yield a good deal of my opinion in the matter. There is but one way by which you can ever conserve the forests. You may have all of the recommendations and all of the schemes that you care to devise. It can only be done by making the forests worth conserving. Frankly that means higher-priced lumber. If it is desired to conserve the forests of the United States it can only be done by making those forests worth taking care of; by making it so that the owner of them, in the production of his lumber, will use up the product that is now going to waste.

It has been testified to-day that we only have about thirty years' supply of timber in this country, and if we love our country it is necessary for us to do something to save that for posterity; and only having thirty years they propose to introduce and bring in here, for the destruction of a present prosperity, enough more timber, at their own calculations, to last only about ten or fifteen years longer. Mr. COCKRAN. I do not understand that statement.

Mr. FREEMAN. Very well. There is about one-half as much timber in Canada and British Columbia as there is in the whole of America. Mr. COCKRAN. You say we only have thirty years' supply in this country?

Mr. FREEMAN. Yes; and add to it one-half of the amount which they have in Canada and that would make forty-five years. I said fifteen years longer.

Mr. COCKRAN. I understand your proposition now.

Mr. FREEMAN. In 1803 I believe a commission was appointed to discover something about the forest reserves of the Louisiana Purchase, and after a considerable survey and examination reported to their superiors that the forests of the Louisiana Purchase were not worth considering; that, as a matter of fact, they had been, nearly all of them, cut away.

Mr. CLARK. 1803?

Mr. FREEMAN. Yes.

Mr. CLARK. That is the year we got the Louisiana Purchase? Mr. FREEMAN. Yes; that is the year we got it. The forests had been cut away by the Indians. I simply bring that in to illustrate the value sometimes of statistics.

Mr. CLARK. Who cut it off-the Indians?

Mr. FREEMAN. I presume it must have been Lo, the poor Indian. Mr. RANDELL. Who made a statement to that effect?

Mr. FREEMAN. I can not give you the name at this time. You will find it in an old report that was made at the time.

Mr. COCKRAN. Nobody from Missouri made it?

Mr. FREEMAN. No; I think the man from Missouri would have to be shown differently.

The CHAIRMAN. Was it a report made by the Government?

Mr. FREEMAN. No, sir; I said, or intended to say, by some parties in interest.

The CHAIRMAN. To whom was it made?

Mr. FREEMAN. I can not answer that question. I am not giving it as an absolute fact, but as an illustration of the value of statistics. It has been placed upon record, and I think I can secure the means of information, but I do not have it at hand.

61318 TARIFF-No. 9-08- -9

I do want to say in all sincerity that, in addition to the making of timber valuable and worth conserving, there is one other thing that has to be done, and the forestry department has well recognized that from the beginning-that is, it is necessary to have an organized force which shall receive the cooperation of the actual owners of the timber to be conserved. That is a simple proposition. Now, do those people believe that by an attack upon this industry they are going to secure that cooperation? Is it human nature that they are going to secure it that way? I venture the prediction that if the tariff on lumber is reduced at this time, the whole scheme of forestry restoration and conservation will be practically dead for the next ten years. There is only one other matter to which I wish to allude. The people who are making the cry, who are appearing before you, are just in the same attitude exactly as we are. They are all interested parties. I have been a little surprised that possibly the GovernorGeneral of Canada has not been before this committee to plead his cause. Gentlemen from this country, ten years ago, when we were making a strong effort to secure this tariff of $2 per thousand, men high in the service of their country, who had made great fortunes in the white pine of the North, had stripped off the timber from the lands, had invested those fortunes in Canadian timber, and used every effort in their power to persuade the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives to give them free lumber at that time and not to put a tariff on, created a condition very similar to the condition with which we are confronted at this time. Gentlemen who have made their money in American woods, have cut over their timber, have gone and forsaken their brethren in this country, and have invested their savings in Canadian stumpage, and they will be mighty glad to have us help them at this time. I do not blame them. I do not believe, however, that it should be the policy of our Congress to aid them or give them any such support.

That is all I have to offer.

Mr. COCKRAN. Under the conditions you state, they ought not to have very large savings to invest in that timber. Under the conditions which existed before the tariff was put on the lumber they ought not to have very large savings to invest anywhere, it seems to me.

Mr. FREEMAN. No, sir; I have not made that statement anywhere. Mr. COCKRAN. You said our brethren have left us with their savings.

Mr. FREEMAN. They have taken the savings with them that they have made and have forsaken our side of the question and have gone into Canada and have procured their future timber supplies there. Mr. CLARK. You say you are willing to give up part of your opinion to see this reforestation scheme worked all around?

Mr. FREEMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. CLARK. But you are not willing to give up any of your tariff? Mr. FREEMAN. Yes, sir; I think when I said I would give up my opinion it would mean if I could be convinced that that would conserve our forests, I would be willing to do that; but it would take a whole lot of testimony to convince me, I will admit.

Mr. CLARK. The President of the United States has been voluble and vociferous on that subject, has he not?

Mr. FREEMAN. I think my friend Captain White made reply to that, which I would hardly dare to make.

Mr. CLARK. You need not repeat it.

Now, Mr. Freeman, if there is no lumber trust, then how does it happen that there is such a wonderful uniformity of prices?

Mr. FREEMAN. I have thought of that question, of course. I will have to answer to that just as I have to the question about trusts. I say there is no trust. I affirm with equal confidence there is no unanimity or uniformity of prices. I will say, further, we can give you the proof of that if you will call at my office in St. Louis at any time; or, if you will send an agent there, I will offer you abundant proof to the contrary.

Mr. CLARK. The first time I am in St. Louis I will call upon you. Mr. UNDERWOOD. Suppose you file that information as a part of your remarks, showing there is no uniformity of prices? Can you do that very easily?

Mr. FREEMAN. I would have to do it this way. I could simply have the gentleman accompany me to a half a dozen different concerns and let him ask them what they would take for certain commodities at that time or any other time.

Let me state with all sincerity, and I think I can back this up-I think there are plenty of gentlemen here who know that it is truethat there never has been a time, even in the most prosperous times, when very many of the articles on the lumber list could not be obtained at varying prices at any market in the United States at any time, a variation of from one to three dollars.

Mr. COCKRAN. That is due to the freight rates?

Mr. FREEMAN. No, sir; in the same market, under the same conditions. Take the city of St. Louis, and I have never known a time when I could not have gone out and bought lumber there at a variation of from one to three dollars per thousand, on almost any item on the list. Of course, there are a few times when there may be an exception, when some particular item is short in supply.

Mr. CLARK. Do you own timber lands, as well as manufacture lumber?

Mr. FREEMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. CLARK. Where are your lands?

Mr. FREEMAN. In Arkansas.

Mr. CLARK. Yellow pine?

Mr. FREEMAN. Yes, sir; short leaf yellow pine.

Mr. CLARK. How many acres have you?

Mr. FREEMAN. About 33,000 to 35,000 acres.

Mr. CLARK. Bought at $2 or $3 an acre?

Mr. FREEMAN. No, sir; unfortunately I did not; but I did buy it a good deal less than it is worth to-day. I could have bought it, if I had had the courage of my convictions and a little more money, at a good deal less than $2. I went there nearly eighteen years ago. could have bought it at $1.25 an acre.

STATEMENT OF C. W. NIBLEY, OF LA GRANDE, OREG.

Mr. NIBLEY. Mr. Chairman, I shall not detain you long. I just want to say in regard to the price of lumber, about which we have had some question, that the price of lumber in Portland, Oreg., now is as low as it was ten years ago on all rough lumber.

Mr. HILL. Was that true last year?

Mr. NIBLEY. No, sir; it is less now than it was last year, but you can buy to-day in Oregon all kinds of rough lumber at as low prices as you could in 1898, ten years ago. We are not in favor of the tariff being reduced or taken off of lumber. We think it would hurt our business. We have a right to ask, we think, that it be continued at least as it is. As to the idea of the President of the United States or Mr. Pinchot, that taking the tariff from Canadian lumber would save our forests, I think we can show you a more excellent way. I am going to air this subject a little here, because I think it is proper, Mr. Chairman, at this time.

The stump land, land that has been cut off and denuded, has been disposed of in this way in our section of the country. We have sold in eastern Oregon-and when I say we, I mean my company alone40,000 acres to sheep men for pasturage. That hill and mountain land is worth little for anything else after the trees are cut off of it. It is not the best pasturage in the world, but we have rented some to the sheep men for from 8 to 10 cents an acre per year for pasturage. Now, why could not, and why should not the Government, if it wants this land for reforestation-and it does, doubtless-secure that same land instead of the sheep men getting it? Buy it, condemn it, give the Government the right to condemn, if necessary, and your registers and receivers in the different land offices and land districts may be made the judges of the value of the land, and secure this land for reforestation instead of turning it over to the sheep men. The amount that would be received by grazing sheep on that land would pay the interest on the investment.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Would sheep interfere with reforestation?

Mr. NIBLEY. No, sir; not after the trees get started a little to grow. On the very young trees they will cut the bark, but after they grow a little the sheep do not bother them. Cattle can be grazed on that land right from the beginning, and produce some revenue. So there is a chance not only for thousands and tens of thousands, but millions of acres to grow timber, and if were a country different from ours, steps would be taken to handle that matter in a practical way. It is what you would do and what I would do, and it can be done, and done easily. It is feasible and practicable.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Why do not the citizens do it?

Mr. NIBLEY. What is everybody's business is nobody's business. I do not care to do it. We sold to the sheep men.

Now, as to the famine of timber: We all know that in the West, in that warm, generous climate, trees will grow in twenty-five to thirty years from the seed or a small sapling, to 18 or 20 or 24 inches in diameter. We have timber on hand estimated to be sufficient to last us thirty years, and with the Canadian timber, forty-five years. We can produce timber in thirty years and do it easily. There is no great danger of timber famine if the timber interests are taken hold of in some practicable and feasible way, which I think I have suggested.

I have some photographs here which I shall be glad to submit to the committee, together with statistics showing the cost of houses, the amount of lumber that enters into them, and showing that those houses are built in the city of Portland at remarkably low figures. You will be surprised when I tell you that the plumbing in the house is substantially the cost of the lumber that is to say, the plumbing costs as much as the lumber.

Mr. BOUTELL. That is no surprise to me.

Mr. NIBLEY. Here is a photograph of a house which was taken July, 1908; estimated cost of a six-apartment building, Benton street, Portland, Oreg. I will not take time to read all the details, but will hand these pictures around for the members of the committee to examine. The statistics accompanying the photograph show the cost of excavating, grading, plumbing, painting, plastering, brickwork, tin roof, window and frame work, heating plant, lumber, carpenter work, etc. This is a $9,000 building. The lumber was only $624. The plumbing in this building was $1,320. That, however, is an extreme case. Here is another one that is just a lumber house entire, with a concrete foundation. Here is a lumber house that cost $4,500. There are 28,000 feet of lumber in it, which in Portland cost $518. The CHAIRMAN. Those statistics are given on the backs of those photographs?

Mr. NIBLEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you may hand them up to the committee, and we will look at them at our leisure.

Mr. NIBLEY. Yes, sir; I will do so. I would just like to say is to common and high-grade lumber, that in eastern Oregon, where I live, we do not get 10 per cent of the high grade. There is 90 per cent of our trees that is common stock. So that if the tariff is taken off and the cheap lumber is allowed to come into our country, we are just that much worse off.

I do not know, gentlemen, that I shall detain you any longer. I will present these photographs to you and would like to have you look at them.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you said at present prices you could not ship any rough lumber out of the State?

Mr. NIBLEY. Oh, no; we ship out. We ship as far as Kansas and Nebraska.

The CHAIRMAN. I thought you said the present prices would not enable you to do so?

Mr. NIBLEY. Oh, no; we ship the high-grade lumber.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you send by sea or rail, or both?

Mr. NIBLEY. By rail pretty much.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any shipped from there by sea?

Mr. NIBLEY. Yes, sir; from Portland; but I am inland.

The CHAIRMAN. You have had pretty good prices for it in the past ten years, up to about a year ago?

Mr. NIBLEY. In 1907, very good prices; yes, sir. This year anything but good prices.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the condition generally? Was the industry prosperous?

Mr. NIBLEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And the present depression is because of the depression in trade generally, is it not?

Mr. NIBLEY. I think that is true; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. There is not so much building going on?

Mr. NIBLEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. But there is an improvement in that respect?

Mr. NIBLEY. I think there is.

The CHAIRMAN. With a run of prosperity, there would be a great demand for your lumber?