The Alaska citizen., 1913-12-15
COST OF ADMINISTRATION,

II is estimated hy the Forest Service that the standing timber in the nation al forest reserves is worth sl.o45. 900 0o0. Mir Finchot estimates it at more than $2.o00,000,000. But I will use the more conservative figures What are tine people receiving from this mighty national resource? What are the people receiving from this mor" than Princely heritage2 We are re r"ivin" the pittful sum of $1,O0o,000 a ycar--losS than one-ttnth of per IeeHt Is that reasonable return on this @rcath wealth? And let it not he for2ottcn that we pay two dollars for every one We receive or, in other words. this vast property, instead ot being self-sustain@ under the present anl past policy of the Forest Service. is dollars each year, to say nothing of waste and decay Instead of receil ing million dollars a year gross returns from the sale of timber we should re ceive at least sixty-fiye million This would only be 40 cent per acre. The for est Service could sell annually $2o .00o- = | 900 worth of timber products from the national reserves in the Pacific Coast states alone, without in any way depicting the supply or reducins the value. It is the proud boast of he Forest Service that some time ii will he supporting. We heard this promise for many years. but it makes practically no progress in that direc- tion. Under the present national-for-
 "sts system how much shall it profit
 the people if it takes a billion dollars worth of property and a million dol lars in cash each year to feed tho
 "arasites that control it? Where do the peoples interests come in? What would be thought of guardian or an administrator that would talk 2 billion .lulia,$' worth of stan lin
 timber and could not manage it in
 these times of high prices that it would be Self-sustainin" lacking l million dollars each year? Not only are these vast forests withdrawn | from public use while the people arr taxed a million dollars each year to 'ay the so-called foresters to care for | them. although what these gentle men do no man yet has ever been ahl" | to discover, but these vast tracts that are unused by the Government are also withdrawn from state taxation | By this action the states of the west
 are robbed of that equality euarante-
 ed to them under the constitution | This is a mCnstrous injustice for | which there is not Justification excent
 only that the government has the | bower to do it. In the be"inning the western states Were promised-ani We | believed that prOmise-that the states | in which these national forests were l located, in lieu of taxes, would re- | ceive a sum from the sale of the tim
 her that would approximately equal | that loss. That promise is still being | repeated. as is the oll old promise l that some day the Forest Ser ice will
 he self-supportins. We no longer have ! faith in any such promise; in fact, we
 now know that it never will be kept | Mir. Clifford Pinchot is probably the
 leading exponent in America of this
 national forest policy. He is my | friend, and most pleasing person.
 ality In a recent issue of Pearson's
 margarine he discusses this identical proposition. In one portion of the
 article he did what conservationist
 seldom does and what they should nev-
 CT do It was fatal mistake. He
 uses figures instead of adjectives.
 These figures given by him is the
 most scathing denunciation of the | Forest Service ever uttered. If they
 did not come from highest authority I
 would hesitate to use them. They
 demonstrate not only the utter worth lessness of the Forest Service but