The first intent of this amendment is apparently to permit the removal from lands in the Forest Preserve of wood for household fuel purposes. Some time ago I stated that nothing in the present fuel shortage had altered the situation in the Forest Preserve with respect to available stumpage, and that people in all of the forest counties were able to get abundant supplies of fuel wood from privately owned land. In other words, the fuel situation in the Adirondacks is right where it has been for the past twenty years.

It is true, however, that a new situation is now arising because of the large purchases of additional land that are being made with the seven and one-half million dollars provided by the bond issue. Much of this land is purchased to protect the forest from destructive forms of lumbering and the consequent denudation of our watersheds. In some cases it is acquired to consolidate the state's holdings into larger blocks. This must inevitably lead in many localities to a contraction of private holdings, and thus operate to make private wood less available and also higher in price.

I feel that no harm can result to the State forests if the Commission is given authority to sell wood for household fuel purposes, provided the authority is so definitely phrased that it can lead to no other cutting in the State forests. The amount taken would be utterly insignificant and, if properly selected, would benefit the forest rather than harm it. A proper amendment will thus relieve any possibility of future shortage of wood fuel in localities where the State is a large owner of land be cause of the consolidation of the State's holdings, while adhering absolutely to the traditional policy of permitting no lumbering in the Forest Preserve.

If confined within proper limits, an amendment that would provide for roads for ingress and egress to and from private lands would relieve the Commission from a difficult position. At the present time owners of private lands who seek to use those lands only in a manner consistent with proper principles of forest utilization are, in some instances, deprived of access to their lands unless a road is already in existence.

On the other hand, the miscellaneous opening of temporary lumbering roads would so endanger the State's tremendous investment in forest lands that, viewed from the standpoint of public interest, it would

seem desirable not to make any change in the situation at this time. Even in this position the private land owner is not deprived of any property because there is a large appropriation available out of which lands of this character may be acquired; and, thus, private land owners are afforded an opportunity of selling their lands to the State, provided they are willing to accept a reasonable price therefor.

There are some public highways which are a necessity, but at the present time a Constitutional amendment is pending in the legislature to take care of one highway; and inasmuch as the Constitutional Convention and the legislature have seen fit to handle the matter in this way it would seem a wise policy to handle the question of other highways in the same manner when the necessity for such highways arises.

ARE WE WILLING TO PAY THE PRICE?

B. A. Chandler, Assistant Professor of Forest Utilization, Cornell University.

GRICULTURE has gone thru much the same evolution that forestry is going thru today. When our forefathers came to these shores there was so much timber that it was in the way, and so much land that it was often cheaper to clear another piece as soon as one piece had worn out. The writer has surveyed many acres of timber and brush land in Maine where there are now old cellar holes and sod fences, showing signs of early farms which have long been abandoned and which will now hardly grow a pine tree. It has been a common practice in the southern Appalachians for so-called farmers to take up tracts of land, cultivate them as long as they responded to extensive method of cultivation, and then move on to newly cleared areas. Many of the pastures of New England and New York have been pastured by one generation after another, until they have deteriorated, and in some sections washed away to bare rock. This is destructive agriculture and corresponds in every way to our present destructive lumbering.

Under conditions existing in the days of our forefathers, destructive agriculture was as far as we can see today economically sound. As long as there were rich agricultural soils which could be moved onto and put under cultivation cheaper than soil already being cultivated could be maintained, it was good economics to do so. The day of destructive agriculture came to an end when the best agricultural soils had been taken up. Instead of looking for other lands to move to, farmers began to study methods of maintaining soil fertility. Today, here in the east, this evolution has gone so far that the farmer who does not handle his land so as to maintain the fertility of his soil, and who is not grading up his dairy herd and otherwise keeping up his capital investment, is not only looked upon as an old moss back", but is considered almost a menace to his community. In other words, the cost of maintaining the fertility of the soil is today an accepted item in the cost of raising crops. The public and not the farmer pays for maintaining soil fertility.

We are reaching the end of our available, virgin, stands of timber. There have been many data published to show this fact and altho certain interests have tried to discredit the data, the response that different classes of people are making, shows that 'way down deep they all believe it. The rich sportsman and traveler has used his influence to create large areas of state and national parks, in which no cutting shall be done, in order that he may have wild places to visit and to fish and hunt in after the commercial forests are all destroyed. The big lumber interests have purchased timber land in large tracts until they have over-burdened themselves with carrying charges. The general public are suggesting all kinds of laws which are intended to force timber land owners to practice forestry.

The many suggestions coming from people in different relations to the problem, indicate an endless number of points of view and a conflict of interests, as well as an unwillingness to face the facts. It seems to the writer that most of the suggestions could fairly be grouped under the following four general policies:

1. Take all we can get and let the next generation take care

of itself.

2.

Consider reforesting simply as an investment and do only so much as can be accomplished by the idle capital which will naturally. come to it.

3. Consider the cost of reforesting as the expense of replacing the growing area of forest cut each year.

4.

Consider reforesting work as a public expense to be carried on by the government.

Let us look into the future and determine what the result of each of these four policies would be, in so far as our present knowledge will permit.

When our forefathers cut and burned timber to clear land for agricultural purposes, they were undoubtedly right, because the need at that time was for more agricultural land. Destructive lumbering in any given region is justified up to a certain point because the advantage of cheap lumber to the present generation is greater than the need of the future generation. When, however, the accessible stumpage becomes reduced to the point that established wood manufacturing plants can not be sup

plied, until a new crop can be grown; or sections which are to be inhabited are being stripped of their economic basis, there is a grave question about it being either right or good business.

In thinking of this problem it should be remembered that one region may still have such an excess of stumpage that destructive lumbering is justified while another section must face the problem of a shortage of stumpage. The stumpage of one region is accessible for another only within the limits of economic transportation.

It is evident that any wood manufacturing plant with a limited supply of stumpage ahead must either grow more stumpage or else plan to scrap its plant when its stumpage is exhausted. If such an industry cannot find a new undeveloped forest area to move to, the business itself must be closed out. If no other business comes in as the lumber business goes out of such a region, to keep up the economic basis, the region becomes a breeding ground for a degenerate class of people who help to populate our reform schools and insane asylums. A normal, healthy, progressive, civilization cannot be maintained without a sound, economic basis. Anyone who doubts this statement has only to study the region from which a large number of the occupants of our insane asylums and reform schools come.

The present financial cost of such a policy is the depreciation which must be charged against the plant so that it will stand on the books, when the stumpage is exhausted, at its value for junk. The burden we hand to the future generations in the form of a degenerate class of people and a non-productive forest area, is tremendous. It might be compared to the man who drinks himself into an early grave, leaving his widow in debt with several half-witted children to support.

The results which may be expected from the second policy, considering reforesting as an investment, will vary greatly, depending on circumstances. If carried out by a company according to a well thoughtout plan, on sufficiently large scale, so that the plant will be provided with a perpetual supply of raw material, it will probably prove a good investment. With many species on fair sites, very reasonable long term investments are possible, even with present stumpage values. What the future stumpage values will be is impossible to predict.

On the other hand, it is possible that the company or individual