if shipped to Eastern ports, would more than consume the profits derived, and this limits their field of activity to a certain territory, the Western and Northern States. Then, it must be remembered, that the Pacific Northwest produces only one species of lumber in abundance, Douglas Fir. That section of the country can not level any more Fir than is demanded. Hence the "complaint" of the Government disappears without a possibility of resurrection.

On the other hand, it is probably a blessing for this country to have the supply of lumber reasonably withheld and limited. The dearer a commodity, the less of it is consumed, and the less of it wasted. In the lumber trade in particular, the waste perpetrated by the manufacturers is abnormally high. In every sort and description of lumber, in boards, flooring, shingles or logs, there may be found various grades-as many as twenty different grades in some species of lumber or its products. When the price is high a lower grade can be utilized, otherwise the higher grades are more in demand and the cheaper or lower grades are permitted to decay and become useless.

The present value of the privately owned standing timber of the United States, 2,197,000,000,000 feet, is estimated at $6,000,000,000, or an average of $2.75 per thousand feet of "stumpage." Our annual consumption of timber is about 50,000,000,000 feet, while replacement by new growth is only about one-third, and at this rate our timber lands will be entirely consumed in about fifty-five years. Unless stringent efforts are made by the Government to make the replacement equal to the consumption, the next generation will face not only a famine but an actual and distressing absence of any kind of lumber, even for its most urgent

uses.

In the wave of excitement that spread over the country following the decision of the United States Court in the Standard Oil and American Tobacco cases, the lumber trade received its quota of sensational rebuke. The newspapers set up a straw figure which was labelled "Lumber Trust" and devoted its precious columns to the task of ripping open this figure, without revealing that its insides are mere straw. The press of the country is working up hysterically a spirit of antagonism towards all trade associations and, of course, the lumber trade cannot remain immune from these attacks.

In response to this general demand of our public-spirited edi

tors, the Department of Justice instituted suit against all the lumbermen's associations to dissolve their organizations and thus remove their legal standing. The lumbermen are charged with attempting,

"to close the door of the wholesale dealer and manufacturer in all parts of the United States to the consumer, and arbitrarily and unreasonably deprive such manufacturer and wholesaler, as aforesaid, of the trade of the consumer residing in the territory covered by the retail dealers' trade

The

The allegations of the Government complaint allege that the Lumbermen's Associations have unduly and "unreasonably" restrained and prohibited the lumber trade in a manner and style which bring them within the prohibition outlined in the Sherman Anti-Trust Law. The facts submitted, which took the Government agents so long to uncover, have been well known and obvious to everybody else for the last ten years. Restraint of trade is the act of holding back or hindering certain competitors from indulging and exercising their true rights and for the purpose of bringing into the coffers of certain firms, additional and improper benefits and emoluments. The restraint charged in the complaint against the lumbermen is that the wholesalers have agreed not to sell to such of the consumers who, in the ordinary course of trade, should properly patronize the retailers. world over, and in every branch of commerce, the manufacturer or wholesaler, if he is at all in harmony with the fellow members of his trade, will give his customers, or retailers, as they are known, a certain field of activity, free and unrestrained. If the wholesale lumbermen will sell their stock directly to the consumer he can easily afford to dispose of it at a very much reduced price, and earn, at the same time, a fair profit, thus cutting out completely the middleman, who is compelled to buy from the wholesaler. The act of the Lumber Trade Association in restricting the wholesalers is a benevolent act, absolutely essential for the general welfare of all, and is a step taken not to the betterment, but to the detriment of the wholesalers, who lose millions of dollars by this arrangement and restriction. Restraint of trade, such as would make a person guilty of crime, is, naturally, an act which will inure to his benefit and will increase his profits. But an act which results in a material loss of money to him for the purpose of giving the opportunity of an ordinary profit to the smaller business man, is not restraint of trade, but release of

trade in every sense of the word, and is an act to be commended and not condemned.

In the city of Chicago, charges have been made against the Retail Lumber Dealers' Association, in which it is alleged that they have succeeded in influencing the wholesalers to withhold and refuse the sale of any lumber to the mail-order houses. Perhaps it is only a question, in that particular city, as to who is more powerful and wields more influence with the powers that be, the lumberman or the mail-order business man. The charge seems to be more a matter of spite and revenge; is purely local; and everyone in the trade has had full knowledge of these disputes for a number of years past. That the wholesalers have refused to sell any lumber to the mail-order houses, which are in direct competition with the retailers, is a well-known fact, and is directly in line with their policy of protecting the middleman, or retailer, in his effort to ply his trade with a reasonable and fair degree of profit. No one can find any trace of viciousness nor any breach of business ethics in the fact that the wholesalers, while losing large sums of money by that act, protect the smaller man who needs and deserves such protection.

Strange as it may seem, the cloud that threatens danger to us is due not to the presence of large capital, but rather to the absence of it. It has occurred to many of us that, more and more, forests are sold and transferred to foreign syndicates, while our own investors sink their capital into imaginary bonanzas rather than into the real wealth of the forests.

An excellent tract of timber land is presented by an owner for the purpose of securing a purchaser, and the Wall Street broker who interested himself in the proposition, though controlling millions in American capital, communicates, instead, with London for an offer on that timber land. Bankers throughout the city have at their disposal millions of dollars of foreign capital with instructions to invest in timber lands in the United States or in pulp wood and mahogany anywhere in North America.

Foreign capital does not manipulate. It stores away its millions in safe and sane enterprises, and there is nothing so certain in increased value and development as the products of the forest. A certain newspaper owner is reputed to be worth many millions of dollars. One of his enterprises is the manufacture of all the necessary paper from the spruce lumber. Take the map of Newfoundland and draw a line about his holdings in timber lands,

and note how careful he has been to monopolize the best portion obtainable; this enterprise requires no marvelous ingenuity—just an investment, and an appreciation of the possibilities in it. But this journalist is not an American, just a "slow" Englishman, while our own Yankee journalists are desperately fighting paper dealers, contending for lower tariff, raising the price of subscriptions and experiencing no little difficulty with the supply of paper -all this, with that great territory of spruce within distance.

The word "conservation" has become the talk of the day. It has been made popular by the long and heated controversies of a few ex-office holders who made "conservation of the forests" their platform for public approval.

The Forest Service of the Federal Department of Agriculture has accomplished, in a measure, a great deal towards the protection of the forests. Large tracts of timber land have been reserved, that the timber upon them may develop freely, until, in the opinion of the authorities, the merchant may be permitted to turn the trees into articles of commerce. The lumber trade has entertained great doubts as to the possibility of finding a person qualified to use the sense and discretion essential in the important work of designating and guiding the work of reservation. Wide experience and infinite knowledge, as well as a deep consideration both for the people and the lumber trade, are absolutely necessary.

In every State, as well, there is an efficient Department of Agriculture and Forestry, and everywhere there have been wide reservations and numerous reforestations.

Reforestation is more important and essential than reservation. Millions of young trees should replace the stumps and barren places that cover the hillsides. In thirty to forty years the little saplings will be fair, though not very stout trees, and will produce boards of ordinary width. But at the end of fifty or sixty years, the trees will be developed and produce the finest lumber.

Instead of finding fault with one another, inciting needless prosecutions and controversies, let us pay more attention and lend more strength to our Forestry Service and work for the improvement of our great, beautiful and indispensable forests.

Women Saclay

Editorial

AN APPEAL TO REASON.

(Lumber Trade Journal.)

THE harshest criticism and the one most justified is that of the government's silence concerning a lumber trust.

The daily press and periodicals generally and almost without exception are continually harping on a lumber trust. Every cartoon that caricatures the trusts has the lumber trust in with the rest.

And yet

There is no Lumber Trust

and

THE GOVERNMENT KNOWS IT.

The Department of Commerce and Labor in an investigation which has cost tens of thousands of dollars of the people's money, knows it.

The Department of Justice in an investigation which has cost tens of thousands of dollars of the people's money, knows it. WE KNOW THEY KNOW IT.

Therefore we submit

That the government is entirely unfair in allowing it to be understood to the contrary.

Such suits as the government is bringing is against local conditions and there is no trust feature involved in the contention; on the contrary the whole attitude of the associations interested is distinctly anti-trust.

Further, we submit:

That the government is not only unfair, but that it should be above any such petty intrigue.

We know nothing about the manner in which the Department of Justice has been treated elsewhere, but we challenge it to contradict that in the east it has met other than with the greatest frankness.