A Powerful Defense of the LumberManufacturer

The of the Tree M Be a lllyth,but This-

(Fron the Dallas News, February 22, 1926)

In this issue will be found a letter written by Jack Dionne to the Dallas (Texas) News, one of the strongest daily newspapers in the entire country, in answer to a cartoqn that recently appeared in that publication. A reprint of the cartoon is likewise shown.

Since many of the leading lumbermen of the country have designated that letter as "the strongest defense of the lumber manufacturer ever printed" it was thought advisable'to reprint it in The California Lumber Merchant, particularly since in California the lumberman is continually being "picked upon" in much the same fashion as the Dallas News picked upon the lumbermen of Texas.

And, since the arguments in favor of the cutting of the forests pertain as strongly to all forests as to those in Texas, we feel that the lumbermen of the west will be interested in this presentation of HIS side of the matter.

As a matter of fact, the lumberman has nothing to dodge, nothing to be ashamed of. His position is unassailable. The arguments presented in this letter are the ones that cannot be directly and practically answered.

Read the letter, and let us know what YOU think about it.

Flouston, Texas

February 23rd,1926

The Editor, The Dallas Morning News, Dallas, Texas.

My Dear Sir:- that this answer to your first 22 be given the publicity ac-

It would be vain to hope page cartoon on February corded the cartoon.

It is always the slander that gets the big publicity. The controverting facts are generally well and thoroughly hidden away.

But as one who for years has been honored by a place as spokesman for the lumber industry of Texas, I would like to give you a4d your friends a thought or two on the subject of the forests, the lumbermen, their attitude toward the forests, and what should be done about it.

We gather from your cartoon that the lumbermen are cgtting the trees down and leaving stumps. We admit the charge.

We gather from your cartoon that because they are do- i1g so, they are "Greed and Stupidity" personified. We deny the charges, and challenge you to batk them.

Like the men in the clothing business, the automobile business, the hotel business, the cotton business, the oil b,usiness, the shoe-shining business, the laundry business, the newspaper business, and every other line of business that you may care to add to this list, the lumbermen are engaged in-doing just one lhilg, namely, trying to make a living and a return on their investment.

They are unfortunate in the fact that their investment is in trees, which have a sentimental attachment in the mi4ds of all men.

And when I say of all men, I include the lumbermen th_emselves, most positively. There are no men anywhere who love a big, beautiful tree any more than do lumbermen or who get a bigger thrill out of a tree.

And still they cut them down. They do so because a standing tree means npthing but shade ind a pleasing impression to the sensations. Cut down it means tax-es to the county, taxes to the state,, taxes to the Government, a living for the men who work in the woods and the mills. profit-making freight to keep the railroads goi4g, work for the local carpenters and builders where the lumber is used, and it means homes and shelter for men and their possessions.

'When you publish such a cartoon as the one referred to, have you ever stopped to think what it would mean if we did NOT allow the cutting of trees? Evidently you 4ever have, or the cartoon would not have been published.

Let us therefore suppose that thirty years ago the State of Texas had p:rssed a law forbiddiirg the critting of its trees. Tq4"y East Texas would be entirely covered by forests. The poet would be able to stand and rant to hil heart's content of their beauty and loveliness, and all sentimentalists would have the forests primeval to do with as they saw fit-verbally.

But what would have become of East Texas? Could you build a Commonwealth and kill the commercial valui of its one original great asset?

And where would the people of this territory have secured their homes, and their farm buildings, and all the other commercial wood that has been used to build up Texas?

Your cartoonist hadn't thought of that, had he?

A1{ wh_e1 y_o} published the cartoon, you hadn't deeply considered it, I imagine.

East Texas has been built up almost entirely from its forest revenges. If that law had been passed, tiees would have been made nothing more than sienery, and would have lost tfieir commercial value. Every county in East Texas has operated its county go.r"-*ettt for mlany years by the income from the forests. The trees have been assessed at their commercial value, and the owners have paidthe-taxes aicordingly,-so that the counties might op- erate, might build and maintain schools, etc. When tie mills came, the situation improved. Not only did the counties continue to tax the standing timber, but they taxed the big investments which milling firms must mate, and the taxes were accelerated, and prosperity grew.

Had they forbidden the cutting of trees, these counties would have remained undeveloped forests primeval. In addition many men were brought into the counties to work in the woods and the mills, aqd the payroll brought more cash and more prosperity, that helped to build and develop better living conditions, better schools, better roads, etc.

Farms have been created where the forests once stood. You can't have a farm without getting rid of the forest. Cot- t9l alq corn won't grow in a piney woods. You have to get rid of the trees to plant the crops. You have to permit m1n to cut the trees, or the trees would have ablolutely no value in the first placg because if they couldn't cut them, men wouldn't give anything for thern

If it had not been for the lumber industry and its operations,_ its high tax paying ability, etc., Ealt Texas tbday would be an absolutely valueless fores! with little deve,lop- ment, little population, etc.

Aren't these absolute facts? Can there be any doubt but that the commercial value of the Texas forests was absolutg]y and trlterly essential to the life, development, and well-being of East Texas-; and through its furnishings of le_cgssaly materials, hasn't it been absolutely essential to ALL of Texas? And the only possible commercial value of timber comes through its cutting.

These pictures of great wastes of land covered with dreary looking stumps are NOT prepossessing. But how do they compare with such a situation as I h-ave tried to picture, with trees worth 4othing commercially? Which would be the best East Texas?

So, if it was essential years ago that timber be allowed to be cut, and maintain a commercial value because of its prospectiv_e lumber making qualities, why should calumny be .heaped upgn -the lumbermen today because they arl llyi"g- to- get- their money back, with a profit where fossi- ble? And what could you expect the -lumbermen to do about it?

I assume you will say, reforest.

Easy to say, but it takes two generations to grow com- mercial pine trees. T^wo generations of care an-d experrse. Had Texas said to its timber investors years ago, ..you may cut this timber only on condition thjt you rigrow it and give the forests back to us," East Texis wou-ld still be covered with virgin pine. Because it can't be done com_mercially. It can't be done for any cost short of actual confiscatio4 of the lumber making industry.

Only one party can be interested in regrowing timber, and that party is the Government, whicl shalf endure. Ffow wourld y9u -like to be obligated to invest all your proft, and probably more, that you are making in your business, in a crop that cannot be-harvested for fiity years? That would be confiscation, wouldn,t it?

Then where is the justification of your cartoon?

T!"tg IS a culpability in the forest situation, but it does NOT lie with the men who invested their all in trees, for commercial purposes, and are trying to get their monev back. Had the State been farsighted, it-would have aJ_ cumulated great stands of timbeiwhen timber was cheao. and kept it. No one would be hurt by such action. Theie IIA9. PEEII stupiiity in o-ur_Governmentat affairs regard_ ing this subject. There still IS.

And yet, don't forget that-the United States Government, "r{t:h has.huge reserves of virgin timber in the west, i; s-erJrng btrlrons ot teet every year, and plans to continue doing so. And while they keip the lan<i, they do ,rot ,"_ g{ow or reforest, although Uncle Sam is abie to do so. The Government timber- is logged just as the privately owned timber.

The poorest human is the one who viciously condemns what the other fellow is doing, without suggesting ,orrr"_ thing better.

Won't you please tell your readers what you think shoutd be done about this forest situation, and don't sugeest anv- thing more drastic against the other fellow,s UusTfress tfri' you would like to see plastered against your own. Whe,re does the "Greed and Stupidity" come in? We are really entitled to know.

And, just as an afterthought, you are printing your DaDer on stock made from trees. How would-you fiEe to "uu 'it e cutting of trees stopped? What would it do to your busi_ ness ?

Yours very truly, pubrisher, rhe