by the Forest Service. _Why should the states not do the same thing
with their school and tax deed lands? Intelligent care of timbered
school land, selling the timber only under regulations which will
insure reforestation, would realize as much today and in the long
run pay a thousand per cent in dividends for the education of our
children and our children's children._

Further than this, there should be legislation to permit the state
to solidify its forest lands by exchange, when advisable, and to
authorize the purchase of cut-over lands. The eventual profit in
this is certain to be great, and nothing will do more to interest
the public and private owners in reforestation. It is the history or
all countries that forests are peculiarly profitable state property,
especially when, as is the case with us, it can be acquired cheaply.
It is a sound and well-proved policy that it is well for the state to
own lands which are not adapted for permanent individual development.
Forest lands constitute the ideal class, not only because the state
is in the best position to keep up their usefulness to the community,
but also because they will earn perpetual revenue far greater than
they could bring through taxation. They will pay back the cost and
interest, become increasingly valuable, and still pay dividends.

It is even more important that reforestation be secured on private
lands, because their area is greater than that owned by state and
government. With the encouragement which could be given the owner
without any undeserved concession, conditions would warrant him
in securing it. We have reached that stage in our development.
The exhaustion of timber in the country at large, the increase of
consumption, and our peculiar natural advantages, have combined
to promise adequate financial return. And the lumberman does not