It is conservatively figured that had the 4,000,000 acres of timber in Oregon destroyed by fire been available for taxation the past year they would have returned a revenue of not less than $1,400,000, Had this property been protected tax payers of the State would have been better off by the above amount.
When it ia considered that destruction of timber results not only in reducing taxable property in the State, but takes away a large field for labor, affects directly our agricultural development, and that of manufacturing industries, it is not difficult to realize the State's responsibility in protecting this the most vulnerable of its natural resources. No conservation question 80 directly affects the people as this one; none should receive more careful consideration by the Legislature. Wise action will result in doing away with the needless destruction of timber; failure so to act can only result in each year increasing the burden of taxation to be bourne by farm and other property, as well as taking from the State a field for labor, which means less rapid increase in population and a smaller amount of money in circulation.
FOREST LEGISLATION IN OREGON.
In Oregon, as elsewhere, the realization that injury to forest resources and forest industry is a community injury, and that failure to insure against it means loss to every citizen, has been of gradual growth. Oregon's possession of more forest wealth than any other State tended for a time to produce indifference, instead of a logically greater concern because it had more at stake, and in establishing the existing protective system less than two years ago it was the last of the Pacific forest states to give the subject serious attention.
The first legislative recognition was of simple property rights, when in 1864 to set fire to "prairie or other grounds" was included among trespass prohibitions and an injured party was thus given opportunity to prosecute. The same principle underlaid more specific sections added to the criminal code in 1893, providing punishment for both wilful and negligent kindling of fires injuring woodlands or property. There was no other acceptance of responsibility by the State for enforcing these laws. Their violation was not the signal for any official effort to punish the offender for a crime against the community, like murder, robbery, or even arson. Indeed it was impracticable to secure much official aid in prosecution instigated by an injured party. Offenses were regarded as personal property affairs, interesting only those involved, and juries were more apt to sympathize with a defendant than with a complaining property holder.
