Part 24

Our very existence as a social and commercial body as a state is dependent upon transportation to such an extent that without easy, quick and economic means of transportation we must rank as a second, third or fourth class state. The greatest assets of the most substantial nations are transportation and agriculture, neither one of which can be fully developed without the other. The transportation of the bulk of agricultural shipments begins at the farm when the raw material is hauled over the country roads. This country road is the farmer’s own road, which leads to the collecting points of transportation by rail and water, and over which he reaches his market. It is used one hundred times to every other time for all other means of transportation. The good road permits the farmer to watch his markets and not the road. Many a farmer markets his grain at harvest time because it is a season of good roads, at a less price than he would by storing the grain until the markets are better and less glutted, and when he would have more leisure time for hauling it to the market. The good road permits him to haul double the load that he would over a poor one, and he is thus enabled to move his crop in one-half the time. This, figuratively speaking, picks up the producer and sets him down one-half the distance closer to his market. You all know that distance in this age is measured in time and not in miles. The country road is the people’s own road, their own means of transportation, and it is the only transportation system that is owned, operated and controlled by the people themselves.

It is at the same time the most neglected system of transportation in the United States, and the most expensive over which to transport our produce, owing largely to this neglect. Many a pound of freight originating upon a farm, or destined to a farm, moves over a common country road at a cost three times as high as it would be if the road were first class. Often the haul between the farm and the railroad costs more than the remainder of the journey, and the railroad or any other means of rail transportation cannot be expected to reach every man’s farm, and it becomes necessary to provide means for transporting the commodities to the railroad. The wagon road then becomes a system of transportation, just as a line of boats or a railroad is a system of transportation. Water and rail are the means for long distance transportation; highways for local exchange. The highway serves the purpose for local transportation, and is a connecting link for local traffic with the railroads. The condition of this connecting link or highway may make transportation reasonable or costly. Too frequently, as I said before, the haul over the highway is the most expensive part of farm transportation. It requires a tractive force of 125 pounds per ton upon an ordinary country earth road, and only sixty pounds upon a rock road. The cost of transportation by water and rail seldom exceeds one cent per ton mile. That upon a good road is from seven to ten cents per ton mile. Upon our ordinary country highway, half kept roads, it is from twenty cents up to anything, depending upon the condition of the road. The railroad will haul a bushel of your grain thirty miles as cheaply as the farmer can bring it one mile. If the farmer is situated a few miles out of town on poor roads, the railroads will haul the produce and the commodities to cities like Kansas City rather, and the return merchandise from that city as cheaply as the farmer can haul it to and from the railroad and to the farm. Now this high cost of transportation can be decreased by increasing the size of the load. This can be done by improving the road surface. The high cost of transportation is not altogether due to the railroad. Good wagon roads are just as important a factor in the reduction of this high cost of transportation as are low rates by water or rail.

By social conditions, in my opening remarks, I meant the pleasures of community life, the exchange of visits and social courtesies, neighborhood gatherings, social association, fellowship, and the home, the school and the church. The roads should be built for some of the pleasures and comforts of life as well as for their pecuniary interest. It has been said that the pecuniary benefits of good roads sink into insignificance when compared with their social, moral and educational advantages. Man after all is only a social being, and is influenced by his surroundings. The maintenance of a seat of learning, or of a good church in and by a neighborhood has its influence upon the people of that community. The maintenance of anything tending towards better living has a good influence. The maintenance of a good road or improved road has a good influence by permitting easier intercourse between the people of country communities, between rural and urban population, and unifies social and commercial interests. The rural mail delivery is one of the greatest means of education today. Good roads facilitate rural mail delivery, and therefore tend to improve educational conditions. The improvement of our roads would also facilitate the central high school idea for country districts, for while our roads are not an impassable barrier in all of the districts, in some they are, and in many they are obstacles. If our country churches are to be supplied with good pastors and our country schools with able teachers, better libraries and other facilities, it must be by the support of greater wealth therefor, by the consolidation of the districts being possible only where good roads exist, where people can be easily and safely transported. The schools and the churches in many sections of our best land have a decayed, run-down, neglected appearance. Churches which are practically abandoned certain seasons of the year because of the condition of the roads, country schools not accessible in seasons of bad roads, little children plodding through mud and water and compelled to sit all day in the school room with wet feet and damp clothing—this may not apparently affect the children today, but for all the parents know it may be instrumental in undermining otherwise strong constitutions and laying up many aches and pains for future life. As someone has appropriately asked, “Why should a Christian people have heathen roads and a civilized people barbarous ones?” One thought which possibly you have heard brought out time and time again at these congresses for several years is that the trend of population has been from the farms to the cities and the towns. A large part of the best blood and sinew of the country has been trying to get away from the farm. If this continues, it is going to sap the farm industry of its best blood and its best energy. There is something wrong today with our country conditions, when so many of our best farmers leave the farms and seek homes elsewhere in order to give their families better social and educational advantages and when so many of the brightest youths from the country become discouraged with country life and endeavor to escape from the farm. A fair percentage of the men and women, boys and girls must be kept on the farm. This can be done by making farm life worth living. Good roads will help to do it. Will the best, most progressive farm ever be developed without these young men and women, boys and girls to grow into intelligent farmers? Will the increased yield per acre by means of better farming become fully effectual without bettering the means for marketing that yield? Can you incite better farming and maintain a higher order of intelligence and social conditions in country life without easy means of communication? Can country life be supplied with the necessary association and good fellowship, without good roads?

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me state that I do not contend that good roads is the whole solution for happiness and prosperity of country life, but I do contend that a very necessary and important part of it is the relation which our public roads bear to our social and moral and our educational life. The home and the school are the nucleus around which our social life exists, and this is especially true of country life.

Neglect your public road conditions and you will not only neglect your transportation facilities, but you will neglect your social and your educational environments.

The articles that we eat and wear must come from the farm, and the growth and the development of agriculture and the life connected therewith, no matter how we may view this question of the development of the farm, the betterment of life and the development of the country community life, its transportation, exchange of commodities, the basis upon which it rests will be found a question of good roads. No proposition for the betterment of country conditions, no proposition for the good country life is an assured success until good roads are assured. It all rests upon the question of transportation, and communication, and the basis of transportation is the public wagon road. (Applause)

Professor CONDRA—I beg leave to submit the report of the committee on credentials.

The Chair announces the appointment of the following committee on credentials:

Prof. Geo. E. Condra, of Nebraska. Dr. H. E. Barnard, of Indiana. Mr. Ralph H. Faxon, of Kansas. Mr. E. T. Allen, of Oregon. Mr. W. E. Barns, of Missouri.

President WALLACE—If you want to get the proceedings of the Congress, which will be worth their weight in gold, give your name and a dollar to the secretary.

Professor CONDRA—I move that the report be received and the committee discharged.

President WALLACE—We will now hear the Hon. J. B. White, of Kansas City, who will tell us what he knows about lumber in Europe.

MR. WHITE—In Europe the experience of more than a hundred years in forest management has resulted in a more or less scientific and practical policy, although it cannot be said that a well defined, universal policy has yet obtained. This is largely due to conditions of ownership, with consequent variance in ideas as applying to various local conditions, as well as the difference in necessities and financial ability of individual owners to carry out in successful practice the best approved methods. Hence there is a growing tendency towards greater governmental control, whereunder the most economic working system, suited to different conditions of soil, climate and kind of forestry, would be intelligently considered and properly installed.

In the German Empire 47 per cent of the entire forest area is privately owned, and 32 per cent by the state, 19 per cent by institutions, communities and associations, and 21 per cent by the crown. Thirty-three per cent is hardwood and 67 per cent conifers. They are now cutting about their annual growth, taking an average of hardwood and conifers.

Austria-Hungary exports more lumber than any other nation in the world. It covers 46,500,000 acres, or a little over 30 per cent of the total land area. In Austria the forests are composed principally of conifers, spruce, pine and fir, only 15 per cent of the acreage being of hardwood. Sixty-one per cent is in the hands of private owners, and one-half of this, or 30 per cent of the entire forest, in the hands of small owners. The state owns less than 11 per cent of the forests; the balance belongs to churches and communities. The average yearly growth of all the Austrian forests is said to be about forty-two cubic feet per acre, or an annual growth of about 1,100,000,000 cubic feet. They are now cutting annually 250,000,000 cubic feet more than this, or 20 per cent faster than it is growing. This excess of cut, over the growth, will in large measure regulate itself, as the increasing demand makes the industry more profitable and encourages the planting of greater forest area.

In Hungary about 75 per cent of the total forest area is oak, beech, maple and other hardwood species, and only 25 per cent of conifers. The annual yield of conifers is about fifty-eight cubic feet per acre, and that of oak about forty-one cubic feet per acre. Thus the conifers yield the largest percentage of commercial lumber and are most valuable as a crop because of more rapid growth, and because of their larger demand for building purposes. Sixty per cent of the total acreage in Hungary is private forests, about 18 per cent is state forest, and 22 per cent communal and church forests. The annual cut in Hungary is estimated to be less than the annual growth.

England has not until very recently deemed forestry profitable, preferring to buy her supply. Of her 3,000,000 acres of woodlands, mostly devoted to parks and the chase, the state only owns 2 per cent. France has 24,000,000 acres of forest, or 18 per cent of its land area, of which only 12 per cent of its wooded area belongs to the state.

Switzerland has about 25 per cent of her total area under forest. The Zurich forest, known as the Sihlwald, containing 2,760 acres, is 85 per cent hardwood, and is worked on a rotation period of 100 to 110 years. The forest director claims an annual growth for the Zurich forest of sixty-five cubic feet per acre, while the general average of all the forests is only fifty cubic feet per acre. This means the entire growth—wood, poles, limbs and all. Only 40 per cent of the total cut is saw timber for building purposes. The net income from this forest for the past twenty-five years has been from $4.00 to $7.00 per acre, not including interest charges. It was $4.40 in 1890 and $7.69 in 1907. This forest has its own mills and saves all profits.

In Switzerland one pays taxes when the crop is harvested. In Germany and Austria the method of taxation varies in different states, but laws are always favorable to encourage private forestry. In some cases one pays no taxes for twenty years. Then one begins to thin out the poles for use of telegraph and telephone companies, etc., and get a revenue, and leaving a stand in destructive forestry which, when sixty years old, will yield in many cases 20,000 feet of lumber, board measure, per acre. In fact, the average is 4,190 cubic feet per acre of timber and fuel, which, according to values prevailing in England and Germany, amounts to about $200.00 per acre.

CUTTING METHODS IN EUROPE.

It was pointed out to us that mixed growth or conservative forestry is expensive. The most economical and profitable plan is the destructive method. That is, a forest is planted and grown like any other crop, and whenever interest, carrying charges and total cost meet the market value at age and time of greatest profit, then trees are cut and they are all about of a size. The entire acreage is cut clean and the cost of logging is cheap. Trees are again planted and another crop grown. Under the old plan of conservation of mixed growth and mixed sizes, or the shelter-wood system, not as much can be grown per acre, and the cost of logging out the large trees is vastly more expensive, and damage is done to other timber in falling them, while in the destructive method all is taken and a large crop harvested. It is nice to view these stands of timber in strips, side by side, ranging in years from baby trees to stands of ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty and up to sixty and eighty years of age, when they are ready to be harvested.

In growing forests in Europe, lands that are better adapted for agriculture are not used. The degree of utility is considered. And in determining the value of a forest property, one has to figure compound interest, as the crop may not be harvested and the capital returned for sixty or eighty years. Because of absolute protection from forest fires, capital is regarded as safe, and investors in forests are satisfied with a low rate. As an investment, forests require less labor than other crops, if one practices the most economical method of what is called destructive forestry. In times of temporary high prices, one can take advantage of the situation and harvest more than the annual growth, and can then wait and let the trees grow when prices are low, and this is the usual practice. The rate of interest generally charged to the forests, and compounded, is sometimes determined by rate yielded by government securities, which is usually about 2½ per cent.

THE ROTATION METHOD.

It has been ascertained by careful observations that Scotch pine (which grows rapidly, like our short leaf yellow pine) yields, on medium soil in every sixty-year rotation in best quality of location, 5,255 cubic feet per acre, of which an average of 565 cubic feet have been removed in thinning as the forest has been growing, figuring the thinning out being done on an average of about every ten years, leaving at the end of sixty years an average of 4,690 cubic feet per acre. If allowed to remain, this has increased in ten years to 5,250 cubic feet per acre, besides 536 cubic feet that have been profitably taken out in thinning in the last ten years, leaving at seventy years 5,250 cubic feet. Now in the next ten years there will profitably be taken an average of 493 cubic feet in thinning as against the 536 cubic feet taken out the ten years before, leaving at the end of eighty years standing on each acre an average amount of 5,720 cubic feet per acre.

These interesting results follow: With average values of lumber products as in the year 1910, an eighty-year rotation period with Scotch pine would pay 2½ per cent compound interest on soil value of $97.00 per acre. With a ninety-year rotation period it would pay this interest rate on land worth only $94.00 per acre. On a seventy-year rotation period it would pay such interest rate on land worth $94.60 per acre, and on sixty-year rotation it would pay such rate of interest on land worth $85.00 per acre. This shows that the maximum profits at this low rate of interest come from cutting the forests at eighty years’ growth. The greater the variation from this eighty-year period the less favorable the financial results. The maximum age for hardwood trees for best profit is said to be rotation periods of about 100 years with a low rate of interest suited to the safety of the investment. These statistics were prepared by Sir William Schlich, professor of forestry at the University of Oxford, and published by him this year, and are undoubtedly reliable.

But it is safer to figure at a compound interest rate of 4 per cent. A high rate of interest demands a low value of soil, and _vice versa_. And as Sir William points out, the value is, however, not in inverse proportion to the rate of interest, as the value of the soil rises more rapidly than the interest falls. Under a low rate of interest, the expectation value of soil culminates later than under a high rate of interest. So that under a 2½ per cent interest rate, the timber could stand about eighty years; under a 3 per cent rate, about seventy years, and under a 4 per cent rate it should be cut every sixty years. Or, to further illustrate, if a party is satisfied with 2½ per cent compound interest on his investment in European forestry, he could pay $97.00 per acre for his land, and must cut it at eighty years of age.

If he desires 3 per cent interest he must not pay over $55.50 per acre, and must cut his timber when seventy years of age. And if he demands 4 per cent interest rate he cannot pay quite $15.00 per acre for his soil, and must cut his trees when sixty years old.

PERIODS OF PINE TREE GROWTH.

Now this is the best than can be done in Europe (which, according to statistics, is 37 per cent above the average yield), with the best results as to soil and favorable location, with low-priced labor, with most favorable consideration by the government as to taxation, and with the most approved economical methods, where the limbs and twigs are sold for fuel, and forest products are fully 50 per cent higher than they are in the United States. So it is fairly well established that from sixty to eighty years is the most profitable rotation period for growing Scotch pine forests in Europe. The higher the rate of interest demanded, the shorter the rotation.

With advancing age the value of the stumpage increases so that the value of the soil for forestry becomes nearly positive. But in time a maximum is reached, and it falls again. This maximum, with 2½ per cent money, is eighty years growth, and with 4 per cent money only sixty years growth. The value of the soil under a very brief rotation would be negative, so that the yield might not even cover the cost of harvesting. And under a very long rotation, the value of the soil would again become negative, because it could not stand the compound interest and other expenses for an excessively long term of years.

It follows that the expenses during the early part of the rotation affects the expectation value disastrously, for compound interest is running against this expense for a long term of years, lessened only by sale of the thinnings in about ten-year periods. Of course a sudden and heavy increase in the value of stumpage, at any given period after trees are large enough to cut, may create a second maximum, differing from the normal average because of an unexpectedly great demand, causing an abnormally and temporarily high price. But the cost one has to pay for the soil is really the true value, chiefly determined by its value for ordinary purposes of agriculture; and as trees will thrive on land not so well suited for farm crops, such lands are nearly always selected for forestry. But if the soil can be more profitably used for agriculture in the examples just mentioned, then the increased value will enter into the account to change the length period of rotation of forest crop. And where the acreage is not stocked to its full capacity (on account of poor soil, or for any other reason), the rotation, for which the highest probable value of the growing stock is obtained, can, as Sir William states, only be determined by experimental calculations based on these special cases.

THE YIELD OF FORESTS.

But this method of calculation is absolutely logical, and shows under the most normal conditions what we can expect, and it has been proved by experience. The abnormal conditions that may occasionally present themselves are governed by these same financial methods of reasoning, differing only in degree of application, by reason of change of basic conditions in each special case. A normal yield is what the forest can permanently be depended upon to produce. It is a permanent interest investment of greater or lesser rate, where the principal will never be returned, while the land is kept in forest crops. These figures are based upon the best yields in the clear cutting of destructive forest system, which, as has been stated, is 37 per cent above the average. But the principle of calculation applies equally as well in the shelter-wood system of different age trees; but the average volume per tree in each age class in the latter system has to be taken into consideration. On the whole, it has been admitted by the best foresters that the system of clear cutting, then pulling the stumps, fallowing or planting other crops for a couple of years, and replanting again, gives the best financial results.