Some are drawn here by one interest and some by another, but all recognize the wisdom and need of arousing our people to a consideration of the resources of our country and their proper utilization. In the cauldron of our national development, mix a little philanthropy, patriotism and politics and you can stir up the most phlegmatic of our citizens.
To my mind, the great results we wish to secure in this Conservation effort can only be realized by directing the attention of the millions who do not attend these annual meetings to the importance in our State and national life of the subject-matter we have under consideration.
The vast majority of the American people wish to see general prosperity and proper utilization of the resources of the country, regardless of the political ambitions of any individual or party. Conservation will only be realized when it takes such a strong hold of the people that any man or set of men will sink to political oblivion if they do not promote its cause.
Three years ago we were somewhat startled by the announcement, I think from the originators of this movement, that the electric companies had combined to control the water powers of the country. Today I come from a State where a stupendous amalgamation of capital has recently combined the hydro-electric plants of the Puget Sound basin. Not that this is detrimental to our development, but that the acquiring of these perpetual rights and control of natural resources should be well considered by the people and subject forever to their supervision.
The cupidity of capital will only be curbed by the assurance to the long-time investor that the Government is behind the investment and the people will not forever back the investment unless they are in on the deal.
Our country is comparatively new and we need to encourage capital and labor in every way to develop the latent resources, but we want to make better trades than we have made in the past if we wish to hold the respect of either.
The old saying that “Uncle Sam is rich enough to give us all a farm” sounded siren-like to all, and was necessary to encourage the settler, but there is a limit to even Uncle Sam’s patrimony—and irrigation costs money. No doubt the State of Washington, which I represent, has profited as much as any other by the liberal policy of the Government, but there forest reserves have been declared and in lieu of worthless timber tracts scrip has been issued to bona fide settlers or original grantees, and for this same scrip some of the choice timber lands of the country have been exchanged. I conclude that “David Harum” is discounted in a trade.
The lumber manufacturers of the country have in recent years been in the limelight of trust investigators, and to what purpose? If to foster the political ambitions of some demagogue, I am sure it will fail. There may be organizations back of labor and capital which come under the ban of the law, but when such general conclusions are drawn, as in the Missouri Ouster Case, that the National Lumber Manufacturers’ Association is an unlawful combination in restraint of trade, as President of that association I “deny the allegation and defy the allegator.”
There is too much of loose talk in censuring the efforts of associations generally. The very theories you as Conservationists are advancing are uppermost in the minds of association workers. And the greatest development in forest Conservation and fire protection has its origin and support from these associations. We have something to conserve and are not mere theorists. With rising values of timber and utilization of lower grades of lumber, the product of the entire tree will be saved.
This is where the shoe pinches. It is going to cost more money to conserve. The low grades of lumber, slabs, and waste from a mill must bring enough money when sold to pay for the labor expended in saving them. Then, and then only, will they be saved.