FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1920. DOUBTFUL, ADVICE.

Grey River Argus, 26 November 1920, Page 2

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1920. DOUBTFUL, ADVICE.

In stating a case against the policy of the Forestry Department, our Hokitika contemporary adopts an attitude and employs arguments Avhich we can not endorse, but in- view of the large degree in which the new departure concerns ""he West Coast, we believe that even in calling attention solely to the financial aspect of forestry, our contemporary is performing a public service. Our reason for so thinking lies in a belief that the more fully the pros and cons of the ease for a progressive forestry policy are presented to, the public mind, the more completely will such a policy commend itseli to the community. Recently we briefly adverted -to the manifold advantages which we, here, as compared with Australia, enjoy from Nature '? bounty in endowing this country with prolific forests and an ideal soil anr climate for their perpetuation. Nc commodity is more of a necessity than timber, a fact which the high prices flic keen local and external .demand and the extensive exports abroad of that product strikingly demonstrate. In ourselves importing, for instance the one class of timber for which there is in New Zealand an unsatisfied demand at prescn't, we have it brought home to us clearly what difficulty there would be had we, like other lands, to depend upon importation for the great bulk of our timber needs. We car appreciate the great value of possess ing adequate general timber supplier in perpetuity when- we find to-daj that Australian ' hardwood landed ii New Zealand is worth more than it. Iweight in the valuable metal aftei' which it is named. In deprecating 'the viewpoint of those who would con

servo the interests of posterity in thr matter, our southern contemporary al hides- in a strain of levity to^the fore sight of Srr George Grey in providing for "the unborn millions./ ? an allu sion, by the way, which illustrates inor( aptly than we could how circumscribed superficial, and short-sighted is if: own vision of this enterprise, whicli comprehends groat, broad, national interests, not only 'those "^bf to-day, but those of all time. The need there if for afforestation, and -for the conserva tion of our natural forests' by organised, enlightened, up-to-date, scientific methods is not questioned; but the new departure is condemned solely upon one ground, and this before it has liar l the opportunity merely to explain fully — much less initiate and justify — its great undertaking. The only objection urged seriously seems to be that there is going to be a financial outlay at the outset. The critic, for , reasons not very evident, baulks at the first cost, f.nd refuses to look beyond this. The present and prospective value of our forest assets, financially, commercially, and otherwise are ignored. Presentday profits are not overtly mentioned, but between the lines it appears that the real question is whether the values and .benefits of our national forest endowment shall be reaped by the comm-

unity or by individuals. It is asked,, for instance: "On this forestry/ question we want to know what the administration is going to cost and can the country afford to pay for it all?" The writer would seem terribly concerned for the country. Yet, assuming as much to be true, the questioner quite misses the main point. There is really no-ques-tion of the country having to pay. The forests themselves will do that. They return the State a very handsome profit in France, in Germany, and in other countries; ' and, considering the magnificent capital with which our Forestry Department set out, its return in interest and profit win be magnificent. Our seven million acres of forest are a truly magnificent capital. Our friends who raise their hands up in mock alarm about the risK of fin-, ancial loss to the State, would simply leap at tho chance of exploiting those forests with borrowed millions, not thousands. And yet, when the State embarks on a policy to ensure that the immense prospective revenue from our extensive forests shall accrue, not to private pockets, but to the public purse, the critic predicts nothing but bankruptcy! Now we might be led to think this prediction is based upon a disbelief in the success -or utility of public enterprise; but we rather fancy the prediction to be a piece of special pleading on behalf of unrestricted private enterprise. We ask the critic- to say, straight out, whether lie would think |the same of a further extension of public enterprise, rto the extent of making the whole timber industry a public enterprise — with State mills? And if not, why not? Is it that such a logical development of the present scheme is feared? Anyway, we have said enough on that head, we think, to let ! tlic critic know that the State does not stand in danger of losing a penny! It can provide against that quite easily. And such a step would serve to call off "all bluff into the bargain. The forests will return the State more than good interest on capital invested, so nobody need lose any sleep over the danger of the State being unable to pay. If those who Avish to see the State -thrive financially from its connection with the timber trade cannot manifest their desire to assist in any way other than to try and thwart the State's efforts to regulate the trade (and "thereby secure for the public the fullest re-, turn for this national asset), they might seriously ponder whether it would noti be wiser to say nothing whatever. For the State to lose money is one thing, and for speculators to lose a clianee to make profits out of State property is quite another. Naturally, in opposing the poliev that meant the latter thing, the speculator would think the substitution of the former contention to be a more plausible argument to present to the people. But the State is in a position to prevent any loss from its con-

servation of the national - timber assets; and to prevent loss of the assets is worthy of a big expense. Thus when a gratuitous ud visor would have the State think only of saving money by neglecting its assets, the * State (or the public) may be excused if it judges the adviser appreciates those assets too little — or too much.