of the bill was slightly rearranged. The chief point of concern in the present bill is the adequacy of appropriations to maintain a sufficient warden force. While the present appropriation of?30,000 a year may serve in unusually favorable seasons, such as that of 1912, when eked out with funds contributed by the federal government under the Weeks Law, it is manifestly a pitifully small insurance of the tremendous community values in life and resources that are hazarded by every bad year. It has been adequately shown that the State Board will exercise care in the expenditure of funds intrusted to it. Fire protection, the most important matter for immediate consideration, is a matter for which the expenditure cannot be accurately foretold each year. An appropriation to meet at least the ordinary year should therefore be made and if conditions prove favorable and expenses correspondingly low unexpended money can be returned to the treasury. If funds are insufficient on the other hand a vast amount of property and even human life may be sacrificed for want of a few thousand dollars.
In approaching recommendations for further forest legislation, it may be well to outline the objects to be sought. To disregard details and confine the list to fewest possible inclusive essentials of a comprehensive state forest policy, these may be stated about as follows: Adequate fire protection, application of forestry priciples to cut-over land, acquisition by the State of lands fit only for growing timber, scientific taxation of timber lands; facilities for educational work along the lines of forest economics.
We have seen that, except in appropriation, Oregon has the first of these things satisfactorily established. The last has also a preliminary framework, for the same law provides for technical and educational work when time and money build up facilities. The other points it has not yet considered. Although less immediately urgent than fire protection, they are equally essential in any far-seeing permanent policy. History elsewhere has shown that it is good policy for the State to own a large proportion of its land which, while capable of growing forest, does not promise a truly prosperous condition of settlement If all such land is in private ownership, too * small a proportion is made to produce wealth to its fullest capacity, or, through enhancing in taxable value, to contribute its due share to the cost of government. Private forestry should be encouraged, but it is deferred by delay in securing necessary conditions. Moreover, it will always be confined to the most promising areas. State action will hasten results, secure them on lands otherwise likely to remain waste, and is
