The Daily Missoulian. [volume] (Missoula, Mont.) 1904-1961, 1913-03-05

CHIEF FORESTER OF UNITED
STATES EXPLAINS DETAILS
OF NATIONAL PROBLEM.
(By Henry S. Graves.)

NbS IItIly p. 1laNtS.J
The crucial test or public ownership
and management of forests in the
United States will be the power to
resist an unintelligent demand for the
government to sell timber cheap, on
the %supposition that this will enable
the public to buy lumber cheap.
The government is now being criti-
cised for not selling national forest
timber cheaper and faster. 1t is
charged with virtually aiding private
timber monopolies to gouge the public.
In point of fact it is doing just the re-
verse.
The government could not mate
rally lower the cost of lumber to the
average consumer if it We're to reduce
by half the price charged for timber
cut on the national forests. But it
could enable many lumbermen to grow
rich fast. Also, it could and would
be a monopoly with a vengeance. IN
cidentally, it would promote Wanton
and great waste of valuable timber
both on and off the national forests.
by operators who would merely skim
the cream, and it would permit the
extra cost of bad management to be
saddled on the public.
How Timber Is Sold.
The average price at which national
forest timber was sold on the stump
by the government last year was $500
a thousand.
The forest service spent thousands
of dollars advertising it's timber. 1t
seeks purchasers by every means in
it's power. 1t sold during the fiscal
year ended June 80, 1912, the equiva-
lent of about 500, 600, 900 board feet of
timber in all forms-for lumber, mine
props, fuel, posts, and many other
uses. The cut, for lumber alone, of
the entire United States was between
40, OO0,0 900 and 45, 100000 feet.
All sales Of over 500. 90 worth of
timber We're made after advertisement
for competitive bids. The forest ser
vice is prohibited by law from selling
in any other way. 1t is also prohibited
by law from selling or offering for
sale any timber until after it has been
appraised, or for less thar the APP
praised value. To permit of timber
being sold for less than it's market
value, the law would have to be
changed. Should it be changed?
The Consumer Pays.
Who would have benefited if the
timber actually sold last year had been
sold at half the market price, or given
away? Would the general market
price have been less to the purchaser
from the retail dealer? Not one cent.
The manufacturers who cut this insig-
nificant fraction of the country's total
lumber cut would have sold their
lumber at the market price, pocketing
the $1.O0 or $500 or $500 a thousand
less than the market price of stump
age with which the government had
presented them. But if they had sold
to the wholesaler for less, would he
have given it to the consumer?
To enable the consumer to benefit
by a stumpage price less than the
purchasers of stumpage stand ready to
pay, the government would have to
manufacture, transport, and market
the lumber, selling directly to the CON
sumner from its W retail lumber
yards.
But suppose the government had, by
giving timber away to all applicants,
raised the national forest cut to one
fifth of the entire cut of the country.
In point of fact it could not have done
this by giving the timber away. 1t
would have had to pay lumbermen to
come and get it. With lumber prices
where they are now the government
can get from SO cents to $500 a thou
sand for it's stumpage, under com
petitive bids. the price depending or
the location and kind of timber sold
Ten years ago it could not have giver
away what it is selling today. Not
that is. as stunlpagc. It could easily
have given the timber to spectators
to hold for rising prices.
The present national forest stant
forms one-fifth of the countrY's tota
supply of saW-timber. If one-fifth o
the annual lumber cut were draw
from the forests and at the same time