The Evening statesman. [volume] (Walla Walla, Wash.) 1903-1910, 1909-03-22
CLIFFORD PINcHoT WRITES OPEN
LETTER ON TARIFF ON
WOOD PRODUCTS.
Saws He Is Unable to See How the
Removal Of Duty Would Promote
the Forestry Industry.

Clifford Pinchot, chief forester of the
Uni. ed States, has written the fol-
lowing letter to Serene Payne, author
of the proposed tariff law, concerning
the duty on lumber:
To avoid any chance of misunder-
standing. I take the liberty of stating
my views upon the tariff on lumber
in more connected fashion than it was
possible to do at the hearing befire
the committee on ways and means on
February "a. AT the outset 1 want to
make it clear that the forest service
has never advocated either the re-
duction or the abolition of the present
duties upon lumber and shingles. On
the contrary, we have been at some
pains to avoid taking any position one
way or the other until we could COM
plete a satisfactory investigation of
the subject. 1 say this because many
believe that the forest service has de-
clared in favor Of the removal of the
duty upon forest products as a means
of conserving our forests. The service
has made no such declaration.
If the tariff on lumber were to be
removed, it would be done, l take it,
for one or both of two purposes-either
to reduce the price 20 the consumer
or to preserve our forests In my judg-
ment it would accomplish neither
Free lumber would not materially
reduce the price to the consumer. Most
of the lumber we now import comes
from Canada, as most of it would if
the duty were taken off. We are i'm
porting from Canada only about two
per cent as much lumber as we are
cutting from our forests 1t is not like
ly that under free lumber more than
five per cent as much would come
from Canada as we would cut
at home. Contrary to the general i'm
preston, Canada as compared with the
United States, has no great timber
ing timber is probably not more than
one-third of what is left of ours. In
the end the Canadians will undoubted-
ly, require for home use all the tim
Der they can produce. Imports from
Canada would not be enough, there
fore, to Limit the cutting of our own
forests or to reduce the price of lum-
Der in any impor ant degree.
Stumpage prices are at present
somewhat lower in Canada than in the
United States. The taxation of Cana
dian timber land is better adjusted
must be cut than it is with us, but the
average cost Of logging and manufact-
uring are probably as great there as
here. If the duty were removed the
effect of these factors taken together
would be to increase the value of the
Canadian stumpage, and osome ex-
tent the profits of the Canadian man
ufacturer and the American retailer
There would remain little, if any,
benefit to the ultimate consumer of
lumber in the United States
The fundamental question at issue
in the lumber tariff is forest conser-
walton. I believe that the demand for
free lumber res S mainly on the hope
that it offers a way to protect our for
ests. If 1 were of the same opinion, l
should favor the removal of the tariff.
But 1 am unable to see how free lum-
Der 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 you 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 lum-
Der now cut by our 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 tina nour impor-
;ation from Canada. 1 do not believe
that the increased use of Canadian
wood under fl &c lumber would equal
the increased waste, and even if it
did, the larger danger from fire and
the greater difficulties in the way of
forestry which follow wasteful logging
would probably more than Offset the
gain. In other words, the drain upon
our forests would not be relieved by
allowing Canadian lumber to come in
free.