The ranch. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1902-1914, 1909-04-15
FREE LUMBER.

free lumber rests mainly on the hope
that it offers a way to protect our for
ests. If | were of the same opinion,
l should favor the removal of the tar
iff. But l am unable to see how free
lumber will promote forestry.
There is only one way to save our
forests: That is to see that they are
kept at work growing new crops Of
timber as the old are cut away.
The lumbermen are right when they
tell o that in times of high prices
for lumber they do cleaner work in
the woods and cut more timber from a
given area than they do when prices
are lower and only the best grades
can be marketed. Low prices for lum-
Der unquestionably increase waste. If
the removal of the tariff had any eff
feet on work in the woods, it would
be to displace the lower grades of
lumber now cut by our own mills,
which must be either logged or left
in the woods when the higher grades
are taken out, and to that extent it
would increase the woods waste in
this country. The waste in logging
is already enormous, several times
larger than our importation from Can
dud. L w uOI DCIlCFC JudC Lu0 IL
creased use of Canadian wood under
free lumber would equal the increased
waste, and even if it did, the larger
danger from fire and the greater diff
ficulties in the way of forestry which
follow wasteful logging would prob
ably more than Offset the gain. In
other words, the drain upon Jul for
ests would not be relieved by allowing
Canadian lumber to come in free.
You asked me at the hearing for my
opinion as to the tariff on wood pulp.
We are already dependent upon Can
ada for much pulpwood. Nearly sew
en-tenths of the wood we use for paper
is spruce and one-third of the spruce
pulpwood is imported from Canada. 1t
is highly important that we should
have free pulpwood in the future as
in the past, and hat Canada should
impose no export duty upon pulpwood.
In this respect the pulp and paper
making industry is in a different posi-
ton from the other great wood-using
industries of the United States. The
latter can be wholly supplied from our
own forests, while the former must
have free access to the Canadian
spruce forests so long as spruce is
the chief pulpwood. 1, therefore, con-
cur with the recommendations of the
select committee on pulp and paper
Investigations of the House of Repre-
sentatives. These were that ground
wood should be admitted free, pro-
vided that it ONE from a country
which does not in any way restrict the
expectation of pulpwood or ground
wood, and that there should be a re-
duction in the duty upon news paper,
providing that it comes from a country
which does not in any way restrict the
expectation of pulpwood, wood pulp or
printing paper.
l believe there is now a sincere de-
sire on the part of a large number
of lumbermen to handle their forests
more co~nservatively. I realize that
they face difficulties in their efforts.
We as a people have often been at
fault because we have not made it
easy for the lumbermen to practice for
estry at a profit. The states, for In
stances, have failed to provide ade-
quate fire protection. They have often
taxed standing timber SO heavily that
the owner was forced to cut it off
as quickly as possible, and then let the
land go back to the state without pro-
vision for a future crop.
But it is first of all upon the lum-
bermen themselves that the duty of
conserving their own forests actually
lies. BY asking for the retention of
the tariff in order to protect the for
ests, the lumbermen have in substance
entered into an agreement with the
people of the United States to per-
n4frnfa th4tr fArAafo hu utr rrr4 TLs-
tacit agreement is freely recognized
by many of the leaders among them.
If the tariff Is allowed to remain, the
Iupoharmao ch0uId h. boJd to fbo;r