question of taxes stands squarely in the path of long time investments in hardwood young growth. And it is a problem which the lumberman cannot solve for himself; he must have help from the people of his State.
At the risk of being tiresome I am going to summarize the outstanding features of hardwood management, as they appear at this present moment and stage of hardwood lumbering. Selective cutting is the pre-eminent requirement, and its maximum development presents a real but solvable problem. One of the interesting side-lights of this proposition is the fact that most woods-bosses and contractors, if left alone would cut selectively themselves (at least in the matter of diameter limits) : they despise small logs and hate to handle them.
The utilization of land is principally a problem in finance but controlled necessarily by the fundamental law of land


hunger and land supply. We are not yet faced by a land famine, while there is a prospect of timber shortage. And it is a fact that a growing forest of young hardwood cannot be replaced except by the passage of years, while land settlement projects can be instituted almost over night.
Fire is the bug-bear of upland hardwoods. Arkansas and Louisiana would be richer by ten millions of dollars in hardwoods alone if no fires had run through our upland hardwoods during the past twenty years. Stop these fires and the innumerable small oaks, hickories and gums will amount to something. And once again we come to taxes, a matter concerning the whole population of a State a little more directly than these other problems, and therefore possibly more difficult to solve. Much has been done by certain States in the way of tentative remedial legislation. But we have not gone deeply enough into the matter yet. The taxing of our future forest crop must be lifted out of the hand-to-mouth, day by day class, and put upon a plane of long-term financing.

A great deal has been said of reforestation in the South and the greater portion has related to pines. Very little, if any, consideration has been given to the hardwoods. In Louisiana, east Texas, southwest Arkansas, and west Mississippi will be found the largest reservoir of hardwoods in the United States. All available species of oaks, hickories, ashes, and gums are to be obtained. In my opinion the reason that the hardwoods have not been studied more has been ignorance of three agencies. Foresters have not spent any time at all in the hardwoods, hardwood manufacturers have not given the proper consideration, that is supervision and study to the hardwoods with reference to the products that they could manufacture through efficient and selective logging and the public has not been educated to the value of the by-products that can be obtained. All three agencies have wrong ideas as to the true character of the lands in which the hardwoods grow. Unfortunately, the locality of


hardwood timber has been called swamps and the impression throughout the country has been that the hardwood bottoms are constantly full of water with plenty of alligators, snakes and malaria.
This is not true, as the greater percentage of the hardwood bottoms are subject to overflow only during the winter months, or an average of not to exceed three months per year. Otherwise the bottoms are drywith the exceptions of low, flat places called brakes, which contain overflow water which could not run off when the water receded. A small percentage of the hardwood lands will be converted to agriculture but the greater percentage of the hardwood lands of this section cannot and will not be reclaimed. This is especially true of the upland hardwood bottoms which average from one to five miles in width. To build levees to hold water within the channels of the creeks would incur an expense greater than the value of the lands reclaimed. Drainage taxes will not affect these lands much, as the hill stop abruptly at the hardwood bottoms edge. These lands will be used for two purposes only, namely, second growth timber lands and grazing propositions.
For the past ten years I have not only been practicing selective logging, but have been advocating this logging for both pines and hardwoods as the only safe bet for reforestation without large expense. Selective logging is where all available timber which commands a fair and profitable price on the market is removed. Selective logging permits the leaving of low grade trees and the unwanted species until the market is in such condition that it will be profitable to log them. The keynote to selective logging is the leaving of the woods in the proper condition for the growing of a new crop of trees, and this must be done through the leaving of seed trees of the species that predominate on the area. The fire hazard must be met and contended with, but is of very little trouble in the hardwood bottoms compared to the piney woods areas. The average hazard in an ordinary year does not exceed 60 to 75 days, in the fall months. Through my experience in the South in the last 15 years, I have encountered two dry periods where this hazard was increa-sed in the fall of 1917 and in the fall of 1924, and these droughts would necessitate a fire patrol of at least four


months or even more, depending on the length of the droughts.
With the leaving of seed trees reproduction in the hardwood bottoms is rapid and easier than in the piney woods. Hardwoods reproduce readily from the seed crop which is more constant and regular than the seed crop of the pines. The second method of reproduction is from so-called root runners or sprouts which are started from the roots and form valuable and large trees. Ash in the South seems to prefer this process of reproduction and red oaks follow close second with hickories and white oaks following in line. The third methods of reproduction is from stump sprouts, prevalent throughout the hardwood bottoms in the South, and although this does not make a high grade timber for saw mill purposes it is the means of producing pulpwood, creosoting material and other medium-sized second growth timber. In the alluvial bottoms cottonwood, willows and others reproduce rapidly from young twigs broken off from the limbs of the trees during the fall. Reproduction from these cuttings is noticeable up and down the Mississippi bottoms. All of the above reproduction is absolutely guaranteed if fires are prevented.
My observation as a lumberman in the past has been that the young hardwood timber is growing very rapidly and in fact surpasses the pine. Sample estimates have been made and I have been able to check up the growth per acres per year to 700 board feet as an average. Instances have been found of secondgrowth oak, gum and hickory growing as high as 1,500 board feet per acre in selected plots, but considering the many open places and waterways the average would be less. Instances of remarkable growth have been called to my attention, especially one in a letter written to me by Mr. A. B. Learned of Natchez, Miss., who states that they have cut the fifth crop of logs in 100 years off their holdings in the cottonwood belt above Natchez. The Learned Lumber Company was incorporated in 1824 and has been running since and this statement will be of value to the industry. Since advertising the remarkable growth in Louisiana of both hardwood and pines, I have had lumbermen cut samples of their logs showing such growth of oak and other species as 30 years old 30 inches in diameter and one red oak from the hill section of Louisiana showing 30 inches in diameter


and 43 years old. My original observations were obtained as a log scaler years ago in scaling hardwood logs and I was astonished to find wide annual rings on the end of the logs. Checking this up with our inspectors at the mill I found that at least 30 per cent of the hardwoods cut in the last ten years have been from trees 50 years and under in age.
The greatest difficulty in hardwood management has been in securing proper logging methods. Carelessness has been shown by executive officers of lumber companies in proper supervision. Too much responsibility has been left to the woods foreman and not enough information has been given out as to proper log lengths and proper methods of cutting them. My own opinion is that the hardwood industry should improve the woods personnel because competition and quality in manufacture are the two paramount issues in the industry today. By training men properly and keeping them informed as to the requirements of lumber, employees can develop better material in the woods. It is self evident that wood takes first place in the number of uses to which it may be adapted. This fact in itself suggests the importance of knowing at the earliest possible stage of manufacture to what use the tree is to be put. The character of the raw material cut from the tree determines its use, therefore, care in cutting a log will serve to forestall the so-called waste in working up lumber. To do this properly the woods organization must be trained to the possibilities that may be derived from a tree before it is felled and cut into, lumber lengths.
Another important factor relating to the hardwoods is the problem of securing closer and better utilization of the log after it has arrived at the mill. A great many operators through economic necessity must send short lengths and slabs to the waste burner as there is no demand from the consumer for them. I consider it of great importance that the hardwood industry, instead of advertising to sell upper grades spend a little time in forming some medium of exchange for informing both buyer and sellers to what is onhand. Recently a manufacturer asked me if I could locate for him oak and gum in pieces 7 x 9 inches square and 7 x 12 to 36 inches long, these species to be used in the manufacture of 10,000 radios. Another manufacturer re-


quested me to locate for him several car loads of short length hardwood lumber to measure from 6 x 24 to 1 foot long, asking for 5-8, 4-4 and 6-4 inches thickness. Coincident with this request a manufacturer was worried with the waste that was piling up at his mill in shipping lumber. In taking the lumber off the stacks a great many of the ends had cracks and necessitated 2 and 4 foot cut offs. Other boards which were inspected at the chain were cut off to raise the grade, thereby creating a surplus of 2, 4 and 6 foot boards of oak and other species which
-were useless to him and had been sold as stove wood, etc. By informing the manufacturer of this condition steps were taken. to get in touch with the operator as this was the material he was wanting.
Reforestation in the South, and especially in the hardwoods, is dependent first of all on selective logging. After the logs have been properly cut the second important step to consider is the proper utilization of the many products. Usual lengths and good grades of lumber are easy to sell, but disposing of the short lengths and low grades is the problem of today. My opinion, as well as that of successful manufacturers, is that the establishment of wood working industries will be the solution, thus making use of this so-called waste by manufacturing the many necessities required out of the hardwoods. The South has a wonderful climate, cheap living conditions, medium priced labor and all these factors permit the manufacturer first-class material at a low price. It is financial extravagance to send our lumber ,to northern markets, have it there worked up into the manufactured article and pay a high freight rate to ship the finished product back to the South.
Reforestation of hardwoods in the Coastal Plain is one of the easiest and most remunerative projects that can be carried on. The lands will always be idle as far as agriculture is concerned. The valuation of these lands will always stay low because they have no other purpose but that of timber raising, with cattle raising as a side line. The fire hazard is easily handled. Reproduction of the second growth is taken care of by nature and is rapid. If the hardwood people will but take the time to examine their holdings as to the logging requirements and check up on the cutting operations of the past twenty


years they will find that normal growth has come back. By following this study to the mill and noting the rapid growth of the logs that are being received there, there will be no question that the information obtained from the study will help boost the reforestationof hardwoods which will be found a profitable enterprise for land owners and manufacturers.
In behalf of the hardwood operators in Louisiana the Department of Conservation through the Division of Forestry will appreciate any and all information relating to this subject and will be glad to confer with such corporations and individuals who are desirous of placing their hardwoods under the reforestation contract. What we want to do is to assist in the perpettiation of the timber crop on lands that cannot and will not be adapted to agricultural development.

Had I been asked to speak upon the subject as it appears on the program, three years ago, I would have been at a loss what to say as it is within only the last three years that this great industry has made an appreciable progress in the South. Previous to this time, the few southern mills were not considered a factor, as their production was not great enough to even affect the market. Today it is different as their production of wrapping paper has become so great that the selling price of kraft wrapping paper is influenced by the southern mills.
All of you are directly interested in the forest and its products, and the pulp manufacturers are also directly concerned with wood, for it is the basic raw material of their industry.
It has been stated that between 1869, the first year wood pulp production was reported, and 1922, the manufacture of paper in the United States increased 18 times while its consumption increased more than 20 times. American paper mills, in other words, were unable during this period to keep pace with the increase in consumption.
At the same time the American paper production was falling behind consumption, American pulp mills supplied with do-


mystic and also imported pulpwood, fell behind the demand of the paper mills, so that the pulp imports, only a little more than 25,000 tons in 1899 had increased to more than one million and a quarter tons in 1922. Finally, the pulp mills have had to meet their pulpwood requirements through pulpwood imports, which since 1912 have, it is said, exceeded one million cords each year. It has been stated that 88% of the paper consumed in 1922 was manufactured in the United States; only 60% of the pulp used in making the paper was a home product and only 48 % of the wood used came from our own forests.
Pulpwood is imported from Canada alone since it is the only country with suitable timber supplies near enough to make the transportation costs feasible.
The supplying of pulpwood for the American mills has become one of the outstanding problems of the industry, and the threatened embargo on Canadian pulpwood has emphasized the seriousness of the situation. Several days ago, in a conversation with a party who was selling Canadian pulpwood, he stated that this embargo might not be put into effect immediately but he looked for it within a period of five years. The wood he was selling, is rafted across Lake Superior to Ashland, Wisconsin, and from there loaded on cars to the mills from one hundred to two hundred miles away. For unrossed spruce, per cord of 128 cu. ft. the mills in my home district were paying from $15.00 to $16.00 per cord, while the crossed wood was selling for $22.00 per cord.
Due to the large investment and the nature of pulp and paper mills, they can not follow, as saw mills can, the retreating fringe of virgin forest. They cannot extract pulpwood from denuded and abandoned forests. Where then, will the industry turn for its supply in the future? In my opinion, it will turn to the South where pulpwood can be grown within a comparatively short time, that is from ten to eighteen years. The timber producing power of southern pine lands is far superior to northern lands. The growth of the pulp and paper industry in the South should be a decided stimulant to the reforestation of cut-over lands, as it will provide a market for thinning, and human nature is interested in an investment which will give a return while living; this being possible with pulpwood, for within fifteen years, if conditions are favorable for growth, it could be grown and marketed.


As you no doubt are primarily interested in the mills using wood as basic raw material, I have only considered them. Looking back through a directory of 1910, we find one pulp mill in Texas using the soda process, one in South Carolina, and three in North Carolina.
In 1913, a pulp and paper mill was built in Southern Mississippi, employing the sulphate process. This process originated in Norway and Sweden, and was the most successful method of cooking woods with high resinous nature. Two mills, the first in the States, were built in Wisconsin in 1910.
Looking through a directory of 1917, we find one pulp mill in Texas, one pulp and paper mill in Mississippi, one pulp mill in Louisiana, one in Georgia, one in South Carolina, and two in North Carolina.
In 1921, there remains the pulp and paper mill in Texas, one in Mississippi, two in Georgia, three in Louisiana.
Within the past two years, Louisiana has shown the greatest growth; two paper machines of approximately 50 tons each have been added to two existing pulp mills, one model mill of 60 tons capacity of pulp and paper, having started last fall, and with one mill of 150 ton capacity now building. During the last two years, a pulp and paper mill supposed to make paper from stumps was built, but it is my understanding that this plant is not operating.
The one mill in Mississippi has doubled its production within the last year.
One bag plant has been completed by one of the oldest concerns in Louisiana, and it is my understanding that another paper bag plant is being built in Mississippi.
Along with the growth of allied industries, understand there is a plant making plugs for the ends of paper rolls, situated about ten miles from Little Rock.
As all of the above mills are using the sulphate process, a brief description of the process may be in order. This process originated in Norway and Sweden, and was brought to the States by the late Mr. Olai Bache-Wiig, with whom I had the opportunity of working. The sulphate process consists in digesting suitably prepared wood with a solution of caustic soda and sodium sulphide. The cooking results in dissolving the resin constituents of the wood, and separating the indi-


visual fibres from one another. The spent or black liquor as it is called is washed from the pulp and concentrated in vacuum evaporators to the proper degree and calcined in a rotary furnace. The soda compounds are recovered as black ash. The loss of chemicals in the cycle is made up by the addition of salt cake or nitre cake. This is mixed with the black ash, and subjected to a high temperature in a smelting furnace. The combustible in the ashe furnishes enough heat for the combustion, and for the reduction of the make up chemical to sodium sulphide. The smelt contains sodium carbonate, sodium sulphate, and a small percent of unreduced sodium sulphate, and is dissolved in weak washes from the caustic plant. When this solution has been built up to the proper degree, it is pumped to the caustic plant where lime is added, converting the sodium carbonate back to sodium hydroxide. After settling, the clear liquor is decanted, and is again ready for the digesters. The sludge resulting from the settling operation is washed sufficiently to free it of remaining soda compounds, and it is either returned back to lime or is washed to the sewer.
The superior product made from this process acting upon resinous woods also proved its adaptability as the feasible process to use in converting Southern pines to pulp. These pines have long, thick walled fibres, and also high specific gravities implying large yields per cord, and therefore are particularly adapted for making strong wrapping paper. While the sulphate process can be used in the manufacture of bleaching pulps, its principal product is an undercooked, non-bleaching brown pulp known as kraft pulp, the term a German one signifying strength. True to its name, this pulp produces a remarkably strong paper, very resistant to wear.
The sulphate process should be interesting to the Southerner, not only because of its ability to successfully reduce resinous woods, such as the pines, but also because waste, such as slabs and edgings, can be utilized and the presence of knots pitch pockets, remnants of decayed wood are not very objectionable. A -sulphate pulp mill tberef ore is particularly desirable to operate in conjunction with a large saw mill, for then practically the entire volume of the log can be utilized. It has been said that the sawed lumber represents approximately one-half of the volume of the log as it comes to the mill. Bark and saw


dust, valueless for papermaking, constitute a large proportion of the waste; but it is safe to say that 2011o of the volume of a log, exclusive of the bark, is lost in slabs, edgings, and trimmings. Tops, and defective logs left in the woods, thinning and small logs would furnish a supply of raw material for pulp making even greater than that derived from sawmill waste.
The operation at Bogalusa as regards reforestation, and utilization of logging and mill waste is indeed commendable and is a fine example of the proper use of forest products.
In my opinion, it is a crime to waste any forest products and many saw mills and pulp mills are equally guilty in this respect. In this case the saw mill burning excess refuse which could be converted into pulp, and the pulp mill using logs which could be made into lumber. It is unfortunate that more large lumber operations are not carried on jointly with pulp and paper mills.
Only one who has actually operated mills in the North can fully appreciate the advantages a mill in the South has. A comparison of conditions in the North and in the South may be of interest.
In the North, practically all of the pulpwood is gotten out of the woods during the winter months when the timber can be hauled out on sleighs and on iced roads. As the wood is brought to the railroad sidings, it is shipped to the pulp mills and as the amount arriving is far in excess of the mills daily requirements, it must be unloaded and put into storage. As a result, it is not an uncommon sight to find in the yards of mills, anywhere from 15,000 to 50,000 cords of pulpwood. This reserve not only ties up a great deal of money, but results in added expense as insurance, handling charges in and out, but as the assessor finds his way about in the spring, taxes must be paid upon this large amount of wood. Not only must this reserve be carried on account of logging conditions, but mills must protect themselves as it is a well known fact that pulpwood sellers watch a mills supply, and price their wood accordingly.
In the South, where logging conditions are such that wood can be gotten out the year around, a mill need not carry such a large reserve, with consequent economy in so doing.
A mill in the North will receive its pulpwood in 16, 12 or 8


foot lengths, and cordwood will arrive in either 8 or 4 foot lengths. To suit the barking equipment, pulpwood greater than 4 feet in length must be sawed to proper length. To remove the bark, barking drums are used, and some may bark wet and others dry, and barking frozen wood is not an easy task by any means. Except in a few cases, the wasteful knife barker is rarely used.
From the chippers the wood is conveyed to bins over the digesters. The amount of labor and equipment of the northern mill is very much greater than that of the southern mill, which received its wood in either 4 or 5 foot lengths, and conveyed directly to a barking drum. If the wood is allowed to worm peel, the barking drum is eliminated. There are many other advantages a mill in the South has over a mill in the North but I have enumerated the above as they concern wood, and it is wood which you are mostly interested in.
At the present time, the pulp and paper mills of the far South are only making kraft wrapping and bag paper and container board, and as these are intimately associated with the merchandising of goods, any marked increase in the development of the country will unquestionably be reflected in an increased demand for these products. The Southern pine forests, with their cheap pulpwood, the excellent suitability of this wood for the sulphate process, and their nearness to the paper markets, will without doubt be called upon to supply in ever increasing proportion the wood required to meet the demand made by expansion of this phase of the industry. The rapid depletion of the northern pulpwood species will do much toward focusing attention upon the sources of supply in the South.
It has been reported that the Forest Products Laboratory at Madison, Wisconsin, has developed a process for making newsprint from southern woods. It is anticipated that it will be possible to manufacture a paper which will meet the demands of the newspaper publishers, and at a price, when manufactured locally which will successfully compete with standard newsprint in the southern market. How far such a product from the southern forests could compete in northern markets would depend to a large extent on which mills now operating can adapt their processes to the little used species still available to them.