"White" Pine Controversy

(Continued from Page 32)

"Sugar Pine". The products made from Pinus lambertiana are likeu'ise knorvn and sold widely as sugar pine products, and are in competition rvith products made from Pinus ponderosa. Pinus lambertiana is a genuine rvhite pine. It is far more nearly related to the said Pinus strobus than Pinus ponderosa both botanically and in commercial qualities and characteristics, as set forth in Paragraph Six hereinabove. It equals Pinus strobus in its average rating in the said described characteristics. The approximate annual production and sale of Pinus lambertiana is 282,M,000 ft. B.M.

PARAGRAPH EIGHT: Respondents and other manufacturers of forest products made from Pinus ponderosa are in competition rvith manufacturers of forest products made from Plnus strobus and Pinus lambertiana. They were reluctant to use the common name of Pinus ponderosa, to r,vit, "western yellorv pine" as a commercial or trade name for their products since they clesired to avoid the market disadvantages from association and possible confusion in the mind of the public and of the trade, of forest products made from western vellorv pine or Pinus ponderosa with those niade from the dense, resinous and, for the uses for which Pinus ponderosa is best adapted, ancl relatively inferior forest products made from Pinus palustris or the long leaf yellow pine of the southern states, knor,vn commercially as "southern yellow pine", from rvhich latter the commercial qualities of Pinus ponderosa on the averag'e differ markedlv, Pinus palustris being on the average harder, denser and heavier than Pinus ponderosa. The use of the words "rvhite pine" as the name or as part of the name given to forest products made from Pinus ponderosa was adopted and has been continued by respondents and other manufacturers thereof as a substitute for that of western yellow pine, for the purpose of se.curing for their said products the market advantages of a name suggestive to the trade and to the public mind of the commercial species of genuine rvhite pine and particularly of said Pinus strobus and its aforesaid high qualities and reputation and further in order to cause the trade and buying public to minify or ignore the characteristics rvherein Pinus ponderosa is inferior to Pinus strobus as in Paragraph Six hereinabove set forth. A confusion as more fully set out in Paragraph Nine herein has resulted from the said designation by respondents and other said manufacturers of Pinus ponderosa as a rvhite pine. and, in or about the years 1924 and. 1925 there was among various manufacturers of lumber an advocacy of, on the part of some, and an opposition on the part of others to, a proposal to change the trade name and designation of forest products ma{e from Pinus ponderosa from "rvhite p,ine" or from the designations named in Paragraoh Three hereof which include the words "whi 'aragrap rte pine", to solne other designation and particularly to "Pondosa" 1>ine, and the said change to Pondosa pine was actually made for all commercial purposes by manufacturers of the major part of the forest products made from Pinus ponderosa as shown in Paragraph Five.

PARAGRAPH NINE: The use of the words "white pine", rvhether or not coupled with any of the said words in Paragrapl-r Three hereof named has. the capacity and the (Continued on Page 1O4)