Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

"Pretty sleek and fat" : the genesis of forest policy in British Columbia, 1903-1914 Marris, Robert Howard 1979

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1979_A8 M37.pdf [ 6.12MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094794.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094794-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094794-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094794-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094794-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094794-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094794-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094794-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094794.ris

Full Text

"PRETTY SLEEK AND F A T " : THE GENESIS OF FOREST  POLICY IN B R I T I S H COLUMBIA, 1 9 0 3 - 1 9 1 4 . by ROBERT HOWARD] MARRIS B.A., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1976 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of History) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1979 (c^ Robert Howard Marris, 1979 In p re sen t ing t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements fo r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia , I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e fo r reference and s tudy . I fu r the r agree that p e r m i s s i o n fo r ex t ens ive copying of t h i s t h e s i s fo r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s / h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s for f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l lowed wi thou t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of History The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 i i 'Do you think the lumbermen are making any money? 1, asked Mr. Harvey. 'None of them i s going bankrupt that I can see.' 'But are they making money?' 'I don't know, those s i t t i n g around here are looking pretty sleek and f a t . ' , remarked Mr. Hamilton, l a c o n i c a l l y . Daily News-Advertiser (Vancouver), 30 September 1909, p. 11. i i i ABSTRACT Thi s s tudy examines events surrounding the 1909-1910 F u l t o n Royal Commission to ana lyze the e a r l y management and e x p l o i t a t i o n of one p r o v i n c i a l r e source , t imber . S ince succes s ive governments i n B r i t i s h Columbia have sought to r egu la t e t h i s resource i n d u s t r y , i t i s d e s i r a b l e to have some unders tanding of the h i s t o r i c a l processes by which Crown p o l i c y and r e g u l a t i o n s have been decided upon. F u r t h e r -more, those government measures not on ly cover f i e l d s r e q u i r i n g a h igh l e v e l of - t e c h n i c a l e x p e r t i s e and an i n t i m a t e knowledge of the i n d u s t r y concerned, but have a l s o shaped the very s t r u c t u r e of those i n d u s t r i e s . By 1900 the p r i n c i p l e of Crown ownership of the p r o v i n c e ' s f o r e s t l and was w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d . Because of t h i s p r i n c i p l e , when i n the e a r l y years of the twen t i e th centure the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y i n B r i t i s h Columbia expanded g r e a t l y , the Crown was ab le to ensure that i t s f o r e s t income rose c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y . Changes i n the terms of access to Crown t imber were, i n f a c t , aimed at i n c r e a s i n g s t i l l f u r t he r Crown f o r e s t revenues, e s p e c i a l l y a f t e r 1905. Having b r i e f l y d i scussed contemporary governmental p o l i c i e s and developments elsewhere on the c o n t i n e n t , the t h e s i s then examines the s i t u a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia to 1909, and the reasons f o r the appointment of the F u l t o n Commission i n that yea r . I t i s suggested that the Commission was se t up at t ha t j unc tu re because, hav ing achieved i t s pr imary aim of a i v s u b s t a n t i a l and steady flow of revenue from Crown f o r e s t s , the McBride government was unsure of what other f o r e s t r y goals to pursue. An exposition of themes recurrent at the hearings of the Fulton Commission i s undertaken. Themes include s e c u r i t y of tenure for those holding c u t t i n g - r i g h t s to timber on Crown land, conservation, r e f o r e s t -a t i o n and the regulation of logging p r a c t i c e s , and the p r o v i s i o n by the Crown of c e r t a i n s e r v i c e s — s u c h as forest f i r e p r o t e c t i o n — t o the forest industry. I t i s argued that the way i n which these themes were treated i n the F i n a l Report of the Commission was a r e f l e c t i o n of the McBride government's overriding concern with maintaining i t s high flow of f o r e s t revenues. In t h i s context i t i s noted that neither the Commission's F i n a l Report of 1910, nor B r i t i s h Columbia's f i r s t Forest Act of 1912, were p a r t i c u l a r l y innovative or unique i n terms of contemporary continental p r a c t i c e s . The main focus of government forest p o l i c y remained f i s c a l throughout t h i s period, and indeed w e l l beyond i t . V TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I INTRODUCTION 1 II BACKGROUND 14 II I HEARINGS 43 IV RESULTS 76 V CONCLUSION I l l BIBLIOGRAPHY 118 APPENDICES 125 v i LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I/, i - IDENTIFIED WITNESSES BY CATEGORY 47 II WITNESSES' VIEWS BY NAME AND BY BACKGROUND 129 INTRODUCTION This thesis considers forest p o l i c y i n B r i t i s h Columbia i n the f i r s t f i f t e e n years of the twentieth century. The f o c a l point of the work i s the Fulton Royal Commission of 1909-1910, and the subsequent Forest Act of 1912."^ The reasons f o r the appointment of that Commission, i t s hearings, i t s recommendations, and government treatment of i t s f i n d -ings are examined. This i n v e s t i g a t i o n seeks to prove that governments chose to a l t e r the terms of access to Crown timber i n B r i t i s h Columbia because of a great and continuing need for high revenues. Those revenues from the forests were seen as needed f o r the development of the province. Not only did governments see as desirable the creation of a s u i t a b l e p o l i t i c a l and economic climate f o r business to operate i n the province, but, also, they saw as part of t h e i r duty the pr o v i s i o n of suitable i n f r a -s t r u c t u r e . Hence, easy l e g a l and physical access to the province's natural resources was afforded. To a t t r a c t investment and industry to the province, successive governments paid for such things as roads, bridges, railways, and for e s t f i r e protection. It i s further argued here that B r i t i s h Columbia forestry l e g i s l a t i o n at t h i s time was hardly "unique,"" as Robert E. C a i l i n Land, Man, and the 2 Law has claimed, e i t h e r i n terms of previous p r o v i n c i a l p r a c t i c e , or i n terms of continental developments, e s p e c i a l l y i n Eastern Canada. If any-thing, the reverse was the case, as the province borrowed most of i t s f o r e s t r y l e g i s l a t i o n from other j u r i s d i c t i o n s . C a i l was correct to see that "the outstanding p r i n c i p l e incorporated into the timber l e g i s l a t i o n by 1913 - 2 -was to separate the d i s p o s a l of t imber and l a n d . " However, a l though the Crown i n B r i t i s h Columbia r e t a i n e d ownership of a l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n of l and w i t h i n the p rov ince than was the case i n other j u r i s d i c t i o n s across the c o n t i n e n t , i t was i n a c c u r a t e f o r C a i l to c a l l t h i s "a unique 4 s i t u a t i o n i n North A m e r i c a . " The d i f f e r e n c e i n p r o p o r t i o n Crown-owned was not q u a l i t a t i v e as C a i l suggested, but r a the r merely q u a n t i t a t i v e , as ev idenced , fo r example, by an examinat ion of contemporary Onta r io p r a c t i c e . The key p o i n t to note about B r i t i s h Columbia f o r e s t p o l i c y at t h i s t ime i s not i t s uniqueness , but r a the r tha t the sho r t - t e rm d e s i r e f o r Crown revenue was paramount. Governments of t h i s p e r i o d were n e i t h e r prepared to forego income nor to cut p r o f i t s i n the fo re s t i n d u s t r y , so that enough money cou ld be ploughed back i n t o the f o r e s t s to m a i n t a i n — l e t a lone inc rease—the fu ture p r o d u c t i v i t y of those f o r e s t s . They, t h e r e f o r e , were i n e f f e c t wantonly spending the c a p i t a l of the p r o v i n c e — i t s n a t u r a l r e sou rce s , and the revenues generated from them—whilst doing next to no th ing to ensure the replacement of that c a p i t a l . Governments of the day cannot be excused fo r not knowing b e t t e r ; the documents of the F u l t o n Commission prove that governments had the r e q u i s i t e i n f o r m a t i o n , but chose to ignore i t because of p o l i t i c a l expediency. The p o l i t i c i a n s of t h i s time l e f t the development of a l ong - t e rm, s t a b l e f o r e s t revenue base to l a t e r genera t ions of p o l i t i c i a n s , who have u n f o r t u n a t e l y cont inued to s u f f e r from the same s h o r t - s i g h t e d approach as t h e i r p redecessors . - 3 -Th i s t h e s i s a l s o ar.gues t ha t , because any a l t e r a t i o n of the terms of access to B r i t i s h Columbia t imber was occas ioned by a d e s i r e to r a i s e revenue, the impetus f o r any g i v e n change i n terms was to make the h o l d i n g of B r i t i s h Columbia t imber more a t t r a c t i v e than i t had been p r i o r to tha t change. The aim was to s e l l a great d e a l at a modest p r i c e , r a the r than the a l t e r n a t i v e ; namely, a modest amount at a h i g h p r i c e . The cos t of access was, t h e r e f o r e , kept r e l a t i v e l y low i n hopes of s e l l i n g c u t t i n g r i g h t s to a wider a rea . S e l l i n g at a low p r i c e d i d indeed produce s u b s t a n t i a l revenues; i t a l s o b e n e f i t t e d lumbermen and s p e c u l a t o r s , a p o l i t i c a l fo rce no government of the day was prepared to i g n o r e . Access to B r i t i s h Columbia ' s f o r e s t s was not on ly to be i nexpens ive , but s e c u r i t y of tenure was to be assured as w e l l . An examinat ion of p r e -v a l e n t government p r a c t i c e makes i t qu i t e c l e a r tha t few lessees or l i c e n s e e s were refused renewals of t h e i r v a r i o u s t enures , or had t h e i r h o l d i n g s revoked fo r f a i l u r e to comply w i t h the terms of t h e i r l eases of l i c e n s e s . " ' S ince the a t t e n t i o n of governments was d i r e c t e d p r i m a r i l y to augmenting t h e i r sho r t - t e rm cash f l o w s , r a the r than ensur ing compl iance , governments chose to over look non-compl iance ,^except f o r p e r i o d i c a l l y l e v y i n g s l i g h t l y h ighe r fees on the o f fender s . The t h e s i s f u r t he r attempts to demonstrate tha t the f a i l u r e to fo rce l essees and l i c e n s e e s to f u l f i l l t h e i r o b l i g a t i o n s r e f l e c t e d another aspect of f o r e s t p o l i c y of t h i s pe r iod—tha t of min imal r e g u l a t i o n . Both before and a f t e r the 1912 Fores t A c t , governments were almost s o l e l y i n t e r e s t e d i n - 4 -the immediate income they r e c e i v e d from B r i t i s h Columbia f o r e s t l a n d s , r a the r than i n the p r o t e c t i o n and replenishment of that r e s o u r c e . The motives behind such r e g u l a t i o n s as d i d e x i s t were a l s o revenue-produc ing . For i n s t a n c e , from 1906 on those h o l d i n g "handloggers ' l i c e n s e s " were no longer pe rmi t t ed to use steam-powered machinery i n the course of t h e i r l o g g i n g o p e r a t i o n s . In i n s t i t u t i n g t h i s change, the government appears to have wished to force the l a r g e r , more c a p i t a l i z e d , handloggers to take out " t imber l i c e n s e s " i n s t e a d of handloggers ' l i c e n s e s because t imber l i c e n s e s produced more revenues f o r the government.^ Changes made i n 1912, and subsequent ly , demonstrated a s l i g h t l y more s u b t l e , l onge r - t e rm approach to the ques t ion of revenues, but i t was s t i l l to that revenue g that those changes were e s s e n t i a l l y addressed. As has been noted above, p r o v i n c i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s were more than w i l l i n g to pay fo r c o s t l y i n f r a s t r u c t u r e . At l e a s t i n the realm of f o r e s t r y , however, governments d i d almost no th ing to ensure the development 9 of the resources f o r which t h i s i n f r a s t r u c t u r e was p r o v i d e d . Having p r o -v ided l e g a l and p h y s i c a l access to Crown r e sou rces , governments were p r e -pared to see specu la to r s move i n and ho ld those resources undeveloped w h i l e these ho lde r s awai ted w i n d f a l l p r o f i t s from fu ture inc reases i n resource p r i c e s . Governments had no immediate i n c e n t i v e to d iscourage such s p e c u l a -t i o n p r e c i s e l y because the P r o v i n c e earned a l a r g e pa r t of i t s fo re s t revenues from ground ren ts p a i d by l i c e n s e e s , whether c la ims were operated or n o t . That specu la to r s might o l i g o p o l i z e p r o v i n c i a l t imber resources does - 5 -not appear s e r i o u s l y to have w o r r i e d governments, and l i t t l e was done to ensure the s u r v i v a l of s m a l l ope ra to r s , or to promote i n d u s t r i a l diversity."*"^ I t has been argued t h a t , as c a p i t a l i s t i n d u s t r i a l c apac i t y expands, i n c r e a s i n g c o n c e n t r a t i o n of ownership and c o n t r o l n e c e s s a r i l y o c c u r s , ^ and events i n B r i t i s h Columbia seem to bear out t h i s t heo ry . The 1910 F u l t o n Roya l Commission, . ' for example, found one person h o l d i n g 375 t imber l i c e n s e s compr is ing roughly 640 acres each 12 ( i . e . about 240,000 a c r e s ) , and s e v e r a l h o l d i n g 200 of these l i c e n s e s . A g a i n , i n t h i s case because of government r e g u l a t i o n s , a l l 32 "pulp l e a s e s " that were i s s u e d , cove r ing 354,399 ac r e s , were from 1903 on i n 13 the hands of j u s t 4 companies. Governments were ab le to tap the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y as a ready source of vas t and i n c r e a s i n g revenue at t h i s time because of i t s r a p i d expans ion . In the years before the F i r s t World War the lumber i n d u s t r y became p re -eminent i n the p r o v i n c i a l economy. S ince i n f o r m a t i o n on the lumber i n d u s t r y was not s y s t e m a t i c a l l y compiled before 1912, accura te f i g u r e s on t h i s growth are i m p o s s i b l e to o b t a i n . S u f f i c i e n t s t a t i s t i c s , however, are a v a i l a b l e to i n d i c a t e the genera l d i r e c t i o n and magnitude of growth of the i n d u s t r y . Timber cut from Dominion and P r o v i n c i a l lands i n B r i t i s h Columbia i nc r ea sed from 56,306 thousand board fee t (Mfbm) i n 1888, to 318,531 Mfbm i n 1900, 533,306 Mfbm i n 1905, 872,217 Mfbm i n 1910, and 1,610,772 Mfbm i n 1 9 1 3 . 1 4 In Vancouver, i n 1911, of 9,700 persons engaged i n manufac tur ing , n e a r l y t w o - t h i r d s were employed i n lumber production."'*^ By 1910 there were as 16 many workers employed i n the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y as there were i n m i n i n g . At the beg inn ing of the 1880's there had been three times as many people - 6 -employed i n the f i s h e r i e s as i n the forest industry. T h i r t y years l a t e r the r a t i o had been r e v e r s e d . ^ The settlement of Western Canada between 1896 and 1913 was the major impetus for the development of the lumber industry i n the province. More than a m i l l i o n people moved to the P r a i r i e s , whose 18 population as a proportion of Canadian population rose from 7% to 20%. The population of the P a c i f i c province more than doubled between 1901 and 1911, from 178,657 to 392,480. 1 9 In the years 1896 to 1913 s e t t l e d land on the P r a i r i e s increased from 10 m i l l i o n acres to 70 m i l l i o n acres, 20 wheat production from 20 m i l l i o n bushels to 209 m i l l i o n bushels, and 21 miles of railway l i n e s from 4,141 i n 1901 to 11,709 i n 1914. This vast settlement required correspondingly massive infusions of lumber f o r such things as houses, fences, wagons, heating, and railway construction. By 1913, 70% of B r i t i s h Columbia lumber production was being shipped to the P r a i r i e s , with almost a l l the remainder being consumed within the province, Between 1900 and 1913 lumber shipped inland from coast m i l l s increased by 23 f i f t e e n times. The boom experienced i n the B r i t i s h Columbia economy between 1905 and 1913,was, therefore, l a r g e l y led by the lumber industry. In t h i s period, per capita general revenues rose by 117%, from a mere $11.13 per capita ($2.9 m i l l i o n ) to $24.12 per capita ($10.2 m i l l i o n ) , w hilst per 24 capita f o r e s t revenues rose by 201%. In the same period, however, o v e r a l l government expenditures rose 285% from $9.52 per capita ($2.5 22 - 7 -m i l l i o n ) to $36.68 per capita ($15.6 m i l l i o n ) , t.he t o t a l i n f l a t i o n rate from 1905 to 1913 only being between 5.8% and 18.7%. 2 6 When the government of Conservative Richard McBride was elected i n 1903 the gross public debt stood at $46.79 per capita ($10.3 m i l l i o n ) , over h a l f 27 of which had been accumulated i n the previous four years. By 1913 the debt had been reduced to $19.76 per capita ($8.3 m i l l i o n ) , notwith-standing heavy c a p i t a l expenditures on public works projects, such as 28 roads, being w r i t t e n o f f as current expenditures. Per ca p i t a expendi-tures i n the other major areas of government spending—general admini-s t r a t i o n , education, j u s t i c e , and h e a l t h — a l s o rose s t e a d i l y and consid-29 erably over these years. Apart from economic developments, the years leading up to the F i r s t World War witnessed s i g n i f i c a n t p o l i t i c a l developments. By 1903 i t was apparent that a change i n the p r o v i n c i a l p o l i t i c a l system was needed. The c o a l i t i o n s of previous decades, based on personal allegiances, had broken down; there had been f i v e governments i n as many years. As parliamentary democracies i n other parts of the world have also found, a succession of such s h i f t i n g c o a l i t i o n s does not provide a stable enough p o l i t i c a l environ-ment to a t t r a c t investment. The change i n the province involved the adoption of nationa l party l a b e l s , giving r i s e to more stable p o l i t i c a l alignments. The f i r s t B r i t i s h Columbian government to use national party l a b e l s was led by lawyer Richard McBride. He was a professional p o l i t i c i a n whose - 8 -primary i n t e r e s t was i n h i s continued e l e c t i o n . Hence, McBride promised s t a b i l i t y and broad economic development. S u f f i c i e n t l y vague, both issues won him support from a l l classes. Key changes i n forest tenure arrangements were a l l made with the ce n t r a l focus being the ef f e c t they would have on government forest revenues. A f t e r 1905, a substantial and v i t a l proportion of government revenue did indeed come from t h i s sector, and t h i s money provided the l u b r i c a n t for the 30 Conservatives' great patronage 'machine'. The machine operated i n the sphere of public works projects. Both to b u i l d support for the McBride government, and because i t was necessary for the economic develop-ment of a province as mountainous and sparsely populated as B r i t i s h Columbia, vast amounts of money were spent on the pr o v i s i o n of i n f r a -structure. Between 1872 and 1900 an average of 34.22% of current expendi-31 ture had been spent on public works; the period 1901 to 1914 recorded a 32 33 ninefold increase w h i l s t population only rose 147% — a n d the pro-34 portion rose to 43.41%. $15,106,479 was spent on roads and bridges 35 between l a t e 1903 and early 1912. The money came d i r e c t l y from the forest sector, and a Conservative p r o v i n c i a l e l e c t i o n pamphlet of 1912 sa i d as much: "Forest revenue, $13,000,000 i n seven years, expended i n works of 36 development." The construction of th i s i n f r a s t r u c t u r e pleased both the c a p i t a l i s t s who p r o f i t e d not only from b u i l d i n g i t , but, als o , from then using i t , and the working c l a s s , many of whom obtained jobs constructing 37 these works. Such a c t i v i t y paid enormous p o l i t i c a l dividends to the Tories, McBride's administrations winning r e - e l e c t i o n i n 1907, 1909, and 1912, and being, i n f a c t , only defeated when the vast flow of revenues— - 9 -e s p e c i a l l y of f o r e s t revenues—had lessened c o n s i d e r a b l y . The huge inc rease i n government f o r e s t revenues i n t h i s p e r i o d , and the p o l i t i c a l changes of which t h i s inc rease was an i n t e g r a l p a r t , were not mere c o - i n c i d e n c e s . Rather , the inc rease stemmed from key changes i n the tenure of f o r e s t l and which were in t roduced fo r d i s t i n c t l y p o l i t i c a l reasons i n the e a r l y years of the twen t i e th cen tu ry , most no tab ly i n 1905. Before moving on to an examinat ion of these changes i n tenure and the reasons fo r them, i t i s f i r s t necessary to ana lyze the c o n t i n e n t a l context i n which they were s i t e d , fo r these changes were indeed pa r t of a pan-Canadian p rocess , one i n which B r i t i s h Columbia lagged somewhat beh ind . - 10 -FOOTNOTES; """Final Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Timber and  Forestry, 1909-1910, Fred J. Fulton, chair ( V i c t o r i a : King's P r i n t e r , 1910). (Hereafter referred to as Report.) B r i t i s h Columbia. Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia: 1912 ( V i c t o r i a : King's P r i n t e r , 1912), c. 17, "An Act respecting Forests and Crown Timber Lands, and the Conservation and Preservation of Standing Timber, and the Regulation of Commerce i n Timber and Products of the Forest." (Hereafter r e f e r r e d to as Forest Act.) 2 Land, Man, and the Law: the Disposal of Crown Lands i n B r i t i s h  Columbia, 1871-1913 (Vancouver: University of B r i t i s h Columbia Press, 1974), p. 91. 3 I b i d . 4 Ibid., p. 96. "^Report of the Commissioner r e l a t i n g to the Forest Resources of  B r i t i s h Columbia, Honourable Gordon McG. Sloan, Commissioner ( V i c t o r i a : Queen's P r i n t e r , 1956), 1:27.,' For example, there were royalty fee d i f f e r e n t i a l s on timber leases for operators and non-operators, i n e f f e c t between 1892 and 1899, and 1903 and 1905; see chap. 2, below. ^H.N. Whitford and Roland D. Craig, Forests of B r i t i s h Columbia (Ottawa: Commission of Conservation, 1918), p. 94. For d e f i n i t i o n s of these, and other terms, see Appendix A, below; see also chap. 2, below. g For example, see Forest Act 1912, s.58(5) which allowed f or a royalty rebate on wood used for experimental purposes. 9 For example, there were never any fee d i f f e r e n t i a l s f o r operators, as opposed to non-operators, on timber l i c e n s e s . The Forest Act did provide f or the continuance of handloggers' licenses as one means of helping small operators. Forest Act 1912, s.31. - 11 -"'""'"For example, see Ernest Mandel, Marxist Economic Theory (London, England: Merlin Press, 1974), pp. 162-63. 12 Report, p. D27. Even assuming that a l l these licenses were i n the I n t e r i o r — a n d , therefore, cheaper to hold than licenses at the C o a s t — t h e annual cost of holding these licenses would have been $43,125.00 (375 x $115.00). By comparison, at t h i s time a labourer's wages ranged from $2.00 to $3.00 per day, or at best $900.00 per year ($3.00 x 300 working days). 1 3 R e p o r t , pp. D l l l - 1 2 . Further information on pulp leases i s provided i n chap. 2, below. 14 Whitford and Craig, pp. 175-76. Figures for the cut from land Crown-granted before 1887 are unobtainable. 15 Robert A.-J. McDonald, "Business Leaders i n Early Vancouver, 1886-1914" (Ph.D t h e s i s , Department of History, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1977), p. 90. "^Martin Robin, The Rush for Spoils: The Company Province,  1871-1933 (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1972), p. 18. •^McDonald, p. 30. 18 Canada: 1867-1939, v o l . 1 of Royal Commission on Dominion- P r o v i n c i a l Relations, N.J. Rowell and R. S i r o i s , chairs, 3 v o l s . (Ottawa: King's P r i n t e r , 1940), p. 68. (Hereafter r e f e r r e d to as Rowell-Sirois v o l . 1.) 19 M.C. Urquhart and Kenneth A. Buckley, eds., H i s t o r i c a l  S t a t i s t i c s of Canada (Toronto: MacMillan, 1965), p. 14, seri e s A12. 20 Rowell-Sirois v o l . 1, p. 68. 21 Rowell-Sirois v o l . 1, p. 70. 22 McDonald, p. 30. -.12 -2 3McDonald, P. 77. 24 Computed from B r i t i s h Columbia, B r i t i s h Columbia i n the  Canadian Confederation: a Submission Presented to the Royal  Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations by the Government of  the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia ( V i c t o r i a : King's P r i n t e r , 1938), p. 245, table 124; and Murray D. Bryce, "The Finances of the Government of B r i t i s h Columbia (1866-1946)" (B.A. essay, Department of Economics, P o l i t i c a l Science, and Sociology, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1949), p. 128, Appendix T . l . 25 Bryce, p. 128. 26 These figures are computed from Urquhart and Buckley, p. 297, serie s J.70 and J.71. 27 Bryce, p. 130. 28 T. ., Ibid . 29 B r i t i s h Columbia i n the Canadian Confederation, p. 177. 30 See Robin, p. 97, p. 118, and pp. 125-64; see also Premier's  Papers, Correspondence Inward (McBride), and see also Premier. Letterbrook. O f f i c i a l . Nov. 24, 1904-May 1, 1906. Both of these sources are located i n the P r o v i n c i a l Archives of B r i t i s h Columbia (PABC). 31 B r i t i s h Columbia i n the Canadian Confederation, p. 177. 32 Derived from B r i t i s h Columbia i n the Canadian Confederation, p. 239, table 123, using the years 1901-1902 and 1913-1914. 33 Bryce, p. 128. 34 B r i t i s h Columbia i n the Canadian Confederation, p. 177. 35 "One hundred and more facts respecting the nine years' record of the McBride administration" (a Conservative Party p r o v i n c i a l e l e c t i o n campaign pamphlet of 1912), p. 3; included i n Ken McCarter, "Party platforms and Manifestos i n B.C.," MS i n the Special C o l l e c t i o n s D i v i s i o n of the Un i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Lib r a r y , 1976; see f i l e "Party 'platforms' and 'manifestos' i n B.C. 1903-1909." • - 13 -36 l b i d . , p . 4. 37 Rob in , pp. 91-93. - 14 -BACKGROUND B r i t i s h Columbia ' s fo re s t tenure arrangements have been, i n l a rge p a r t , a r e f l e c t i o n of p r a c t i c e s adopted i n other pa r t s of the count ry . To understand the development of tenure i n the p rov ince a grasp i s needed of governmental p o l i c i e s and procedures elsewhere i n Canada p r i o r to 1910. From such an examinat ion i t can be seen that developments i n B r i t i s h Columbia fo l lowed those of O n t a r i o , Quebec, and .of the Dominion government at Ottawa. That these three j u r i s d i c t i o n s had very s i m i l a r arrangements to each o ther i s h a r d l y s u r p r i s i n g , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e i r common o r i g i n s i n the p re -Confedera t ion Canadas. Because of t h i s h e r i t a g e , there were c e r t a i n core concepts embodied i n the tenure arrangements of a l l t h r ee . Foremost was the idea tha t the Crown should not s e l l l and f o r f o r e s t r y purposes, but r a the r that i t should lease r i g h t s to cut t imber on such l a n d . Access to Crown t imber was to be s h o r t - t e r m , and was to be g i v e n by compe t i t i ve b i d d i n g fo r an appra ised r e sou rce . In order to encourage a g r i c u l t u r a l se t t lement wherever poss ib le—and w i t h i t , i nc reased p o p u l a t i o n and an expanded domestic market—the Crown was anxious to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between a g r i c u l t u r a l l and and f o r e s t l a n d , and to r e t a i n a c t u a l ownership of p r o v i n c i a l lands u n t i l they were s e t t l e d . Hence, access to Crown t imber l and was i n c r e a s i n g l y r egu l a t ed over the yea r s , but t h i s does not appear to have made Crown t imber much harder to o b t a i n . Fur thermore, the Crown i n these j u r i s d i c t i o n s p rov ided i n c r e a s i n g amounts of i n f r a s t r u c t u r e , the two s e r v i c e s most d i r e c t l y impinging upon the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y be ing f i r e p r o -t e c t i o n and government ' F o r e s t S e r v i c e s ' . - 15 -Almost from the f i r s t European settlements i n the area which became B r i t i s h North America, the Crowns reserved the r i g h t s to c e r t a i n timber for m i l i t a r y purposes. In New France, r i g h t s to oak and l a t e r to pine, were reserved to the King."'" A f t e r the Conquest, naval timber was reserved, and provision was made for townships to include t h e i r own 2 timber reserves. The B r i t i s h government granted to l o c a l contractors licenses to cut Canadian timber for the Royal Navy. These contractors often also helped themselves to Crown timber while they were cutting 3 timber for the Crown. In Upper Canada a major change was introduced i n 1826. Henceforth, Crown timber was to serve not only as a source of naval timber, but, also, as a source of revenue. Licenses to cut Crown timber could be bought, and 4 such wood as was cut incurred royalty payments. In 1827 a further advance i n the system was introduced, again with the idea of increasing Crown revenues. Crown timber was to be sold by auction, an upset price per thousand board feet (Mfbm) being previously established, with a l i m i t of 2 Mfbm per person, and cutt i n g to be c a r r i e d within nine months of purchase Unfortunately, these new regulations were not put into e f f e c t . Moreover, repeated i n s t r u c t i o n s from the B r i t i s h government to s e l l only a g r i c u l t u r a l land, and to reserve forest land to the Crown were ignored, and forest land continued to be sol d , i t usually being cheaper to buy forest land outright than to take out a l i c e n s e on i t . ^ - 16 -In the years preceding Confedera t ion , two themes are apparent i n the Canadas' t imber p o l i c y : the ongoing problem of a g r i c u l t u r a l g l and be ing bought by s e t t l e r s and lumbermen f o r f o r e s t r y purposes , and the d e s i r e f o r more revenues from Crown t imber . The p rov inces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada having been j o i n e d , the l i c e n s e system was a l t e r e d i n 1842 and extended a long l i n e s which were to be fo l lowed by both j u r i s d i c t i o n s u n t i l the e a r l y twen t i e th cen tu ry . Echoing the ignored 1827 Upper Canada r e g u l a t i o n s , l i c e n s e s once more were to be s o l d by p u b l i c a u c t i o n a f t e r an upset p r i c e had been e s t a b l i s h e d . However, a l though depos i t s to ensure compliance were r e q u i r e d , i n f ac t the r e g u l a t i o n s were more generous than i n 1827. L icenses were fo r one year , but cou ld be renewed, thereby g i v i n g lumbermen g rea t e r s e c u r i t y of tenure . L icensees had to cut 5 Mfbm each year , and a l i c e n s e e cou ld not 9 h o l d more than t e n square mi l e s of l i c e n s e s i n any one a r ea . The 1842 r e g u l a t i o n s were a l t e r e d somewhat seven years l a t e r under the f i r s t Crown Timber A c t . The goa l of i n c r e a s i n g Crown t imber revenues by making investment i n l i c e n s e s more a t t r a c t i v e was reached. The 1842 p r o v i s i o n s which covered p u b l i c a u c t i o n s , upset p r i c e s , r o y a l t i e s per Mfbm, the removal of a c e r t a i n amount of t imber each year , and annual r e n e w a b i l i t y were r e t a i n e d , and i n a d d i t i o n l i c e n s e e s cou ld now h o l d up to f i f t y square m i l e s , and, more i m p o r t a n t l y , cou ld t r a n s f e r or s e l l t h e i r h o l d i n g s to a t h i r d p a r t y . I n 1851 the r e g u l a t i o n s became "more s t r i n g e n t , " i n c l u d i n g the i n t r o d u c t i o n of a system of ground ren t s f o r l i c e n s e s , o s t e n s i b l y to prevent s p e c u l a t i o n and m o n o p o l i z a t i o n . " ^ A g a i n , presumably the o v e r a l l - 17 -12 aim was to i n c r e a s e Crown revenues, and that was indeed the r e s u l t . A f t e r Confedera t ion , Onta r io and Quebec cont inued to develop p o l i c i e s a long p a r a l l e l l i n e s , and both j u r i s d i c t i o n s began to p rov ide support s e r v i c e s fo r lumbermen. The On ta r io government, a f t e r 1885, shared e q u a l l y w i t h l i c e n s e e s the cos ts of f i r e p r o t e c t i o n , and made i t 13 mandatory fo r l i c e n s e e s to engage f i r e p a t r o l s . However, to save money, the government i n 1910 informed l i c e n s e e s t h a t , t h e n c e f o r t h , i t would no 14 longer pay h a l f these p a t r o l c o s t s . The Quebec government organized a p r o v i n c i a l Fores t P r o t e c t i v e S e r v i c e , headed by a super in tendant i n charge of a number of f i r e rangers , l i c e n s e e s paying the whole cos t of p r o t e c t i n g t h e i r l i m x t s . Another s e r v i c e which both p rov inces p r o v i d e d , a l though only on a s k e l e t a l b a s i s i n the e a r l y y e a r s , was government-run Fores t S e r v i c e s . I n 1883 the On ta r io government crea ted the o f f i c e of C l e r k of F o r e s t r y to 16 d issemina te f o r e s t i n f o r m a t i o n . I t was not u n t i l 1904, however, tha t the Onta r io Department of Crown Lands a c t u a l l y h i r e d a p r o p e r l y q u a l i f i e d f o r e s t e r , Judson C l a r k . ^ In 1905 the Bureau of F o r e s t r y was rendered impotent by i t s t r a n s f e r back i n t o A g r i c u l t u r e , which had no j u r i s d i c t i o n whatsoever over f o r e s t s , and so , i n 1907 i t s only two f o r e s t e r s q u i t i n 18 f r u s t r a t i o n , not to be r ep laced u n t i l 1912. Quebec,- on . the other hand, wa i ted u n t i l 1905 before s e t t i n g up i t s P r o v i n c i a l F o r e s t r y S e r v i c e , which i n c l u d e d two p r o f e s s i o n a l f o r e s t e r s , and was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r genera l admini-s t r a t i o n , such as i n s p e c t i n g lumber o p e r a t i o n s , and su rvey ing and c l a s s i f y -19 ing a l l p r o v i n c i a l l a n d . - 18 -Both p rov inces a l s o f o l l o w e d the p r a c t i c e of c r e a t i n g f o r e s t r e se rves . From 1905 on the Quebec government began s e t t i n g as ide 20 fo re s t r e s e r v e s , a l though fo r e x a c t l y what purpose i s u n c l e a r . I t was as a r e s u l t of the f i n d i n g s o f a Royal Commission on Fores t P r o t e c t i o n tha t Onta r io passed the ' F o r e s t Reserves A c t ' which a l lowed —but d i d not r equ i r e—the government to se t a s ide areas which were not to be a v a i l a b l e f o r se t t l ement , but e x c l u s i v e l y f o r f o r e s t r y purposes . In the f o l l o w i n g s i x years reserves t o t a l l i n g more than s i x m i l l i o n acres were i n f a c t c r e a t e d . The lumber i n d u s t r y favoured t h i s move as i t guaranteed them a f a r g rea te r s e c u r i t y of tenure and source of t imber s u p p l i e s , because w i t h i n the reserves they would no longer face the th rea t of s e t t l e r s pre-empting the l and i n compe t i t i on w i t h them, and, moreover, the 21 government was to pay the whole cos t of f i r e p r o t e c t i o n f o r the r e s e r v e s . R igh t s to cut t imber on the Dominion government's c o n s i d e r a b l e h o l d -ings of t imber l and were a l i e n a t e d by a procedure s i m i l a r to those employed i n Onta r io and Quebec. Mechanisms f o r the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and d i s p o s a l of 2 these Dominion t imber lands were set down i n the Dominion Lands Ac t of 1884. A l a r g e par t of the Dominion 's t imber lands were s i t u a t e d i n B r i t i s h Columbia because the p r o v i n c i a l government had, i n 1884, t r a n s f e r r e d to the Dominion government c o n t r o l over roughly 14.4 m i l l i o n acres—which came to be known as the Rai lway B e l t — i n r e t u r n fo r the arrangement of the c o n s t r u c t i o n of 23 the Canadian P a c i f i c Rai lway main l i n e through the p r o v i n c e . Hence, Dominion mechanisms had a bea r ing upon the development of B r i t i s h Columbia f o r e s t p o l i c y because they p rov ided an a l t e r n a t e l o c a l model w i t h which - 19 -B r i t i s h Columbia lumbermen could and did compare the p r o v i n c i a l 24 system. A l i c e n s e to cut Dominion timber was annually renewable for as long as the area under l i c e n s e contained merchantable timber, and pro-vided that any timber cut was manufactured i n Canada, unless the land within the area of that l i c e n s e was s u i t a b l e , and needed, for a g r i c u l t u r a l purposes. Licenses covering areas of unspecified shape and s i z e , to a maximum of 25 square miles, were sold by sealed tender, applicants o f f e r i n g bonuses i n addition to the regular ground rents and r o y a l t y pay-ments. In 1908 the Dominion government introduced a system i n which licenses were a l l o c a t e d at public auctions, the Crown having surveyed and cruised the area, and established an upset p r i c e for the timber. After 25 these changes, the Dominion received higher bonuses. In 1899 the Dominion created a Forestry Branch, but did not engage i t s f i r s t p r o f e s s i o n a l f o r e s t e r u n t i l 1901. The Branch had two sections, one to supervise a tree planting program for P r a i r i e farms, and the other to protect Dominion timber. In addition, the Branch gathered s t a t i s t i c s , arranged for the disposal of Dominion timber, and was responsible for the 26 reserves, which were created beginning i n 1906. The cost of protecting unlicensed timber areas from f i r e s was b o r n e ' t o t a l l y by the Dominion; for .. - 27 licensed areas, h a l f was borne by the licensee and h a l f by the Dominion. S i m i l a r i t i e s can r e a d i l y be perceived between the procedures of - 20 -the Dominion, and those of Ontar io and Quebec. They a l l embodied four key elements , the foremost of which was the p r i n c i p l e of the Crown's r e t e n t i o n of i t s ownership of f o r e s t l a n d . F o l l o w i n g from t h i s was both the d i s t i n c t i o n between a g r i c u l t u r a l l and and f o r e s t l a n d , and the d e s i r e to ensure s u b s t a n t i a l f i n a n c i a l r e tu rns to the Crown from i t s t imber r e sou rces . In a d d i t i o n , the Crown undertook to p rov ide i n c r e a s i n g l e v e l s of support s e r v i c e s for the lumber i n d u s t r y . In B r i t i s h Columbia , as we s h a l l see, these four elements were a l s o a l l c l e a r l y apparent i n the development of tha t p r o v i n c e ' s f o r e s t tenure arrangements, e s p e c i a l l y i n the e a r l y years of the twen t i e th cen tu ry . By the t u r n of the century the p r i n c i p l e of Crown r e t e n t i o n of ownership of the f o r e s t l and of B r i t i s h Columbia was w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d . As e a r l y as 1865 a Land Ordinance of the Colony of Vancouver ' s I s l a n d had p rov ided fo r the s a l e of Crown t imber s epa ra t e ly from the l and on which i t s t ood . Th i s p r o v i s i o n was extended to the Main land by the Land Ordinance 28 of 1870. Nonethe less , l and cont inued to be Crown granted wi thout d i s -t i n c t i o n f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l , and m i n e r a l , and f o r e s t r y purposes . For i n s t a n c e , i n 1883 the government granted t o . t h e Esquimal t and Nanaimo Rai lway Company 29 about two m i l l i o n acres of the c h o i c e s t t imber stands i n the p r o v i n c e . Therefore , desp i t e t h i s e a r l y p r i n c i p l e of r e t e n t i o n of Crown owner-sh ip of f o r e s t l a n d , u n t i l 1887 f i r s t - c l a s s l and could be purchased fo r a d o l l a r an a c r e , r i g h t s to that l a n d ' s t imbe r , m i n e r a l s , and c o a l be ing 30 i n c l u d e d . Such l and was sub jec t to an annual l and tax of 3% of i t s - 21 -assessed value. On the other hand, lessees of Crown timber land had to pay a ground rent varying from f i v e to ten cents per acre per annum, as we l l as royalty payments of twenty to twenty-five cents per 32 Mfbm. Thus i t seems l i k e l y that, u n t i l 1887, only those without access to s u f f i c i e n t c a p i t a l would lease land rather than purchase i t outright, and th i s lack of c a p i t a l i s also the most probable explanation for the introduction of the o r i g i n a l mechanism allowing for the sale of timber separately from the land on which i t stood. The problem of tr e a t i n g a g r i c u l t u r a l land and forest land d i f f e r -ently only began to be tackled i n 1887 i n B r i t i s h Columbia. In that year the Land Act was amended to p r o h i b i t the granting of Crown land " c h i e f l y valuable f o r timber," and for a year thereafter the prospective purchaser of any Crown granted land had to swear out an a f f i d a v i t that the land was not " c h i e f l y valuable f o r timber," and, furthermore, had to make ro y a l t y payments of twenty-five cents per Mfbm on any lumber that was cut and sold from t h i s land. In 1888, probably both to discourage lumbermen from buying forest land, and to gain an adequate return from those who d i d , the Land Act was again revised: f i r s t - c l a s s land, including timber land, was to cost $2.50 per acre, wild land $1.00 an acre. No more than 640 acres could be bought by any i n d i v i d u a l , and a roya l t y of f i f t y cents per Mfbm of timber 34 cut was to be paid. In 1891 the l e g a l d e f i n i t i o n of forest land was strengthened, land being so defined i f i t bore 5,000 or more board feet per acre for each 160 acres. In 1896 the d e f i n i t i o n was again tightened up to include lands containing 8,000 board feet per acre west, and 5,000 east, of - 22 -the Cascades. This d e f i n i t i o n remained i n fo rce for over h a l f a 36 cen tu ry . The importance a t tached to an exact d e f i n i t i o n was i n t i m a t e l y connected to the d i s t i n c t i o n between a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d and f o r e s t l a n d . I t was necessary to make t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n c l e a r l y , so tha t on the one hand the government cou ld encourage s e t t l e r s by o f f e r i n g a r t i f i c i a l l y cheap l and—hoping , thereby, to i nc rease p o p u l a t i o n , the domestic market , and the p o l i t i c a l weight of the p rov ince w i t h i n Confedera t ion— and, on the other hand, so that the government cou ld g a i n a h ighe r r e t u r n from the a l i e n a t i o n and d e p l e t i o n of i t s t imber c a p i t a l by l e a s i n g ra the r than s e l l i n g i t s f o r e s t l a n d . A fu r the r refinement of the d i s t i n c t i o n between d i f f e r e n t types of 37 l and was i n t roduced i n 1901. Known as the pulp l e a s e , the mechanism e x i s t e d for the Crown to r a i s e revenues from f o r e s t l and which was t heo re t -i c a l l y too poor to produce p r o f i t a b l e sawlogs , but from w h i c h , g iven cheaper access , pu lp logs might be produced. Pu lp l eases c a r r i e d 21 year terms, w i t h an annual ground ren t of on ly two cents per ac re , and r o y a l t y set at twenty-f i v e cents per c o r d . To t r y and prevent s awmi l l e r s t a k i n g out pulp l eases as a cheap form of access to sawlogs, i t was s t i p u l a t e d that any t imber which was cut from a pulp l ease and used as sawlogs was l i a b l e f o r the same r o y a l t i e s as those charged on t imber l e a s e s . To encourage the es tab l i shment of i n d u s t r y , and w i t h i t p o p u l a t i o n growth, pulp l essees were l e g a l l y r e q u i r e d to operate a p u l p m i l l w i t h a c a p a c i t y of one ton per day, or a p a p e r m i l l w i t h - 23 -a c a p a c i t y of h a l f a ton per diem, f o r every square m i l e l e a s e d . Because these terms of access n e c e s s i t a t e d l a r g e c a p i t a l inves tment , c o n c e n t r a t i o n of the pulp i n d u s t r y was marked from the s t a r t . J u s t four companies ever took out pulp l e a s e s , a c q u i r i n g 32 l eases cove r ing 354,399 ac r e s . A f t e r on ly two y e a r s , i n 1903, the government decided c u t t i n g r i g h t s to s u f f i c i e n t pulpwood had been a l i e n a t e d , and, p r e -39 sumably for fear of f l o o d i n g the market i s sued no more. To the mechanism of the t imber l e a s e , which had been in t roduced i n 1865, was added i n 1884 that of the t imber l i c e n s e . At f i r s t , the on ly d i f f e r e n c e between the two ins t ruments was that the terms and c o n d i t i o n s of l eases were set by the L ieu tenan t -Governor i n C o u n c i l , 40 w h i l e those of l i c e n s e s were f i x e d by s t a t u t e , but i n 1888 l ea ses and l i c e n s e s became sha rp ly d i f f e r e n t i a t e d , l eases be ing des igna ted as the major mechanism fo r m i l l - o w n e r s , and l i c e n s e s for s m a l l l o g g i n g con-t r a c t o r s . Presumably to encourage investment i n the nascent manufactur-i n g s e c t o r , the l eng th and s e c u r i t y of l eases was set at t h i r t y y e a r s , a . c o n d i t i o n of each l ease be ing the c o n s t r u c t i o n of an appurtenant s a w m i l l w i t h a c a p a c i t y of not l e s s than one thousand board feet per twelve-hour 41 s h i f t f o r every 400 acres under l e a s e . Annual rent was ten cents per a c r e , r o y a l t y f i f t y cents per Mfbm. On the o ther hand, the term of l i c e n s e s was reduced to one yea r , but l i c e n s e s cou ld be—and almost always were—renewed. Unchanged was the 1884 r e g u l a t i o n tha t a logge r cou ld only h o l d one l i c e n s e and c o u l d - 24 -not transfer i t . Licenses s t i l l covered 1,000 acres, with the annual rent being increased from $10 to $50 ( f i v e cents per acre), and the 42 roy a l t y from twenty-five cents to f i f t y cents per Mfbm. Hence, we see that licenses were f i v e cents per acre per annum cheaper to hold than leases, but offered l e s s s e c u r i t y of tenure. 1888 also saw the introduction of handloggers 1 l i c e n s e s , a very minor form of tenure aimed at those logging on a p r i m i t i v e scale. Issued for a one year term for a fee of $10, they gave the ri g h t to cut any unalienated Crown timber, without any area being s p e c i f i e d , and without royalty payments being charged. To increase Crown revenue, governments continued through the early years of the twentieth century to a l t e r the regulations covering leases and l i c e n s e s . By 1903 the conditions were as follows. Leases were all o c a t e d by public auction, c a r r i e d 21 year terms, ground rents of f i f t e e n cents per acre f o r those lessees operating the prescribed sawmill (twenty-five cents per acre f o r those who were not), and r o y a l t i e s of 44 f i f t y cents per Mfbm. Licenses were allocated by 'staking', c a r r i e d up to f i v e year, renewable, terms, covered 640 acres at a ground rent of $140 west, and $100 east, of the Cascades (21.9<? and 15.6<; per acre, respective-45 l y ) , and r o y a l t i e s of f i f t y cents per Mfbm. As well as following broadly the precedents set by Ontario, Quebec, and the Dominion i n the sphere of Crown ownership of forest land, drawing the d i s t i n c t i o n between a g r i c u l t u r a l land and forest land, and i n the drive - 25 -f o r l a r g e revenues from Crown t imber r e s o u r c e s , the government i n B r i t i s h Columbia a l s o b e l a t e d l y f o l l o w e d the t r a d i t i o n of p r o v i d i n g s e r v i c e s to lumbermen. In e a r l y 1884 a Bush F i r e Ac t had been passed , but no money was a p p r o p r i a t e d to enforce i t because i t was not seen as impor tant enough. Those connected w i t h the f o r e s t s : s e t t l e r s , m ine r s , and lumbermen, d i d not worry much about f o r e s t f i r e s un l e s s they were d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d . Timber was cheaply and r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e , and h e l d to be e s s e n t i a l l y i n e x h a u s t i b l e . Moreover , f o r e s t f i r e s were g e n e r a l l y viewed as unavo id -a b l e , and even b e n e f i c i a l . I t was not u n t i l 1906 tha t the government began employing f o r e s t f i r e f i g h t e r s on even a temporary b a s i s . I n tha t year the government spent 0.6% of i t s f o r e s t revenues on f i r e f i g h t i n g . Al though the next year expendi ture i n t h i s a rea more than doub led , i t s t i l l on ly r e p r e -sented 0.7% of f o r e s t revenues because government f o r e s t revenues were 47 r i s i n g so r a p i d l y at t h i s t i m e . Only i n the summer of 1908 d i d the government a c t u a l l y b e g i n employing f i r e wardens to p a t r o l the f o r e s t s , 48 and engage i n p r e v e n t i v e work . By then , t imber was not q u i t e as cheap as i t had been, nor was i t as r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e , s u p p l i e s were r e c o g n i z e d 49 to be e x h a u s t i b l e , and f o r e s t f i r e s were no l o n g e r seen as i n e v i t a b l e . Timber i n the summer of 1908 was no longe r so e a s i l y a v a i l a b l e because on December 24, 1907 the government of R i c h a r d McBr ide had passed an O r d e r - i n - C o u n c i l p l a c i n g a morator ium on f u r t h e r a l i e n a t i o n s of Crown t i m b e r . T h e moratorium was a r e s u l t of two and a h a l f years of unprece-- 26 -dented a l i e n a t i o n occasioned by two key changes i n the terms and con-d i t i o n s of access to Crown timber made i n early 1905. The f i r s t key change made i n that year was the removal of the provisions for granting timber leases,"^ and the channelling of almost a l l sales of ri g h t s to 52 Crown timber through the mechanism of timber l i c e n s e s . At that point, 53 timber leases covered 619,025 acres. One reason f o r t h i s change was that revenue per acre derived from the sale of timber licenses was greater than that obtained from leases, r o y a l t i e s being the same. The other reason was that whereas leases had been designed to encourage manufactur-ing, and timber licenses had been aimed at loggers, a f t e r the 1901 l e g i s -l a t i o n requiring a l l timber cut from Crown land to be manufactured within the province, t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n was no longer necessary. The second key change of 1905 affected timber l i c e n s e s . They were made renewable f o r 21 years, f r e e l y transferable, and an i n d i v i d u a l could hold as many as he l i k e d . Furthermore, any li c e n s e then i n force could be exchanged for a fresh one, renewable f o r 16 successive years, carrying a royalty of ten cents per Mfbm more than that charged on a brand new lic e n s e . Royalties were set at f i f t y cents per Mfbm on brand new li c e n s e s , with annual ground rent for a l l Coast licenses being $140 (21.9c per acre), 54 but for a l l I n t e r i o r licenses being upped to $115 (18.0c per acre). These changes transformed a lic e n s e into a commodity which could be f r e e l y traded u n t i l i t s 21 years was up. As a r e s u l t , a flood of li c e n s e staking :was unleashed, and by the time of the 1907 moratorium there were 15,160 licenses i n good standing, covering about 9,0Q0,000 a c r e s , c o m p a r e d with 1,451 licenses covering about 900,000 acres before these alterationscwere - 27 -A 5 6 made. The abandonment of the system of t imber l e a s e s , coupled w i t h the subsequent emphasis on l i c e n s e s and the a l t e r a t i o n s i n t h e i r terms and c o n d i t i o n s made i n the e a r l y twen t i e th cen tu ry , h i g h l i g h t e d the d i r e c t i o n i n which the a l i e n a t i o n of Crown t imber was moving, and underscored c e r t a i n themes i n the development of B r i t i s h Columbia f o r e s t p o l i c y i n t h i s p e r i o d . The key changes r e f l e c t e d the government's o v e r r i d i n g concern w i t h i n c r e a s i n g s u b s t a n t i a l l y i t s revenues from Crown t imber . To t h i s end, the h o l d i n g of B r i t i s h Columbia t imber had to be made a t t r a c t i v e . L i censes were chosen as the most advantageous mech-anism because they y i e l d e d the same r o y a l t i e s per Mfbm as t imber l e a s e s , but a h ighe r ren t per a c r e . The government pursued a p o l i c y of easy access to Crown t imber i n the hopes of s e l l i n g a l a r g e amount at a modest p r i c e , r a the r than v i c e v e r s a as i t might have done. I t was w i d e l y recognized at the time that the cos t of s e c u r i n g r i g h t s to Crown t imber i n B r i t i s h Columbia was indeed modest. For i n s t a n c e , i n 1909 the M i s s i s s i p p i V a l l e y Lumberman exp la ined how, i n s p i t e of a U . S . A . t a r i f f , B r i t i s h Columbia s h i n g l e s were ab le to be c o m p e t i t i v e l y p r i c e d i n the American market , and, moreover, were g e n e r a l l y of a h ighe r q u a l i t y than s h i n g l e s produced south of the line:"""^ One reason f o r t h i s has been tha t the cos t of t imber was so very much lower there ( B r i t i s h Columbia) , and the manner i n which i t i s secured from the government i s so much more advantageous f o r the manufacturer . - 28 -A l a t e r s tudy c a r r i e d under the auspices of the Commission of Conse rva t ion showed t h a t , from 1907 on, c a r r y i n g charges on B r i t i s h Columbia t imber h e l d under l i c e n s e were s u b s t a n t i a l l y lower than those 58 i n c u r r e d i n Washington and Oregon on t imber l and h e l d i n fee s i m p l e . By s e l l i n g c u t t i n g r i g h t s to a great dea l of Crown t imber at low p r i c e s between 1905 and 1907, the government sated i t s own a p p e t i t e f o r l a r g e revenues, ye t at the same time p rov ided cheap access to t h i s Crown re source . The government was ab le to s e l l c u t t i n g r i g h t s to such a l a r g e amount of Crown t imber a f t e r the changes of 1905 because those changes made l i c e n s e s more a t t r a c t i v e to i n v e s t o r s and specu l a to r s than they had former ly been. The s e c u r i t y of tenure of l i c e n s e s was at a s t r o k e i n -creased from 5 to 21 y e a r s . I n d i v i d u a l s or companies cou ld h o l d any number of l i c e n s e s , r a the r than the p rev ious l i m i t of two, and now cou ld s e l l those l i c e n s e s whenever and to whomever they wished : i n 1905 l i c e n s e s became a commodity. Moreover , l i c e n s e s r e q u i r e d f a r l e s s i n i t i a l c a p i t a l than leases because the c o n d i t i o n s a t tached to l i c e n s e s were m i n i m a l . L icenses conta ined no p r o v i s i o n s r e q u i r i n g the t imber under l i c e n s e to be cut—as opposed to merely be ing h e l d as a s p e c u l a t i v e a s s e t - -because the government was not as i n t e r e s t e d i n s t i m u l a t i n g the development of the lumber i n d u s t r y as i n a s s u r i n g i t s e l f of revenues. I t i s important at t h i s p o i n t to pause and make an a n a l y t i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n between ' r evenue ' and 'money' . Revenue i s used to imply the - 29 -concept of a c o n t i n u i n g f low over t ime , whereas money i s seen as a once-only ma t t e r . The governments of B r i t i s h Columbia up to 1905 were always extremely shor t of revenue, f o r c i n g them to borrow money and accumulate l a r g e per c a p i t a deb ts . I n the sho r t - t e rm these governments cou ld have ob ta ined l a r g e amounts of money by s e l l i n g Crown resources o u t r i g h t . Very q u i c k l y , however, the market would have become s a t u r a t e d , and unless governments had i n v e s t e d t h e i r money w i s e l y , the Crown would soon have had very l i t t l e revenue. The changes of 1905 were designed to r a i s e revenues from ground rents—and l a t e r from r o y a l t i e s - - t o pay o f f par t of the p u b l i c debt , which s tood at $10.3 m i l l i o n ($46.79 per c a p i t a ) 59 i n 1903, and to fund a va s t expansion i n government spending . Both the changes of 1905 and the moratorium of 1907 were r e l a t e d to government revenue needs. That the changes of 1905 were enacted to r a i s e government revenues was subsequent ly e x p l i c i t l y s t a t ed by Premier M c B r i d e . Repor t ing on debate of the new Fores t A c t , the Vancouver World paraphrased pa r t of a speech made by M c B r i d e : . . . ( I n 1905) revenue was needed, and u r g e n t l y needed, fo r the r e -e s t ab l i shmen t of the p u b l i c c r e d i t , and the t imber p o l i c y of tha t year was j u s t i f i a b l e ; but for the revenue secured under i t the government would have been unable to undertake and c a r r y forward many of those l a r g e development e n t e r p r i s e s tha t have made f o r the u p b u i l d i n g of the p r o v i n c e . By 1907 the government had enough revenue f l owing on from l i c e n s e s , and 60 decided to i s s u e no more. W i l l i a m Ross , M c B r i d e ' s M i n i s t e r of Lands i n 1912, a l so s a i d that the 1905 a l t e r a t i o n s had been made to r a i s e revenues to pay fo r development, and tha t the 1907 c l o s u r e occured because the 61 government had enough revenues. A . C . F l u m e r f e l t , a prominent Tory and a - 30 -member of the 1909-1910 F u l t o n Commission echoed these sent iments w i t h great fe rvour i n 1913. He c a l l e d the 1905 changes "a remarkable measure of p o l i c y tha t cha l l enged and defeated c r i t i c i s m as a master s t roke of 62 b o l d s ta tesmansh ip , " and c i t e d s u f f i c i e n t revenue as a reason fo r the 63 1907 morator ium. In the same p i e c e F l u m e r f e l t po in t ed out the need f o r h o l d i n g back some Crown t imber which could be r e l ea sed to break any 64 c a r t e l which might a r i s e . The same reason had been g i v e n i n the F u l t o n Report i n 1 9 1 0 . 6 5 There was a l s o genera l agreement i n the press at the time of the 1907 O r d e r - i n - C o u n c i l as to the n e c e s s i t y o f , and reasons f o r , tha t move. For i n s t a n c e , the Conserva t ive Vancouver D a i l y N e w s - A d v e r t i z e r , i n agree ing w i t h the morator ium, s a i d that the government had ob ta ined 66 enough revenue, a s i m i l a r p o i n t be ing made by the o p p o s i t i o n V i c t o r i a 67 D a i l y Times. The Vancouver Semi-Weekly World suggested tha t the morator ium would "prevent t imber be ing s taked merely f o r s p e c u l a t i e e ( s i c ) 68 purposes , " w h i l e the Kamloops In land S e n t i n e l supported c l o s u r e , n o t i n g tha t more t imber had been l i c e n s e d than cou ld p o s s i b l y be cut i n 21 y e a r s . The amount of t imber l i c e n s e d was an important ques t i on fo r l i c e n s e e s , who f e l t tha t the s a l e . o f fu r the r c u t t i n g r i g h t s would d i l u t e the va lue of t h e i r h o l d i n g s . ^ As a Christmas Day e d i t o r i a l i n the Conserva t ive Vancouver D a i l y News-Adver t i ze r put i t : ^ Now that no fu r t he r l i c e n s e s w i l l be i s s u e d , the a n x i e t y expressed as to the p o s s i b i l i t y of a g l u t i n the lumber market w i l l be removed, doubt less - 31 -to the r e l i e f of the present ho lde r s and to the abandonment of any a g i t a t i o n fo r a change i n the Land Ac t i n that r e s p e c t . P r e d i c t a b l y , t h i s " a n x i e t y " was not "removed" one i o t a , f o r two obvious reasons . L icensees were i n t e r e s t e d i n extending the term of t h e i r l i c e n s e s , and thus t h e i r s e c u r i t y of tenure , p r i m a r i l y because ex t ens ion 72 would inc rease the va lue of l i c e n s e s as commodities, and s e c o n d a r i l y , because w i t h inc reased s e c u r i t y of tenure l i c e n s e e s would be more w i l l i n g to i n v e s t , i n , and to expand t h e i r lumbering o p e r a t i o n s . E v e n t u a l l y they succeeded i n persuading the government that t h i s l a t t e r p o i n t was t h e i r prime m o t i v a t i o n . I t was a l s o r e a l i z e d tha t a g l u t of lumber on the market would , i n a compe t i t i ve s i t u a t i o n , l ead to f a l l i n g p r i c e s and, t h e r e f o r e , f a l l i n g p r o f i t s . The major way to make the market l e s s c o m p e t i t i v e was to r a i s e t a r i f f s on the en t ry of American lumber, and t h i s was c o n s i s t e n t l y t r i e d . 74 For example, i n 1905 the Lumberman and Con t rac to r s t a t ed Lumbermen of B r i t i s h Columbia have p e r s i s t e n t l y urged upon the Dominion par l i ament the n e c e s s i t y f o r a r e c i p r o c a l or r e t a l i a t o r y t a r i f f on lumber imported from the Un i t ed S t a t e s . The other major a l t e r n a t i v e was to stem the f low of excess t imber , and t h i s a l so was t r i e d . B r i t i s h Columbia lumber i n t e r e s t s a v a i l e d themselves of the ample p o l i t i c a l l everage af forded by the c o n s e r v a t i o n e t h i c , a rguing that un less tenure were extended, stands would be s l augh te red for on ly t h e i r f i n e s t t imber , l e a v i n g behind good wood to r o t i n the forest.^""* - 32 -This was a powerful argument at a time when the ethos of conservation was beginning to make i t s e l f f e l t a l l over North America.^ There was concern that the continent's forests were r a p i d l y becoming exhausted by overcutting. Figures produced by the U.S.A. government showed that at th i s time the yearly cut was two and a hal f times greater than the annual growth.^ A successful propaganda campaign had been launched and c a r r i e d out by such men as Judson Clark i n Canada, and G i f f o r d Pinchot i n the U.S.A. As the Canadian j o u r n a l , the Western 78 Lumberman put i t i n 1911: The word 'conservation' has become very f a m i l i a r to the reading public of Canada during the past two years. In 1906, Prime Minister. Laurier had c a l l e d a Canadian Forestry Convention 79 to h i g h l i g h t the severe problems facing Canadian f o r e s t s , and i n 1909 he set up the Commission of Conservation, a body to p a r a l l e l the National 80 Conservation Commission of the U.S.A. However, conservation appears to have been not so much a genuine concern as a 'smokescreen' used by both the government and lumbermen to hide the r e a l r e a s o n s — s u f f i c i e n t revenues, and worries of a market g l u t — f o r the 1907 moratorium, and the subsequent changes i n tenure arrangements. Having achieved i t s pecuniary target of receiving considerable revenues from Crown f o r e s t s — 4 0 . 6 % of t o t a l government revenue i n f i s c a l 81 - -1907, 41.2% i n 1908 — a n d then'having suspended.further a l i e n a t i o n s , the p r o v i n c i a l government was unsure of what other f o r e s t r y goals to set i t s e l f . 82 In h i s 1913 piece, Flumerfelt himself admitted as much — i n part because - 33 -of t h i s l a c k of d i r e c t i o n , i n e a r l y 1909 the government decided to appoin t a R o y a l Commission to i n q u i r e i n t o " a l l mat ters connected w i t h 83 the t imber resources of the P r o v i n c e . " The announcement of the a c t u a l appointment of the Commission i n J u l y , 1909 a t t r a c t e d l i t t l e mention i n the p r e s s , most newspapers apparen t ly not even r e p o r t i n g the ;. 84 appointment. F l u m e r f e l t c la imed i n 1913 that the Commission had been set up p a r t l y because of "the n e c e s s i t y of p u t t i n g i n t o p r a c t i c e the new 85 d o c t r i n e of c o n s e r v a t i o n as a p p l i e d to f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s . " He came ' much c l o s e r to the t r u t h when he po in ted out tha t i n 1908 and 1909 l i c e n s e e s had been a g i t a t i n g for a l eng th of tenure s i m i l a r to tha t granted l essees i n 1901; namely, r e n e w a b i l i t y f o r succes s ive 21 year terms. The c o n t e n t i o n that l e n g t h , and s e c u r i t y of tenure f o r l i c e n s e e s was at the hear t of the d e c i s i o n to appoint a Royal Commission i s borne 87 out not on ly i n the evidence presented at the Commission's h e a r i n g s , bu t , a l s o by newspaper r epor t s at the t ime . I n March , 1909 Premier McBride was quoted i n the Vancouver D a i l y News-Adver t i ze r as s a y i n g : ' t he ques t i on of the terms of s p e c i a l t imber l i c e n s e s has been the subjec t of c o n s i d e r a b l e con t roversy of l a t e and the p r i n c i p a l commission of s e v e r a l d e l e -ga t ions which have wa i t ed on the government w i t h i n the past few months w i t h regards to the t imber i n d u s t r y i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . ' He went on to say that a l though the government had decided to make each l i c e n s e p e r p e t u a l l y renewable u n t i l the merchantable t imber was removed from i t , the government would await the Commission's f i n d i n g s before i m p l e -88 menting any changes! Hence, we see that the Commission was to be but a - 34 -'rubber-stamp' for a change i n tenure arrangements which had already been decided upon by the government. By the appointment of a Royal Commission the government must surely have hoped to lend an aura of r e s p e c t a b i l i t y to a decision which was, i n essence, a 'give-away' to lumbermen. Further to compound the impression that the Commission was a 'rubber-stamp', McBride made sure that the three Commissioners were sympathetic p r i m a r i l y to the government, and secondarily, to the lumber industry. The Honorable Fred John Fulton was chosen to chair the Commission. A more prominent p r o v i n c i a l T o r y — o t h e r than McBride himself —would have been hard to f i n d . Fulton had held several Cabinet posts since 1903, having f i r s t been elected member f o r Kamloops i n 1900. At the time of h i s appointment he was chief Commissioner of Lands and Works, a post he had held since early 1906, and which he continued to hold during 89 the early stages of the Commission's hearings. As Chairperson he cannot but have had divided l o y a l t i e s ; he was responsible f or d i r e c t i n g an inquiry which was l a r g e l y concerned with examining aspects of the p o l i c i e s c a r r i e d out within h i s own Department. The second of the three Commissioners was Arthur Samual Goodeve. He, too, was a Tory. In McBride's p r e - e l e c t i o n Cabinet of 1903 he had been named P r o v i n c i a l Secretary, but did not con-tinue i n the post when he f a i l e d to win a seat i n the L e g i s l a t u r e at that 90 e l e c t i o n . By 1909 he was Conservative M.P. for Rossland. The t h i r d of the Commissioners was the most i n t e r e s t i n g , and the most interested i n forest problems. A l f r e d Cornelius Flumerfelt had pursued a career spanning - 35 -several branches of business, including shoe wholesaling and r e t a i l i n g , banking, and lumber. In 1908 he became President of one of the biggest shingle plants i n the world, the Hastings Shingle Manufacturing 91 Company. In 1909 he was l i s t e d i n the Western Lumberman as being on the executive committee of the B r i t i s h Columbia Lumber, Logging and 92 Forestry Association, and eighteen months l a t e r was described crypt-93 i c a l l y i n the same journal as a "timber broker." He l a t e r became a Conservative p o l i t i c i a n manque; i n December, 1915 Premier Bowser appointed Flumerfelt p r o v i n c i a l M i n i s t e r of Finance, but Flumerfelt l o s t 94 to Brewster i n a b y - e l e c t i o n and never did hold public o f f i c e . With hi s extensive holdings, Flumerfelt had a strong s e l f - i n t e r e s t i n natural resource p o l i c i e s . In 1907 he had offered and awarded w e l l - p u b l i c i z e d prizes f or the best essays submitted on various s p e c i f i e d topics 95 connected to the use of B r i t i s h Columbia's natural resources. Further-more, i n 1913 he wrote the chapter on "Forest Resources" for the B r i t i s h Columbia volume of Shortt and Doughty's Canada and Its Provinces s e r i e s . When the appointment of the Commission was announced i n July, 1909, as we have seen i t was l i t t l e remarked upon by the newspapers. While other papers were s i l e n t , an e d i t o r i a l i n the unabashedly pro-government Vancouver Weekly News-Advertizer heralded the choice: "They (the Commission-ers) may s a f e l y be regarded as without bias on any of (the timber issues') 96 aspects." As we have noted, t h i s was c e r t a i n l y not the case. A l l three were deeply involved with the Conservative Party, and one of them was i n the lumber business i t s e l f . They could be counted on to be most sympathetic to - 36 -the lumber i n d u s t r y , and they d i d indeed prove themselves r e l i a b l e , 97 both dur ing the a c t u a l h e a r i n g s , and i n t h e i r F i n a l Repor t . - 37 -FOOTNOTES: ^Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, A History of Crown  Timber Regulations (Toronto: Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, 1957). Reprinted from The Annual Report of the Clerk of Forestry for the Province of Ontario 1899 (Compiled with the assistance of Mr. Aubrey White, Deputy Minis t e r of Lands and Forests, 1887-1915), pp. 149-50. 2 A History of Crown Timber Regulations, pp. 154-55. 3 A History of Crown Timber Regulations, py,156. 4 A History of Crown Timber Regulations, p. 173. ^A History of Crown Timber Regulations, p. 175. A History of Crown Timber Regulations, p. 176. ^A History of Crown Timber Regulations, p. 181. 8 See A History of Crown Timber Regulations, ;pp. 223-24, p. 230, and p. 232. 9 A History of Crown Timber Regulations, pp. 190-91. "*^ A History of Crown Timber Regulations, pp. 201-207. ~^A History of Crown Timber Regulations, p. 214. 12 A History of Crown Timber Regulations, pp. 214-15. 13 B.E. Fernow, "Forest Resources and Forestry," i n Canada and  Its Provinces, v o l . 18, Province of Ontario, eds. Adam Shortt and A.G. Doughty (Toronto: Publishers' Association of Canada, 1914), p. 594. 14 F i n a l Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Timber and  Forestry, 1909-1910, Fred J . Fulton, chair ( V i c t o r i a : King's P r i n t e r , 1912), p. D82. (Hereafter referred to as Report,;) - 38 -E.T.D. Chambers, "Forest Resources," i n Canada and I t s  Provinces, v o l . 16, Province of Quebec, eds. Adam Shortt and A.G. Doughty (Toronto: Publishers' Association of Canada, 1914), p. 549. "'"^Fernow, p. 593. """^ H.V. Nelles, The P o l i t i c s of Development: Forests, Mines,  and Hydro-electric power i n Ontario 1849-1941 (Toronto: MacMillan, 1974), p. 143. 18 Fernow, p. 597. 19 Chambers, pp. 550-551. 20 See Chambers, p. 5.41. 2 1 N e l l e s , pp. 204-205. 22 Canada. Revised Statutes (1886), v o l . 1, 49 V i c t . , c.54. 23 H.N. Whitford and Roland D. Craig, Forests of B r i t i s h  Columbia (Ottawa: Commission of Conservation, 1918), pp. 102-103. 24 See chap. 3, below. 25 For much of t h i s , see Whitford and Craig, pp. 104-106. 2 6 I b i d . , pp. 143-48. 2 7 I b i d . , p. 148. O Q I b i d . , pp. 102-103. 29 y I b i d . 30 Ibid., p. 82. 31 Report, p. D22. 32 Whitford and Craig, p. 86. - 39 -33 Ibid., p. 82. 34 Ib i d . , p. 83. 35 Report, p. D23. 36 Timber Rights and Forest P o l i c y i n B r i t i s h Columbia: Report  of the Royal Commission on Forest Resources, Peter H . Pearse, Commissioner ( V i c t o r i a : Queen's P r i n t e r , 1976), v o l . 2, p. A2. (Hereafter referred to as "Pearse.") 37 Report, p. D12. 38 Whitford and Craig, p. 87. 39 Report, p. D12, and pp. D l l l - 1 2 . 40 Robert E. C a i l , Land, Man, and the Law: the Disposal of  Crown Timber i n B r i t i s h Columbia, 1871-1912 (Vancouver: Uni v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Press, 1974), p. 100. ^ P e a r s e , v o l . 2, p. A3. 4 2 W h i t f o r d and Craig, pp. 88-89. 43 Report, p. D13. 44 Whitford and Craig, p. 87. 4 5 I b i d . , p. 89. 46 Ib i d . , p. 126. 47 See chap. 1, above. 48 Report, p. D35. 49 See chap. 3, below. Report, p. D13. - 40 -5 1 C a i l , pp. 99-100. 52 The only mechanism being the very minor handloggers 1 l i c e n s e s . 53 Report, p. D23. 54 Whitford and Craig, p. 87. "^Report, p. D27. 56 Whitford and Craig, p. 90. "^Quoted i n Semi-Weekly World (Vancouver), 13 July 1909, p. 8. c. 7. 58 Whitford and Craig, pp. 156-57. 59 Murray D. Bryce, "The Finances of the Government of B r i t i s h Columbia (1886-1946)" (B.A. essay, Department of Economics, P o l i t i c a l Science, and Sociology, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1949), p. 128. ^ 7 February 1912, p. 23, c. 3. 61 Report of the Commissioner r e l a t i n g to the Forest Resources of  B r i t i s h Columbia, Honourable Gordon McG. Sloan, Commissioner ( V i c t o r i a : Queen's Pr i n t e r , 1956), 1 : 29-30. 6 2 A.C. Flumerfelt, "Forest Resources," i n Canada and I t s  Provinces, v o l . 22, The P a c i f i c Province, eds. Adam Shortt and A.G. Doughty (Toronto: Publishers' Association of Canada, 1914), p. 494. 6 3 I b i d . , p. 495. 64 T,., Ib i d . 65 It has not proved possible, however, to f i n d any contemporary explanation of the motives behind the changes of 1905. No motives were turned up i n searches, c a r r i e d out at the P r o v i n c i a l Archives of B r i t i s h Columbia, of: Premier's Papers (McBride); Premier. Letterbook. O f f i c i a l . November 24, 1904 - May 1, 1906; O f f i c i a l Letterbooks. Chief Commissioner  of Lands and Works; B r i t i s h Columbia. L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly. Sessional  c l i p p i n g books. - 41 -6 6 2 5 December 1907, p. 4, c. 1. 6 724 December 1907, p. 4, c. 1. 6 827 December 1907, p. 1, c. 2. 69 27 December 1907, p. 1, c. 5. ^See chap. 3, below. 7 125 December 1907, p. 4, c. 2. 72 Daily World (Vancouver), 2 January 1908, p. 20, c. 1-2. 73 See chap. 4, below. 7 4 J u l y 1905, p. 2, c. 4; see also i b i d . , A p r i l 1905, p. 10, c. 1; Western Lumberman, A p r i l 1909, p. 15, c. 1; and Daily News-Advertiser (Vancouver), 18 August 1909, p. 4, c..3. 7^See chap. 3, below. 76 See, for example, Nelles, pp. 184-99. 7 7Samuel P. Hayes, Conservation and the Gospel of E f f i c i e n c y :  the Progressive Conservation Movement, 1890-1920. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959), p. 132. 78 January 1911, p. 19, c. 2. 79 Nelles, p. 201. 8 0 T . . . Ibxd . 81 Report, p. D31. 82 Flumerfelt, p. 496. 83 Report, p. D17. - 42 -84 The Weekly News-Advertiser (Vancouver) mentioned i t ; the Semi-Weekly World (Vancouver), the Daily Times ( V i c t o r i a ) , the Grand  Forks Gazette, and the Inland Sentinel (Kamloops), did not. 85 Flumerfelt, p. 496. 86T, ., Ibid. 8 7 See chap. 3, below. 88 Daily News-Advertiser (Vancouver), 12 March 1909, p. 10, c. 4. 89 See entry under 'FULTON, Frederick John' i n the ' V e r t i c a l F i l e s ' of the PABC. 90 Martin Robin, The Rush for Sp o i l s : the Company Province 1871-1933 (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1972), p. 86, and p. 90. 91 See entry under 'FLUMERFELT, A . C i n the ' V e r t i c a l F i l e s ' of the PABC. 9 2March 1909, p. 15, c. 2. 9 3September 1910. p. 22, c. 2. 94 Margaret A. Ormsby, B r i t i s h Columbia: a History, 2nd ed. (Toronto: MacMillan, 1976), p. 392. Q 5 See entry under 'FLUMERFELT, A . C i n the ' V e r t i c a l F i l e s ' of the PABC; or, for instance, the Observer (Revelstoke), 26 January 1909, p. 4, c. 4-5; or th Grand Forks Gazette, 11 January 1908, p. 1, c. 4. 9 6 1 3 July 1909, p. 4, c. 4. 97 See chap. 4, below. - 43 -HEARINGS Appointed i n J u l y 1909., the. F u l t o n Royal Commission on Timber and Fo re s t ry h e l d hear ings i n 12 d i f f e r e n t pa r t s of the p rov ince over the course of the next t h i r t e e n months.''" The ques t ions addressed by the wi tnesses were many and v a r i e d , and a l though c e r t a i n r ecu r ren t i s s u e s ' s tand out , there was no unanimity on how to t a c k l e those i s s u e s . Whi le the reason f o r t h i s remains u n c e r t a i n , i t became q u i t e apparent dur ing the hear ings tha t persons of s i m i l a r backgrounds o f t en espoused d i f f e r e n t s o l u t i o n s to i s s u e s r a i s e d . Wi tnes ses ' l a c k of adequate fo re s t i n f o r m a t i o n seems the most l i k e l y e x p l a n a t i o n fo r t h i s absence of c o r r e l a t i o n between backgrounds and v i e w s . Working i n a r e l a t i v e ' i n f o r m a t i o n vacuum' , wi tnesses a r r i v e d a t d i f f e r e n t conc lus ions -as to what was i n t h e i r own bes t 2 i n t e r e s t s . Whi le the a d v i s a b i l i t y of Crown ownership of B r i t i s h Columbia ' s f o r e s t resource was seldom ques t ioned , the terms and c o n d i t i o n s under which access to that resource was to be granted were the sub jec t of a great dea l of d i s c u s s i o n . I t was w i d e l y recognized tha t the government, and hence the genera l p u b l i c , had a r i g h t to a ' f a i r ' r e t u r n from the a l i e n -n a t i o n of Crown f o r e s t s , but the s i z e of t h i s r e t u r n and the manner of r a i s i n g i t were the objec ts of much d i s c u s s i o n . Witnesses a l s o concerned themselves w i t h the extent to which the Crown should use a pa r t of t h i s revenue to p rov ide i n f r a s t r u c t u r e and s e r v i c e s fo r t imber h o l d e r s . In d e a l i n g w i t h the ques t ions of Crown revenues, tenure of Crown fo re s t l a n d , and the p r o v i s i o n of p u b l i c s e r v i c e s fo r p r i v a t e companies, the i s s u e of ' conse rva t i on repea ted ly cropped up. As we s h a l l see, few lessees and - 44 -licensees were genuinely interested i n conservation per se, but rather used the concept to try to disguise the p r o f i t - o r i e n t e d nature of t h e i r proposals. Furthermore, i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t that almost a l l the d i s -cussion at the Commission's hearings centered on timber l i c e n s e s , very l i t t l e mention being made of timber leases, handloggers' l i c e n s e s , or pulp leases. Apart from the government's unusual choice of Commissioners, a curious facet of the operation of the Commission was i t s choice of Counsel: James A. Harvey, K.C.. Harvey most decidedly represented b i g business i n t e r e s t s , and no attempt was made to disguise the partisan nature of the Fulton Royal Commission's Legal Counsel. Not only did "he appear to a s s i s t the Commission i n every way possible to get the 4 facts before them," he also "appeared on behalf of the lumbering i n t e r e s t s of the Province.""' He represented the B r i t i s h Columbia Lumber, Logging and Forestry Association, as well as the Mountain Lumber Manufacturers' • • 6 Association. Harvey had both a business and a personal i n t e r e s t i n the formation of Crown timber p o l i c y . C e r t a i n l y i n 1912, and most l i k e l y before then, Harvey was President of the Colo n i a l Lumber and Paper M i l l s Company Limited, which had a share value of $2,500,000.7 Furthermore, i n January 1908, at a meeting of the Associated Boards of Trade of Eastern B r i t i s h Columbia, Harvey was the mover of a motion passed concerning the future of the fo r e s t g industry. In part i t demanded that a l l p r o v i n c i a l licenses be renewable - 45 -beyond t h e i r o r i g i n a l 21 year terms, and that those holding licenses on cut-over land be permitted to hold them for a further 21 years at 9 a nominal annual r e n t a l of $5.00 per square mile. Back of t h i s motion was the knowledge that an extension of the renewability of licenses would increase licensees' s e c u r i t y of tenure;, which would i n turn lengthen the time during which licenses were regarded as commod-i t i e s , thereby augmenting t h e i r resale value. Such d e f i n i t e views affected the way Harvey cross-examined witnesses. On several occasions he posed a s t r i n g of leading questions. Using t h i s technique he perhaps hoped to influence the ways i n which witnesses expressed t h e i r views, so they would agree with c e r t a i n hypo-t h e t i c a l tenure arrangements Harvey suggested, to which they had previously given l i t t l e or no thought."*"^ An example of Harvey's personal views transparently a f f e c t i n g h i s a b i l i t y to deal with witnesses occurred when G.O. Buchannan of Kaslo appeared. Buchannan, as President of the Assoc-iated Boards of Trade of Eastern B r i t i s h Columbia, read out Harvey's motion. When, as a private i n d i v i d u a l , Buchannan proceeded to disagree with aspects of the r e s o l u t i o n , Harvey attacked Buchannan's personal c r e d i b i l i t y as a witness by pointing out that Buchannan had not made any money out of more than twenty years i n the lumber business.^"'" Despite Fulton's intervention at t h i s stage d i r e c t i n g Harvey to pursue some other l i n e of inquiry Counsel continued h i s p r a c t i c e of acting more l i k e a prosecutor than an impartial questioner. \ - 46 -It has not proved possible to determine whether the Commission chose to i n v i t e or to subpoena many witnesses, for only, one witness—N.J. McArthur, Secretary of the Loggers' Association of B r i t i s h Columbia— 12 s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioned being i n v i t e d to appear before the Commission. The Commissioners did, however, make some attempts at obtaining a cross-section of opinion. They went so f a r as to attend the f i r s t U.S.A. National Congress on Conservation of Natural Resources i n Seattle, i n l a t e August 1909. There they held discussions with G i f f o r d Pinchot, the crusading Chief Forester of the U.S.A. Three months l a t e r the Commission-ers went to Ottawa and talked with Dominion o f f i c i a l s . Thence Fulton and Goodeve journeyed to. Toronto. There they consulted Dr. B.E. Fernow, founder and head of the University of Toronto's Forestry School, and Aubrey White, Ontario's Deputy Minister of Lands, Forests, and Mines. At Washington, D.C., i n early December 1909 Fulton again saw Pinchot, as w e l l 13 as other members of the United States Forest Service. Of the 116 witnesses who gave evidence before the Commission, the backgrounds of 113 have been ascertained: 90 from the t r a n s c r i p t i t s e l f , 14 and 23 from other sources. The main d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i n the categorizing of witnesses was that between 'small' and 'big' business. It has not proved useful to categorize the forest industry witnesses as to whether they were operators or speculators, as most speculators appear to have ca r r i e d out some act i v e lumbering i n the province."'"^ Big business was defined as lumber operations meeting one or more of the following c r i t e r i a : companies or i n d i v i d u a l s holding more than 10 timber l i c e n s e s , or having - 47 -c u t t i n g - r i g h t s to more than 6,400 acres, or having more than 30 employees, or representing 'obvious' b i g business (such as eastern banks, or the Canadian P a c i f i c Railway); or, from R.A.-J. McDonald's thesis on the composition of the e l i t e of the Vancouver business commun-i t y at th i s time. Small business covers those operations d e f i n i t e l y f a l l i n g below the c r i t e r i a used f o r b i g business. Other categories, f o r example 'government', are self-e v i d e n t from the Proceedings. The 113 i d e n t i f i e d witnesses have been categorized thus: TABLE 1 IDENTIFIED WITNESSES BY CATEGORY Witnesses Extant Transcript Evidence Category Number % Pages % Big business 57 50.45 724 68.69 Small business 4 3.24 16 1.52 U n c l a s s i f i e d business 6 5.30 66 6.26 Business organizations 8 7.08 83 7.87 Sub-Total: 75 66.37 889 84.34 Government 29 25.66 125 11.86 Labour 4 • 3.54 - -Private experts 2 1.77 5 0.47 Private i n d i v i d u a l s 3 2.65 35 3.32 TOTALS 113 99.99 1,054 99.99 - 48 -The predominance of business, e s p e c i a l l y of big business, i s demonstrated both by the numbers of witnesses who appeared representing business interests,, and,; also, p a r t i c u l a r l y by the proportion of the 16 extant t r a n s c r i p t evidence which was submitted by business. The only other major bloc of witnesses was that.drawn from various l e v e l s of government, ranging i n stature and i n t e r e s t from the Reeve of Spallumcheen, a grocer named Daykin, to John O l i v e r , leader of the p r o v i n c i a l Opposition. In contrast to business i n t e r e s t s , labour i n t e r e s t s were under-represented at the hearings, perhaps because at t h i s time most lumber workers—unlike t h e i r employers—were unorganized, although some were members of the I n d u s t r i a l Workers of the World, and others belonged to the P a c i f i c Coast Shingle Weavers' Union."'"7 However, three representatives from the New Westminster Trades and Labour Council, and one from the Vancouver Trades and Labour Council, did appear before the Commission. A discussion of t e n u r e — t h a t i s , the terms arid conditions under which the Crown alienated i t s forest resource—was the most persistent strand running through testimony given at the proceedings of the Commission. Almost a l l witnesses who dealt with the question of tenure favored the government's r e t a i n i n g control of the forest land, and simply a l i e n a t i n g c u t t i n g - r i g h t s . Only one witness, A.T. Frampton, advocated s e l l i n g o f f the land as well as i t s timber. He suggested that the revenue from the sales could be set aside, and the i n t e r e s t from t h i s sum would provide a greater 18 forest income for the government. - 49 -The overwhelming majority of witnesses favoured the contemporary p o l i c y of Crown ownership of the forest resource base because, for many years, t h i s p o l i c y had i n p r a c t i c e meant cheaper access to that resource. Before 1896, when timber land had been for sale by the Crown, such land 19 had always been included within the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of " f i r s t - c l a s s land." From 1891 on a l l Crown-granted f i r s t - c l a s s land had cost $5.00 per acre, and bore royalty charges of f i f t y cents per Mfbm on any wood cut and sold 20 from that land. In 1905 the land tax was dropped from an annual 3% of 21 i t s assessed value to 2%. In a hypothetical instance, for a lumberman the cost of an acre of Crown-granted timber land would have been $5.00, meaning t h i r t y cents i n foregone i n t e r e s t over one y e a r — c a l c u l a t i n g i n t e r e s t rates at a modest 6%—as w e l l as the annual land tax of ten cents per acre (2% of $5.00). If the Crown had, i n f a c t , sold forest land, the lumberman's t o t a l annual carrying charges per acre would have been f o r t y cents, as compared with 21.9C on Coast l i c e n s e s , and 15.6<: on I n t e r i o r l i c e n s e s . Furthermore, licenses required less i n i t i a l c a p i t a l investment. Thus, lumbermen were quite prepared to support Crown ownership of the forest resource base because they thereby gained cheaper access to resource. The major issue a f f e c t i n g tenure which was discussed at the Commission's hearings was the question of the renewability of p r o v i n c i a l timber l i c e n s e s . Indeed, i t was to deal with, t h i s question that the Commiss-ion had p r i m a r i l y been appointed-. Of the 34 witnesses who addressed them-'s elves to t h i s matter, a l l but s i x f e l t that p r o v i n c i a l l i c e n s e s should copy the clause w r i t t e n into the Dominion licenses which made them renewable - 50 -i n perpetuity as long as they contained merchantable timber. The si x exceptions w i l l be discussed below. Except for R.J. Skinner, the P r o v i n c i a l Timber Inspector, the witnesses who favoured extension were 24 a l l representatives of big business. There were three aspects of t h i s demand for extended renew-a b i l i t y of l i c e n s e s . Without a guarantee of perpetual renewal, as i n the Dominion l i c e n s e s , bank managers refused to advance money on provin-c i a l l i c e n s e s . William Murray, manager of the Bank of Commerce i n 25 Vancouver, J.M. Lay, manager of the Imperial Bank of Commerce i n 26 27 Nelson,-z- and J.M. Lawry, manager of the Bank of Hamilton i n Fernie, a l l e x p l i c i t l y stated to the Commission that t h e i r bank would not accept p r o v i n c i a l l icenses as c o l l a t e r a l on a loan. As Murray put i t : "as a rule we do not consider a timber l i c e n s e a tangible security...(because) 28 there i s no f i x i t y of tenure." On at l e a s t three occasions during the hearings Fulton himself became exasperated on learning that p r o v i n c i a l licenses were not acceptable as c o l l a t e r a l . He pointed out that i n 1905 deputations had come to the government—of which he was then a member—on the question of licenses as security f or loans. He mentioned that at that time the government had been assured that i f licenses were made transferable, and renewable for 21 years, 29 the banks would take those licenses as s e c u r i t y . Yet a mere four years l a t e r a further demand for perpetuity was being made. However, i n a s t a t e -ment with which Murray concurred, Counsel Harvey s u c c i n c t l y pointed out that - 51 -whereas i n 1905 a 21 year term f o r 2,000 l i c e n s e s was qu i t e d e s i r a b l e , by 1909 there were over 15,000 of them, and t h i s had made l i c e n s e s l e s s v a l u a b l e as s e c u r i t y . Harvey, however, avoided e x p l i c i t l y y s t a t i n g tha t an ex tens ion of the p e r i o d of r e n e w a b i l i t y of l i c e n s e s would i nc r ea se t h e i r r e s a l e v a l u e , and t h e i r usefulness as c o l l a t e r a l would r i s e a c c o r d i n g l y . Another aspect of the demand fo r lengthened tenure stemmed from the r e a l i z a t i o n tha t a great d e a l more merchantable t imber had been staked under p r o v i n c i a l l i c e n s e s than anyone cou ld foresee be ing cut 30 before those l i c e n s e s e x p i r e d . I t was suggested tha t ex tending the r e -n e w a b i l i t y of l i c e n s e s would prevent ove rp roduc t ion , thereby l e n d i n g a 31 g rea te r measure of s t a b i l i t y to the i n d u s t r y . Furthermore, i t was argued that ex t ens ion of tenure would l e a d to c o n s e r v a t i o n of the t imber resource , as operators would not be " s l a u g h t e r i n g " t h e i r stands f o r on ly the f i n e s t t imber as they t r i e d to recoup as much as p o s s i b l e from t h e i r 32 ho ld ings before those l i c e n s e s e x p i r e d . The t h i r d pa r t of the demand fo r r e n e w a b i l i t y sprang from the second. There was a s t rong over lap between those who b e l i e v e d that l i c e n s e s should be extended and those who thought tha t longer tenure would avo id the above-mentioned " s l a u g h t e r i n g " of the s tands , and that a l i c e n s e e h o l d i n g the l and i n p e r p e t u i t y would take more care of i t . He would be more c a r e f u l i n h i s l o g g i n g techn iques , be more l i k e l y to p ro t ec t the t imber from f i r e , and be more i n c l i n e d to take a second crop from the l a n d . Witnesses - 52 -who favoured extended renewability almost without exception also desired some arrangement whereby logged-off land could be held at a 33 nominal rental—most suggested $5.00 per square mile per annum —pending 34 a second crop. Although t h i s concept has echoes of the sustained-y i e l d management p o l i c i e s introduced f o r t y years l a t e r , i t was, neverthe-35 l e s s , not the same. The second crop was seen by those advocates not so much as timber grown from seed after clearcut logging, but ,rathenas the attainment of commercial maturity by trees which had been almost s u i t a b l e for logging during the f i r s t cut. Thus, a second crop would be taken off roughly twenty years a f t e r the f i r s t cut. It i s , therefore, obvious that most licensees were,lin f a c t , f ar more interested i n p r o f i t s than i n conservation. On the one hand they approached the Commission expressing t h e i r concern over conserving resources, yet, on the other hand these same witnesses i m p l i c i t l y admitted that they would "slaughter" t h e i r stands i f that proved p r o f i t a b l e . The issue of conservation seems to have been used as a convenient facade, d i s -guising mundane f i n a n c i a l motives. Four of the s i x witnesses who opposed extension of the tenure of timber licenses were representatives of organized labour. The other two, J.S. Emerson of Vancouver and G.O. Buchannan of Kaslo, were both business-36 men and neither of them owned many l i c e n s e s , i f indeed any at a l l . Three of the labour representatives were simply reported as having opposed 37 making the licenses perpetually renewable, whilst the fourth submitted - 53 -that he might favour renewal of licenses a f t e r the 21 year term pro-v i d i n g the rentals were high enough."^ Buchannan focused on the government's r o l e i n contributing to the problems facing licensees. He said that the government should have r e a l i z e d more timber was being staked than could possibly be cut i n the 39 following 21 years. Buchannan said that i t had been evident to him 40 by 1906 that too much timber had been staked. As a s o l u t i o n he pro-posed that, rather than grant perpetuity, the government should buy back as many leases and lic e n s e s as i t could, and that for many years no more 41 timber should be alienated. He suggested that the government re-imburse 42 a l l those s t i l l holding licenses at the end of 21 years. He pointed out that the government could do l i t t l e to ensure the industry's s t a b i l i t y : "even the promise of an extension of the term of the li c e n s e could give no 43 immediate r e l i e f . I t could not open up any new markets." However, he saw the government as the only agent which could properly protect the forest s , and f e l t that was the government's—and not pri v a t e i n d u s t r y ' s — 44 , r o l e . Although a sound idea i n terms of forest p o l i c y , Buchannan s scheme of re-imbursement and re-purchase ignored the huge r o l e of forest revenues i n the o v e r a l l income of the government: 41.2% i n f i s c a l 1908 and 27.6% i n 45 f i s c a l 1909. Considering the l e v e l s of i t s expenditures, the government could afford neither foregoing the income from l i c e n s e s , nor the costs of 46 re-purchase and re-imbursement. Emerson was an active sawmill operator who had b u i l t the Thurston-- 54 -F l a v e l l e m i l l at Por t Moody i n the c l o s i n g years of the p rev ious 47 cen tu ry . By 1909 he was engaged i n s a w m i l l i n g and l o g g i n g , and h e l d 48 enough t imber to l a s t him ten y e a r s . Emerson saw h i m s e l f as defending the i n t e r e s t s of people who had not been represented at the h e a r i n g s , 49 aga ins t the a c t i o n s of l i c e n s e e s : v.. .'.while,-the. owners of s p e c i a l l i c e n s e s are banded together to o b t a i n by any means p o s s i b l e the a l i e n -a t i o n of the g rea te r p o r t i o n of the P r o v i n c i a l t imber of t h i s P r o v i n c e , ye t o thers whose duty i t i s to r i s e and p r o t e s t have no o r g a n i z a t i o n whatever . He d i d no t , however, s p e c i f y who these "o thers" were. Emerson produced s e v e r a l s t rong arguments aga ins t i n t r o d u c i n g p e r p e t u i t y of t enure . Al though he was not aga ins t p e r p e t u i t y per se , he opposed i t because he foresaw that i f g ranted , l i c e n s e e s would proceed to demand more and more concess ions u n t i l they had abso lu te c o n t r o l of f o r e s t l a n d s . H e a l s o saw the g r a n t i n g of p e r p e t u i t y as a g r a t u i t o u s a d d i t i o n to the a l ready advantageous p o s i t i o n of l i c e n s e e s G u e s s i n g 52 tha t over t h ree -qua r t e r s of l i c e n s e e s were mere s p e c u l a t o r s , he suggested tha t any changes i n l i c e n s e s be d i r e c t e d towards eas ing the l o t of a c t u a l 53 ope ra to r s . Making l i c e n s e s p e r p e t u a l l y renewable was of l i t t l e use to opera to r s , who r e a l i z e d t h e i r p r o f i t s from u s i n g the c u t t i n g - r i g h t s a l i c e n s e c a r r i e d . On the other hand, ex tens ion would g r e a t l y b e n e f i t specu-l a t o r s , who made t h e i r p r o f i t s from s e l l i n g the c u t t i n g - r i g h t s that l i c e n s e s c a r r i e d , and so wanted ex tens ion i n order to i nc r ea se the s e l l i n g p r i c e of 54 such c u t t i n g - r i g h t s . Emerson furthermore f e l t that an ex tens ion of the tenure of l i c e n s e s would r e s u l t i n t h e i r be ing bought up by " c a p i t a l i s t s and monopol is t s l i k e the Weyerhausers and others,""^"' l e a d i n g to an a r t i f i c i a l - 55 -r e s t r i c t i o n i n the supply of t imbe r . He suggested tha t l i c e n s e e s had been greedy, and should not have s taked more than they c o u l d reasonably c u t . He noted tha t l i c e n s e e s were aga in be ing greedy, as w e l l as decep t ive , i n s ay ing that adherence to the 21 year term of l i c e n s e s would cause s l augh te r of the s tands . He po in t ed out that "35% of the cos t of l o g g i n g i s the i n i t i a l expense of moving l o g g i n g p l a n t s to the ground, e r e c t i n g s u i t a b l e b u i l d i n g s , making and c o n s t r u c t i n g roadways, chutes , 5 6 s k i d r o a d s , and other necessary work."_ Hence, the overhead cos t s were s imply too h igh to permit the c u l l i n g s tands . Emerson's submiss ion was extremely knowledgeable and p e r c e p t i v e . He h i g h l i g h t e d the way i n which the F u l t o n Commission was, i n f a c t , appo in ted , and a c t i n g , i r i . t h e ^ i n t e r e s t s of l i c e n s e e s , who c o n s t i t u t e d such a powerful l obby . He a l s o underscored the s p e c u l a t i v e nature of many l i c e n s e s , and w i t h tha t the d i s t i n c t p o s s i b i l i t y of fu ture o l i g o p o l i s t i c c o n t r o l over c u t t i n g - r i g h t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia . Above a l l , he showed the specious and decep t ive nature of some of the arguments put forward dur ing the course of the hear ings by l i c e n s e e s who favoured e x t e n s i o n . U n f o r t u -n a t e l y , advice such as Emerson's was l a r g e l y ignored by the Commission. The other i s s u e of tenure dea l t - .wi th .byythe-Commission was the ques t ion of hand loggers ' l i c e n s e s . The four labour r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s sought a cont inuance of hand loggers ' l i c e n s e s , but fo r a lessened f ee . They argued tha t t h i s would g i v e employees a g rea te r b a r g a i n i n g weight w i t h t h e i r employers, as the xrorkers cou ld then more e a s i l y th rea ten to q u i t , hav ing 58 another means of l i v e l i h o o d a v a i l a b l e . Al though fo r d i f f e r e n t reasons , - 56 -the few other witnesses who spoke on t h i s question almost a l l supported the continuance of t h i s form of tenure. They pointed out that hand-logging could be c a r r i e d out on forest land which i t would not pay to cut using donkey engines. They were not, however, i n favour of decreasing 59 the cost of such l i c e n s e s . No witnesses from the I n t e r i o r offered a view on t h i s issue, presumably because handlogging, with i t s necessary water transportation was confined to the Coast. It i s important to note that the issue of handloggers' licenses was of major i n t e r e s t only to the labour representatives, the other witnesses who mentioned i t being not p a r t i c u l a r l y concerned. Among those who expressed views on the government's decision i n December 1907 to suspend further a l i e n a t i o n s of Crown timber, there was almost complete unanimity that the suspension should be continued indef-60 i n i t e l y . These witnesses sought to impress upon the Commissioners that cu t t i n g - r i g h t s to more than s u f f i c i e n t timber had already been alienated, and that to discontinue the 1907 moratorium would increase the problem of oversupply of logs and lumber.^"'" iFurthermore, although i t was never ex-p l i c i t l y stated to the Commissioners, i t seems clear that some licensees C.u-feared that i f the suspension were l i f t e d , and more c u t t i n g - r i g h t s sold by the Crown, then the resale p r i c e of c u t t i n g - r i g h t s which had previously been alienated would drop, i n turn lessening the p r o f i t s to be made from 62 speculation i n B r i t i s h Columbia timber. As the Western Canada Lumberman 63 summed i t up i n early 1908, when commenting on the then recent moratorium: The timber owner who holds for sale only i s pleased because there have been a great many would-be buyers - 57 -holding back with the expectation of getting cheap timber. They w i l l now have to buy at the p r i c e of the l i c e n s e holder i f they buy at a l l . The holder of timber who i s l e g i t i m a t e l y using h i s timber i s pleased that the value of h i s holdings has been enhanced, and the government w i l l lose nothing, as the revenue w i l l be the same. In dealing with Crown revenue from i t s f o r e s t s , an i n t e r e s t i n g d i v i s i o n developed between I n t e r i o r licensees and those on the Coast. While the l a t t e r were content to pay $140 per square mile on t h e i r timber l i c e n s e s , most of the I n t e r i o r men, i n s p i t e of t h e i r already cheap access to Crown timber, said that t h e i r rent of $115 per square mile was too high. Three I n t e r i o r operators, a l l of them b i g businessmen, s p e c i f i c a l l y stated that the d i f f e r e n t i a l i n rentals on licenses between the Coast and the I n t e r i o r was not s u f f i c i e n t l y large to make up for the smaller quantities of saleable timber found on the average I n t e r i o r acre. Naturally they suggested lowering the r e n t a l i n the I n t e r i o r — r a t h e r than increasing that at the Coast. On another aspect of Crown forest revenues, few witnesses were i n favour of r a i s i n g rents, and the majority wanted them f i x e d . They agreed that the government had a r i g h t to a share of any increment i n the value of timber, and thus, advocated that the government r e t a i n the r i g h t to vary r o y a l t i e s . Against this they balanced the need for investment s t a b i l i t y w ithin the industry, and f e l t they had to know i n advance what thei r operating costs would be. To this end,-many proposed f i x i n g r o y a l -t i e s f o r a period of f i v e or even ten years, and reviewing them a f t e r that The four representatives of organized labour had an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t - 58 -view, however. They a l l favoured increasing l i c e n s e r e n t a l s , and lowering or even abolishing r o y a l t i e s , because t h i s would ensure that the timber on licenses was a c t u a l l y cut.^""' In such a view they were not e n t i r e l y alone among the witnesses. Edward H. Heaps—"one of the larges t 66 operators" i n B r i t i s h Columbia — p u t forward the same idea. He suggested 6 7 that r o y a l t i e s should be fixed f o r at l e a s t ten years, and that any increase i n Crown charges should be on the rent. He reasoned that any increase i n r o y a l t i e s would only a f f e c t operators, whereas augmenting the rent would make i t more expensive for speculators to hold t h e i r timber. 68 However, even he did not advocate increasing rents i n the near future. Heaps' suggestion was based on the assumption that speculators were undesir-able and should be discouraged from holding B r i t i s h Columbia timber, an 69 assumption the government does not appear to have shared. The develop-ment of a forest industry was not as important to the government as securing a large and steady flow of forest revenues. The government, therefore, had to be c a r e f u l not to r a i s e l i c e n s e rents too high. As an A p r i l 1909 e d i t o r i a l i n the Western Lumberman put it:^® According to P r o v i n c i a l Government estimates the la r g e s t source of revenue for the coming year i s estimated w i l l be from timber l i c e n s e s , which are expected to bring i n $2,000,000, while timber r o y a l t i e s are put down at a quarter of a m i l l i o n . The t o t a l estimated revenue i s placed at $5,948,626, and i t i s expected that the lumber industry w i l l produce over one-sixth of i t . The Government should be c a r e f u l not to k i l l the goose that lays this golden . egg, and as the millmen contribute so large a part of the revenue of the country, they should be treated with a great deal of consideration at the hands of the Government, perhaps more than they have received of l a t e . - 59 -Aside from the question of tenure, another theme running through the proceedings was the need for more information on the forest resource. This showed i t s e l f as much i n the questions put by the Commissioners as i n the evidence volunteered by witnesses. There was an apparent lack of any mechanism, public or p r i v a t e , designed systematically to generate and gather s t a t i s t i c s . A f o r c e f u l example of the lack of even the most basic s t a t i s t i c a l knowledge was provided by E.H. Heaps. He estimated that roughly 100,000 men were employed i n the B r i t i s h Columbia lumber i n d u s t r y , ^ but withdrew t h i s comment when 72 informed there were only 80,000 adult males i n the province at the time! Because the t o t a l land area of the province had not been c l a s s i -f i e d according to p o t e n t i a l optimal usage, no-one, least of a l l the Commissioners, had any s c i e n t i f i c idea of what proportion of the forest land i n the province had been alienated. Since l i t t l e of the land i n the province had been surveyed and cruised, i t was not even known what pro-portion of the land f e l l w ithin the 1896 d e f i n i t i o n of land " c h i e f l y valuable for timber." The problem was further compounded by the subject-i v i t y of any d e c i s i o n of what was a c c e s s i b l e — a n d , therefore, commercially v i a b l e — t i m b e r land. Thus, when asked what proportion of the province's timber had been taken up, witnesses framed t h e i r r e p l i e s i n terms of accessible timber. There was agreement among witnesses at the Coast that a large pro-portion of the accessible timber land there, had been taken. Estimates 73 varied between 60% and 100%. In the I n t e r i o r opinions were more v a r i e d . - 60 -Witnesses tended to r e p l y more c a u t i o u s l y , l i m i t i n g themselves to areas w i t h which they had some f a m i l i a r i t y . For example, two opera tors t e s t i -f y i n g at F e r n i e , D . H . T e l f o r d and A . MacDouga l l , s a i d they thought tha t 74 most of the d e s i r a b l e t imber i n tha t area had been a s s igned . Speaking at R e v e l s t o k e , C . R . Skene es t imated that on ly h a l f the merchantable t imber i n those pa r t s was t aken , 7 " ' w h i l s t evidence of J . A . Magee—a man who had c r u i s e d a l l over B r i t i s h Columbia—demonstrated the way i n which a c c e s s i b i l i t y was pe rce ived as a changeable v a r i a b l e . He es t imated tha t about 90% of the a c c e s s i b l e and merchantable t imber of the p rov ince had been taken up, but tha t t h i s f i g u r e would drop to 75% when a c c e s s i b i l i t y A 7 6 improved. The d e s i r e fo r more i n f o r m a t i o n on the f o r e s t resource of the p rov ince was unders tandable . U n t i l such i n f o r m a t i o n was ga thered , i t would not be p o s s i b l e e i t h e r to formula te a comprehensive f o r e s t p o l i c y or to f u l f i l l the revenue p o t e n t i a l of that r e source . Moreover , the sys temat ic c o m p i l a t i o n and p u b l i c a t i o n of a l l s o r t s of f o r e s t i n f o r m a t i o n by the government was extremely u s e f u l to the lumber i n d u s t r y . For i n s t a n c e , lumbermen could apply such knowledge to th ings l i k e the deve lop-ment and p e n e t r a t i o n of new n a t i o n a l and i n t e r n a t i o n a l markets , to l e a r n of t e c h n o l o g i c a l developments w i t h i n the i n d u s t r y , and above a l l to d i s c o v e r the most e f f i c i e n t and p r o f i t a b l e way to e x p l o i t . t h e f o r e s t wea l th of the p r o v i n c e . Fores t i n f o r m a t i o n formed pa r t of the i n f r a s t r u c t u r e w i t h which the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y wished to be s u p p l i e d by the B r i t i s h Columbia government. - 61 -Government p r o v i s i o n of the i n f r a s t r u c t u r e necessary for f i r e prevention and f i r e protection was also wholeheartedly endorsed by witnesses, regardless of background. Paramount was the r e a l i z a t i o n that f i r e s cost a great deal: lessees and licensees l o s t money, the Crown l o s t revenues. J.M. K e l l i e , a Revelstoke speculator, conservatively estimated that "every m i l l i o n feet that burns i s $500 l o s t . " ^ A l l of the government witnesses, and most of the other ones, also thought that costs 78 should be borne equally by the government and the lumber industry. No one suggested that p r i v a t e industry should pay the whole cost of protecting the forests i t was e x p l o i t i n g . However, some witnesses-.frdm .the^business community,did d i f f e r i n t h e i r conception of how costs should be a l l o c a t e d . Two from the I n t e r i o r were agreeable to cost-sharing, but i n s i s t e d that the railway companies be included, because they thought that railways caused 79 about three-quarters of a l l f i r e s . Other witnesses thought the govern-80 ment should pay the l i o n ' s share of the cost, and yet others suggested 81 that the government foot the whole b i l l . One, Peter Lund, an operator from Cranbrook, argued that i t was the government's duty to prevent f i r e s , 82 j u s t as i t was responsible for preventing murders. The a l l o c a t i o n of f i r e protection costs posed a very r e a l problem for the government. On the one hand, because of the vast sums being spent on public works projects the government wished to avoid ploughing back 83 much of i t s forest revenue into caring f o r the f o r e s t s , but on the ether hand, the administration sensed the need for protection of i t s resource. The.question was eventually resolved by a compromise. Following 84 Ontario's arrangement of 1901 to 1909, the government paid h a l f - 62 -the f i r e p r otection costs for licensed land, and the whole cost f o r 85 unalienated Crown land. Discussion of methods to prevent f i r e focused on logging methods, p a r t i c u l a r l y around the question of the disposal of s l a s h — t h e debris l e f t over a f t e r logging operations. There was concensus that logging methods could be improved, and most witnesses thought the government had a r i g h t to make regulations i n t h i s sphere. Many businessmen wanted the govern-ment to ensure that operators did not leave overly large trees and tops on s i t e , arguing that such practices created a f i r e hazard, as we l l as 86 being wasteful. Differences of opinion on slash disposal centered on whether burning slash was i n i t s e l f more of a f i r e hazard than leaving slash to rot, and the extent to which slash burning affected humus and, therefore, r e f o r e s t a t i o n . Most, but not a l l , big businessmen were against 8 7 the compulsory burning of a l l s l a s h . However, most other witnesses were i n favour of mandatory burning, with notable exceptions of R.J. Skinner, the P r o v i n c i a l Timber Inspector, and h i s Assistant, R. Trinder. These two opposed burning both on grounds of safety, and because they f e l t compulsory 88 burning would make many logging operations p r o h i b i t i v e l y expensive. 89 While the l a t t e r point had been made by several businessmen, i n f a c t , so few loggers burned t h e i r debris that most witnesses were ignorant of the 90 r e a l costs, and s i l v i c u l t u r a l e f f e c t s , of slash burning. Again, we see lack of basic f o r e s t r y information plaguing the workings of the Commission. The question of logging methods had a strong bearing on another important issue dealt with during the Commission's hearings, that of - 63 -1 r e - a f f o r e s t a t i o n ' . A common complaint was that some loggers p e r s i s t e d i n c u t t i n g t rees of too s m a l l a d iameter . Th i s p r a c t i c e was d i s l i k e d because i t was reasoned tha t t r ees below a c e r t a i n s i z e should be l e f t s tanding as seed t r ees f o r a fu ture c rop , and a l so because i t was f e l t that i t would be more e f f i c i e n t to leave the sma l l e r t r ees and cut them a f t e r they had grown to a l a r g e r d iameter . Witnesses express ing such views were prepared to see government r e g u l a t i o n s enacted to prevent these w a s t e f u l p r a c t i c e s , even i f that n e c e s s i t a t e d su r rend ing a pa r t of the fo re s t i n d u s t r y ' s autonomy, because they r e a l i z e d i t was i n the l o n g -run i n t e r e s t of tha t i n d u s t r y to minimize waste and to encourage r e -91 f o r e s t a t x o n . The most e f f i c a c i o u s means of ensur ing r e f o r e s t a t i o n was i t s e l f a con ten t ious i s s u e . The ma jo r i t y view was tha t burnt and/or l ogged-o f f 92 areas would reseed themselves s a t i s f a c t o r i l y . S ince seventy years ago a great d e a l more t imber was l e f t on s i t e than i s the case today, there was some j u s t i f i c a t i o n fo r t h i s v i e w . The view was by no means unanimous, however. W.T. Cox, A s s i s t a n t F o r e s t e r w i t h the U . S . Fores t S e r v i c e , s a i d that n a t u r a l r egene ra t ion was s u f f i c i e n t except i n areas of s e v e r a l and 93 l a rge burns . On the other hand, P r o f e s s o r C r a i g of C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y recommended a r t i f i c i a l r e g e n e r a t i o n . He remarked that he had t es ted both methods on a 30,000 acre research f o r e s t i n New Y o r k , and had found that 94 p l a n t i n g was p r e f e r a b l e . Furthermore, he po in t ed out that burned areas , i f l e f t a lone , tended to r e p l a c e t h e i r former s tock of con i fe rous t r ees w i t h 95 l e s s v a l u a b l e deciduous ones. - 64 -I t was c e r t a i n l y convenient f o r most l e s sees and l i c e n s e e s to express the o p i n i o n that s a t i s f a c t o r y r e f o r e s t a t i o n would occur n a t u r a l l y , s i nce government acceptance of t h i s would permit the con-t inuance of the t o t a l absence of r e g u l a t i o n s cove r ing s i l v i c u l t u r a l , , and f o r e s t l a n d , management p r a c t i c e s which the B r i t i s h Columbia f o r e s t i n d u s t r y then enjoyed. Moreover , the view appealed to the government as w e l l as to the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y because b l i n d r e l i a n c e on n a t u r a l r e f o r e s t a t i o n saved both of them money. T h e i r mutual i n t e r e s t l a y i n making money from B r i t i s h Columbia ' s f o r e s t s , not i n spending money on tha t r e source . C e r t a i n p o i n t s s tand out upon an examinat ion of the t r a n s -s c r i p t of the proceedings of the Commission. Whi le i t dwelt at l eng th on the arrangements f o r ho lde r s of t imber l i c e n s e s , and spent a l i t t l e time. on..the mat ter of pulp concess ions , the Commission d i d not concern i t s e l f w i t h o ther forms of tenure of t imber lands w i t h i n the p r o v i n c e ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n . T h i s absence of breadth i n i n v e s t i -g a t i o n compounds the impress ion tha t the Commission was a ' r u b b e r -s tamp' , se t up to p rov ide p o l i t i c a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n fo r a d e c i s i o n which had a l ready been taken, namely to extend the tenure of t imber l i c e n s e s . Another p o i n t to note i s the l a c k c o r r e l a t i o n between the o c c u p a t i o n a l backgrounds of the w i t n e s s e s , and t h e i r view on the - 65 -forest industry. I t seems that knowledge of forest conditions i n the province was so rudimentary that witnesses did not have ade-quate technical information on which to base t h e i r submissions. Without the r e q u i s i t e information, witnesses could not be sure what set of forest p o l i c i e s would best s u i t t h e i r i n t e r e s t s , and, therefore, one would hardly expect any occupational group to have presented a united set of opinions. In s p i t e of this lack of 'occupational unity', oertain recurrenti.themes can be noted, themes which were to be taken up by the Fulton Commission i n i t s F i n a l Report i n 1910, and l a t e r i n B r i t i s h Columbia's f i r s t Forest 96 Act, of 1912. Security of tenure for licensees was the issue which occu-pied the l a r g e s t single portion of time during the hearings. As we have seen, the most common suggestion was that the tenure of licenses be extended beyond t h e i r o r i g i n a l 21 years. Licensees r e a l i z e d that extension would r e s u l t i n higher resale prices for licenses, e x p e c i a l l y i f the 19.07 closure were continued, hence th e i r support for i t s continuance. Conservation was used to j u s t -i f y the demand f o r extension, but the reason was the desire to increase the value of licenses qua commodities, as evidenced - 66 -by the argument that ex t ens ion would make l i c e n s e s more accep tab le to banks as c o l l a t e r a l . Concern over conse rva t ion of the f o r e s t resource was a l s o expressed i n the d i s c u s s i o n of l o g g i n g r egu -l a t i o n s . ..While i t was agreed that the government had the r i g h t to make such r e g u l a t i o n s , i t became c l e a r that not many.witnesses favoured them. To preserve t h e i r freedom to e x p l o i t B r i t i s h Columbia ' s f o r e s t s as they saw f i t , most opera tors appeared q u i t e prepared to r i s k d e s t r u c t i o n of the r e sou rce , because conser -v a t i o n i n p r a c t i c e n e c e s s i t a t e d government r e g u l a t i o n and conse-quent p a r t i a l l o s s of e n t r e p r e n e u r i a l autonomy and income. Another theme running through the proceedings was the problem of s t r i k i n g a balance between the government's d e s i r e for an enormous revenue from Crown f o r e s t s , and the p r i v a t e s e c t o r ' s d e s i r e fo r government p r o v i s i o n of i n f r a s t r u c t u r e , such as the gene ra t ion of fo re s t i n f o r m a t i o n and f i r e p r o t e c t i o n . The complex na ture of t h i s ba lance was i n d i c a t e d by a r e a l i -z a t i o n t h a t , w h i l e i n the sho r t - t e rm the two aims were c o n t r a -d i c t o r y , i n the l o n g - r u n they might w e l l be r e c o n c i l e d ; money the government then i n v e s t e d i n i n f r a s t r u c t u r e c o u l d , i n l a t e r y e a r s , be re-couped w i t h s u b s t a n t i a l ' i n t e r e s t ' . I t was to t h i s - 67 -q u e s t i o n of r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of d i f f e r i n g i n t e r e s t s that much of the F i n a l Report and the subsequent Fo re s t Ac t were i m p l i c i t l y to be addressed. - 68 -FOOTNOTES: i "'"The Commission began i t s hearings i n August 1909, spending three days i n V i c t o r i a . From there i t proceeded to v i s i t the following communities, i n the order c i t e d : Nanaimo (1 day), Vancouver (3 days), Kamloops (1 day), Vernon (2 days), Revelstoke (2 days), Nelson (1 day), Cranbrook (2 days), Fernie (1 day), Grand Forks (1 day), New Westminster (1 day), and Vancouver once more (3 days). By the end of 1909 the Commissioners had held hearings at seven locations i n the I n t e r i o r , and four on the Coast, and had received evidence from 101 witnesses. Either i n l a t e 1909 or early 1910, the Commissioners submitted a b r i e f Interim Report to the government. Following t h i s , on May 30 and 31, 1910 the Commission held a supplementary session i n V i c t o r i a ; a further 2-day s i t t i n g was held i n V i c t o r i a i n mid-August, 1910. These meetings e n t a i l e d the hearing of another f i f t e e n witnesses. The F i n a l Report of the Royal  Commission of Inquiry on Timber and Forestry, 1909-1910 1(Victoria: King's P r i n t e r , 1910), (Hereafter referred to as Report.) ,was submitted on November 15, 1910. The t r a n s c r i p t of the Proceedings of the Comission survives f or a l l seven I n t e r i o r l o c a t i o n s ; but, unfortunately, of the seven Coast hearings, t r a n s c r i p t testimony for only four e x i s t s . See Report, pp. D9-10; and P r o v i n c i a l Archives of B r i t i s h Columbia (PABC), "Add. MSS," catalog entry under "Fulton, Frederick John: B r i t i s h Columbia. Royal Commission of Inquiry on Timber and Forestry, 1909 O r i g i n a l s , 1909-10, 18cm.," v o l . 1, pp. 1-119, v o l . 2, pp. 1-1112. C a l l Number GR 271. (Hereafter referred to as Proceedings.) 2 See Appendix B. 3 See chap. 2, above. ^Proceedings, v o l . 2, p. 2. ^ I b i d . , p. 1. ^ I b i d . , p. 2. ^In h i s excellent thesis on the Vancouver business community at the turn of the century, Robert A.-J. McDonald l i s t s Harvey as one of the business e l i t e of the c i t y . "Business Leaders i n Early Vancouver, 1886-1914" (Ph.D. t h e s i s , Department of History, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1977), p. 484. g The mover i s only c i t e d as "Mr. Harvey," but i t seems very probable that the mover was indeed James A. Harvey, since he i s c i t e d i n the Proceedings ( v o l . 2, p. 1) as being of "Cranbrook and Vancouver." - 69 -9 Proceedings, v o l . 2, p. 204. """'"'See, for example, h i s questioning of T.A. Smith, Proceedings, v o l . 2, pp. 190-91; or of W.C. Brewer, i b i d : , pp. 612-16. 1 : L I b i d . , pp. 767-68. 12 Ibid., v o l . 1, p. 23. 13 Report, p. D9. 14 In addition to the Proceedings, the following sources were used for biographical information: Daily News-Advertiser (Vancouver); Henderson's B r i t i s h Columbia Gazetteer and Directory (Vancouver: Henderson's, 1910); Joseph C. Lawrence, "Markets and C a p i t a l : a History of the Lumber Industry of B r i t i s h Columbia (1778-1952)" (Master's thes i s , Department of History, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1957; R.A.-J. McDonald's thesis; Charles Whately Parker, Who's Who, and Why (Vancouver: Canadian Press Association, 1911; The ' V e r t i c a l F i l e s ' of the PABC; The Western Lumberman. ^An example of a speculator who was operating on a l i m i t e d scale was D.H. T e l f o r d . He was President and/or Managing Director of four companies, holding between them 81 timber l i c e n s e s . Only one of these companies was a c t u a l l y operating a m i l l , whilst the other three were not even logging; Proceedings, v o l . 2, p. 932, and p. 938. 16 This proportion i s a tad lop-sided, i n that the four witnesses for labour appear at s i t t i n g s for which the t r a n s c r i p t of the Proceedings i s no longer a v a i l a b l e . """^ D.E. Anderson, "The Growth of Organized Labour i n the Early Lumber Industry of B r i t i s h Columbia" (B.A. essay, Department of Economics and P o l i t i c a l Science, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1944), p. 29, and pp. 82-86. 18 Proceedings, v o l . 2, p. 23. - 7 0 -19 H.N. Whitford and Roland D. Craig, Forests of B r i t i s h  Columbia (Ottawa: Commission of Conservation, 1918), pp. 82-83. Ibxd. 21 Ibid., p. 85. 22 See chap. 2, above. 23 This clause was introduced into Dominion licenses i n 1901; Proceedings, v o l . 2, p. 117. 24 See, for example, J.A. Magee, ibid.., pp. 478-79; or F.K. DuBois, Ibid., p. 976. 25 Ibid., pp. 245-62. 2 6 I b i d . , pp. 729-33. 2 7 I b i d . , pp. 981-84. 2 8 I b i d . , p. 245. 29 Ibid., pp. 81-82, p. 257, and p. 731. 30 See, for example, William Blakemore, i b i d . , p. 61; or A.E. Watts, i b i d . , p. 841. 31 See, for example, O.L. Boynton, i b i d . , p. 573 and p. 594; or Peter Lund, i b i d . , p. 869. 32 See, for example, W.I. Paterson, ibid.,, p. 468; or Peter Lund, i b i d . , p. 863. 33 See, for example, M.J. Scanlon, ibid.;, p. 73. 34 •<••""" See, f o r example, C.F. Lindmark, : i b i d . , p. 681; or J.M. K e l l i e , l ibidj,, p. 695. - -71 -35 Such a concept did e x i s t i n pre-World War I B r i t i s h Columbia, as demonstrated by the following i n t r i g u i n g quote from an I n t e r i o r newspaper, the Kamloops Standard: 19 January 1912, (p. 9), c. 2-3: Rotation cutting demands that the forest s h a l l produce annually an amount of timber equal to that of which i t i s denuded,"and that there s h a l l be a proper proportion of trees of the r e q u i s i t e ages remaining i n the stand...only a high standard of t e c h n i c a l management and commercial methods combined can secure a sustained y i e l d without depletion of c a p i t a l . 36 Buchannan was no longer an operator; i t remains unclear whether Emerson held any timber l i c e n s e s , since he merely stated he had only 10 years' supply of timber; ibid.,, p. 326. 37 Dai l y News-Advertiser . (Vancouver), 30 September 1909, p. 11, c. 5 . 3 ^ I b i d . , c. 3. 39 Proceedings, v o l . 2, p. 744. 40 Ibid., p. 769. 41 Ibid., p. 743. 4 2 I b i d . , p. 744. 4 3 I b i d . , p. 754. 44 Ibid., p. 766. ^ R i c h a r d E.M. Yerburgh, "An Economic History of Forestry i n B r i t i s h Columbia" (Master's the s i s , Department of History, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1931), p. 104. See chap. 1, above. 47 P a c i f i c Coast Lumberman, February 1921; c i t e d i n the ' V e r t i c a l F i l e s ' of the PABC under "EMERSON, James Sharpe." ^Proceedings, v o l . 2, p. 326. 49 Ibid., p. 311. ~ ^ I b i d . , p. 312. 5 1 I b i d . , p. 309. 5 2 I b i d . , p. 311. 53 Ibid., p. 316. 54 Ib i d . , p. 343. 5 5 I b i d . , p. 309. " ^ I b i d . , p. 310; s i m i l a r figures f or overheads were given by W.I. Paterson, who estimated "your road machines and engines and haulage would represent at l e a s t 30% of the cost"; i b i d . , p. 449. ~^See chap. 4, below. 58 Daily News-Advertiser (Vancouver), 30 September 1909, p. 11. 59 See, for example, T.F. Paterson, Proceedings, v o l . 2, p. 292; or J.S. Emerson, ibid.-, p. 331. 60 As Cranbrook businessperson Archibald L e i t c h admitted, he was i n favour of the reserve because " i t i s i n my i n t e r e s t " ; Proceedings, v o l . 2, p. 817. See, f o r example, E.H. Heaps,.ibid., pp. 420-21; or O.L. Boynton, i b i d . , p. 595. - 73 -6 2 Only A . McDouga l l , of the F e r n i e Lumber Company, s a i d tha t i f people wanted more r i g h t s to Crown t imber then i t should be made a v a i l a b l e to them; P roceed ings , v o l . 2, p . 969. 6 3 F e b r u a r y 1908, p . 11 , c . 2 . 64 See, f o r example, A . E . W a t t s , • i b i d . , p . 837; or O t i s S t a p l e s , . i b i d . , p . 847; or Joseph G e n e l l e , i b i d . , p . 985. " '" 'Daily News-Adver t i se r (Vancouver) , 30 September 1909, p . 11, c . 2 . 66 P roceed ings , v o l . 2, p . 492 - A . S . Goodeve's phrase . McDonald l i s t s Heaps as be ing prominent i n the Vancouver bus iness e l i t e from 1890 u n t i l a t l e a s t 1913; p . 493. 6 7 P roceed ings , v o l . 2, p . 395. 6 8 I b i d . , p . 427. below. 69 See subsequent f o r e s t l e g i s l a t i o n , d i scussed i n chap. 4, 7 0 A p r i l 1909, p . 14, c . 1. 7"""Proceedings, v o l . 2, p . 411. 7 2 I b i d . p . 437. p . 327. p . 966. 73 See T . F . Pa te r son , i b i d , , p . 3287; and J . S . Emerson, i b i d . , 7 4 S e e D . H . T e l f o r d , i b i d . , p . 944; and A . McDouga l l , : i b i d . , 7 5 C . R . Skene, i b i d . , p . 687, - 74 -^ J . A . Magee, ibid.', pp. 475-76 7 7 I b i d . , p. 701. 78 See, for example, M.J. Scanlon, ibid.-, p. 74; or C. J . Becker, i b i d . , p. 546. 79 A. L e i t c h , i b i d . , p. 789, and p. 791; and A.E. Watts, i b i d . , p. 821 and p. 828. 80 See, for example, E.H. Heaps, i b i d . , pp. 386-87; or A. Robinson,,ibid., pp. 997-98. 81 See, for example, J.W. Coburn, i b i d . , p. 165; or A.E. Krapfel, i b i d . , p. 906. 82 Peter Lund, i b i d . , p. 865. ^ 3See chap. 1, above. 84 Report, p. D34. 85 See chap. 4, below. 86 See, for example, O.L. Boynton, Proceedings, v o l . 2, p. 593; or W.C. Brewer, ibid.., p. 614, and p. 624. 8 7 See, for example, D.C. Cameron, i b i d . , pp. 230-31; or Otis Staples, i b i d . , p. 844, who were both opposed; and O.L. Boynton, i b i d . , p. 585; or D. H. T e l f o r d , i b i d . , p. 937, who were not. 88 Skinner, i b i d . , p. 203; and Trinder, i b i d . , p. 528. See, f o r example, T.F. Paterson, i b i d . , p. 270; or C.F. Lindmark, i b i d . , P- 688. See, for example, the testimony of R.H. Campbell, Dominion Superintendant of Forestry, i b i d . , p. 118. 91 See, for example, C.F. Lindmark, i b i d . , p. 670; or G.O. Buchannan, i b i d . , p. 903. 92 See, for example, R.H. Campbell, i b i d . , pp. 118-19; or A. Krapfel, 'ibidV, p. 903. 93 Ibid., p. 364. 94 Ibid., pp. 28-29; together with H.N. Whitford, Roland D. Craig l a t e r wrote Forests of B r i t i s h Columbia. 95 Proceedings, v o l . 2, p. 30. 96 B r i t i s h Columbia. Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia: 1912 ( V i c t o r i a : King's P r i n t e r , 1912), c. 17, "An Act respecting Forests and Crown Timber Lands, and the Conservation and Preservation of Standing Timber, and the Regulation of Commerce i n Timber and Products of the Forest." - 76 -REPORT and FOREST ACT The F u l t o n Commission 's F i n a l Report"'" i s a d i s t i l l a t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n and p r a c t i c e s which had been cur ren t for some t ime , r a the r than a p a r t i c u l a r l y i n n o v a t i v e document. The Report d i d not so much present a f o r e s t p o l i c y as a set of l o o s e l y connected procedures , and mechanisms for f o l l o w i n g them. Al though comprehensive, the recommen-da t i ons l acked the o v e r a l l cohes ion and sense of d i r e c t i o n which would have made them dese rv ing of the t i t l e ' f o r e s t p o l i c y ' . In B r i t i s h Columbian terms, and even more so i n the context of developments e l s e -where i n Nor th Amer ica , the tenor of the Report suggests e v o l u t i o n ra ther than r e v o l u t i o n , borrowing r a the r than i n v e n t i o n . The aim of t h i s chapter i s not to den ig ra te the thoroughness of the Repor t , but r a the r to po in t out that i t d i d not represent any fundamental ly new d i r e c t i o n i n c o n t r o l of the p r o v i n c e ' s f o r e s t r e sources . 2 Having submit ted a b r i e f I n t e r im Report i n l a t e 1909, the Commission handed down i t s F i n a l Report on November 10, 1910. Most of the themes d i scussed so e x t e n s i v e l y du r ing the hear ings appeared i n the Commission's f i n d i n g s ; the Commissioners c l e a r l y and c o r r e c t l y d e a l i n g w i t h these themes as interdependent i s s u e s . Themes covered i n the Report — a n d , . t h e r e f o r e , i n t h i s chap te r—inc luded the government's share of income from p r o v i n c i a l f o r e s t s , the tenure of t imber l i c e n s e s , governmental p r o v i s i o n of f o r e s t r y i n f r a s t r u c t u r e and r e g u l a t i o n of l o g g i n g methods, the fear of s l augh te r of stands and consequent ove rp roduc t ion , and r e f o r e s t -a t i o n . Less than e ighteen months a f t e r t h e i r submiss ion , s e v e r a l of the twenty-one main recommendations became pa r t s of B r i t i s h Columbia ' s f i r s t 3 Fores t A c t . - 77 -Reflecting witnesses' pre-occupation with questions of tenure, the Interim Report made three recommendations i n t h i s sphere, and the F i n a l Report made several more. The Commissioners said that l i c e n s e s should be made automatically renewable u n t i l such time as they no longer contained merchantable timber. This change would increase the s e c u r i t y of tenure of licensees, and, therefore, safeguard t h e i r investment i n li c e n s e s . At the same time extension would supposedly " a s s i s t the devel-opment, conservation and perpetuation of th i s great P r o v i n c i a l asset," 4 although i n what way the Commissioners conveniently did not say. In addition, they stressed that i n extending the terms of l i c e n s e s , the government should never give up i t s r i g h t to change fees and terms as, and when i t saw f i t . " ' This l a t t e r point ran d i r e c t l y counter to most opinions expressed during the hearings, but the Commissioners probably suggested i t so that the government could keep a firm grip on the sources of i t s forest revenues. The Interim Report also suggested that the government write into l i c e n s e agreements a pro v i s i o n requiring licensees to cut t h e i r l i m i t s w ithin a given length of time, should the land i n those l i m i t s be found to be s u i t a b l e , and needed, for a g r i c u l t u r a l purposes.^ This suggestion formed a part of the ongoing process of d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between a g r i c u l t u r a l land and forest land. Witnesses had concurred with t h i s idea, presumably because they knew most of th e i r l i m i t s were l a r g e l y unsuitable for a g r i -culture and so were not a f r a i d of being forced out of the lumber business, yet r they also wished to see an increased population s e t t l e d on such land - 78 -as was suitable f or a g r i c u l t u r e . At the time of the Interim Report the Commissioners had not yet decided how to deal with unalienated Crown timber lands. Hence, t h e i r t h i r d recommendation concerning tenure was neces s a r i l y i n the nature of a holding action. They said that the moratorium of 1907 should be continued u n t i l they could present d e t a i l e d proposals of what to do. 7 The F i n a l Report i s a s i g n i f i c a n t document, demonstrating a firm grasp of the choices facing the p r o v i n c i a l government. The Report f a l l s roughly into three equal parts. The f i r s t dealt with the h i s t o r i c a l and s t a t i s t i c a l background of B r i t i s h Columbia forest e x p l o i t a t i o n up to 1910. The second contained d e t a i l e d recommendations, including some of the reasons for those recommendations, as w e l l as suggestions for t h e i r imple-mentation. The t h i r d part consisted of documentary excerpts about practices i n B r i t i s h Columbia and other North American j u r i s d i c t i o n s : the Commissioners were obviously w e l l aware of what other governments were doing. I t i s the core of the Report, the middle part, that concerns us here. The question of tenure dominated the recommendations: f u l l y one-half of them were addressed d i r e c t l y to t h i s issue. The most s i g n i f i c a n t was the re- a f f i r m a t i o n of the Interim Report's recommendation that licenses be made renewable for as long as they contained merchantable timber, but that the government should d e f i n i t e l y r e t a i n i t s power to a l t e r terms of, and fees for - 79 -l i c e n s e s . In t h e i r Report the Commissioners noted that "a strong argument i n favour (extended renewability), and one that had consider-able weight with us, was that i t would tend to the conservation of the g Crown f o r e s t s . " Conservation had been linked to the extension of 9 tenure many times during the hearings, but, as J.S. Emerson had perceptively noted, i n t h i s context conservation was a poor disguise for the greed of licensees."'"^ In asserting that the Crown r e t a i n i t s f l e x i -b i l i t y i n setting terms of l i c e n s e s , the Commissioners said that "great changes are at hand i n western commerce and development" and that the only sure change was that stumpage values would inexorably rise."'""'" R e a lizing and sharing the government's overriding i n t e r e s t i n forest revenues, they 12 " d e f i n i t e l y and emphatically" urged the government to maintain i t s 13 a b i l i t y to cash i n on the expected r i s e i n values. On another matter linked to the question of tenure, the Commissioners rejected witnesses' suggestions that operators be allowed to hold logged-off land at a reduced 14 and nominal r e n t a l pending a second crop. Two reasons were advanced: the great length of time required to grow a second crop, and that i t would be administratively easier for the government i t s e l f to grow the crop than to supervise operators doing that."'""' Government acceptance of the respons-i b i l i t y f o r a second crop was also a part of the i n f r a s t r u c t u r e of services which the Commissioners f e l t the government should provide for the lumber industry. Echoing testimony received, the Commissioners said that the 1907 16 closure should "be continued i n d e f i n i t e l y " as r i g h t s to more than - 80 -s u f f i c i e n t t imber had a l r eady been a l i e n a t e d . However, they d i d foresee the Crown at some fu ture po in t w i s h i n g to s e l l f u r t he r c u t t i n g -r i g h t s . Examples they fu rn i shed i n c l u d e d the s a l e df burnt t imber , the opening of c e r t a i n areas fo r l o c a l needs, and even an inc rease i n p roduc t ion n e c e s s i t a t i n g access to more t imber s u p p l i e s be ing p r o v i d e d . The Commissioners a l s o recognized the p o s s i b i l i t y of c a r t e l i z a t i o n , and a consequent r e s t r i c t i o n of t imber s u p p l i e s , as t imber c a r t e l s a l r eady e x i s t e d i n the American P a c i f i c Northwest."'" 7 This reasoning shows tha t the Commissioners had more than an i n k l i n g of the c o n c e n t r a t i o n which 18 was subsequently to develop i n B r i t i s h Columbia ' s f o r e s t i n d u s t r y . Because of t h e i r r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t , sooner or l a t e r , f u r the r access to Crown t imber would be r e q u i r e d , the Commissioners proposed a procedure f o r p r o v i d i n g i t . Th i s system was new to B r i t i s h Columbia, and was designed to maximize Crown r e tu rns from the s a l e of f resh c u t t i n g - r i g h t s . "Ber ths" were to be surveyed and c r u i s e d by the f o r e s t s e r v i c e , "and an 19 upset p r i c e f i x e d per thousand fee t fo r each important s p e c i e s . " The l i m i t s would then be p u b l i c l y a u c t i o n e d , the s u c c e s s f u l a p p l i c a n t be ing the one who b i d the h ighes t bonus per thousand fee t over and above the upset p r i c e and r o y a l t y charges . To ensure: compliance w i t h the c u t t i n g r e g u l a t i o n s , each s u c c e s s f u l b idder would immediately have to pay a cash depos i t of 10% of the bonus b i d . The t imber would have to be removed, or f o r f e i t e d , w i t h i n f i v e yea r s . Burnt t imber was to be d isposed of i n the • 20 same way, but the time l i m i t was to be three y e a r s . - 81 -The Commissioners r e j e c t e d sugges t ions made at the hear ings that ' f r a c t i o n a l a r ea s ' should n e c e s s a r i l y be ass igned to opera tors 21 l ogg ing adjacent l i m i t s . Ra the r , these areas were to be d isposed of i n a manner s i m i l a r to t imber s a l e s . A f t e r a survey , a c r u i s e , and the subsequent de te rmina t ion of an upset p r i c e , e i t h e r per thousand board f e e t , or per a c r e , s a l e was to be by p u b l i c a u c t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n , there would be a ground ren t p r o - r a t e d to be equal per acre to tha t charged on l i c e n s e s . The Report t h o u g h t f u l l y noted tha t the term ' f r a c t i o n a l a r ea ' should be p r e c i s e l y de f ined i n the Land Ac t " i n order to prevent d i s -22 guised encroachment upon the l e g i t i m a t e areas of the Rese rve . " The on ly other bas ic—as d i s t i n c t from admin i s t r a t ive—change suggested i n tenure arrangements concerned handloggers ' l i c e n s e s . During the hear ings the few wi tnesses who gave op in ions on t h i s sub jec t were i n 23 favour of c o n t i n u i n g handloggers ' l i c e n s e s . S ince i t was a l ready a minor form of a l i e n a t i o n , the Commissioners recommended tha t i t be abo l i shed a l t o g e t h e r . The i ssuance of handloggers ' l i c e n s e s had r e s u l t e d i n the f t s of t rees from l e a s e d , l i c e n s e d , and reserved Crown l a n d s , they s a i d . . Fur thermore, the l ogg ing methods employed by handloggers were both d i f f i c u l t to c o n t r o l , and w a s t e f u l of t r ees and, t he r e fo r e , of p o t e n t i a l Crown t imber revenues. Other recommendations d e a l i n g w i t h tenure were a d m i n i s t r a t i v e , and can h a r d l y have caused much concern to the Commissioners. I t was proposed t ha t , fo r the purposes of r e n t a l charges , no d i v i d e d ownership of a - 82 -l i c e n s e be r ecogn ized . One day each month was to be se t a s ide as 26 the renewal day fo r a l l l i c e n s e s e x p i r i n g that month. Upon renewal , the terms of l eases were to be a l t e r e d to p l ace them on as equal a 27 f o o t i n g as p o s s i b l e w i t h l i c e n s e s . A l i c e n s e was to be c rea ted to 28 a l l o w f o r the c u t t i n g of sawlogs on pulp and tanbark l e a s e s . The d i r e c t i o n of these a d m i n i s t r a t i v e changes, as w e l l as the a b o l i t i o n of handloggers ' l i c e n s e s , was towards u n i f o r m i t y i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , and c o s t s , of access to Crown t imber . S ince t imber cut from one form of tenancy would compete w i t h t imber from another form, the Commissioners f e l t i t incumbent upon them to ensure as much e q u a l i t y of Crown terms and charges as p o s s i b l e . They sought to avo id s t r u c t u r i n g i n e q u a l i t y and 29 u n f a i r compe t i t i on i n t o the Crown's tenure arrangements. Desp i t e the d i r e c t i o n of these changes, the Commissioners d i d not recommend i n c r e a s i n g the d i f f e r e n t i a l i n l i c e n s e r e n t a l s between the Coast r e g i o n and the I n t e r i o r . Dur ing the hear ings s e v e r a l I n t e r i o r wi tnesses had argued tha t a l i c e n s e r e n t a l of $115 was too h i g h compared w i t h the $140 charged to Coast o p e r a t o r s . These wi tnesses had po in ted out tha t w h i l s t l i c e n s e fees were l e s s than a quar te r h i g h e r , d e n s i t y of t ree growth there of ten ranged from f i f t y to over one hundred percent 30 h i g h e r , and had suggested lower ing I n t e r i o r r e n t a l s . That the Commission-ers d i d not mention t h i s problem can probably be exp la ined by t h e i r s t rong f e e l i n g that l i c e n s e fees should not be f i x e d f o r more than one year i n advance, and the f a c t tha t the implementat ion of such a sugges t ion would , of course , have l e d to an immediate l o s s of Crown revenues. - 83 -The Commissioners recognized that without adequate s t a t i s t i c s , t h i s thrust towards uniformity of tenure arrangements would be thwarted. Moreover, the compilation of comprehensive forest s t a t i s t i c s was to be part of the i n f r a s t r u c t u r e provided for the lumber industry by the government. The lack of forest s t a t i s t i c s had been made abundantly clear during the hearings: as they said i n L t h e i r R e p o r t s " t h e investigations 31 of your Commissioners have been hampered by the lack of r e l i a b l e data." To deal with t h i s problem, three proposals were put forward. It was suggested that a l l Crown grant -timber lands be' cruised thoroughly, the Commissioners pointing out that the government was l o s i n g revenues because the assessed taxation value of these lands was too far below t h e i r true 32 market value. The Commissioners also wished to ensure that operators furnished thorough returns concerning t h e i r businesses, with the information being systematically compiled. Neither returns nor compilation of data was 33 current p r a c t i c e . Proper returns would ensure the r e q u i s i t e r o y a l t y payments, and f u l l Crown forest revenues. L a s t l y , the Commissioners recommended enforcement of a 1905 amend-ment to the Land Act which required a l l licenses to be surveyed before any 34 part of any l i m i t was logged. By 1910 only 10% of licenses had been sur-veyed, hence the Commissioners could not be c e r t a i n which areas of the province had been alienated, a recurrent problem during the hearings. The Report discounted arguments that surveys would reveal such a degree of over-- 84 -l a p p i n g l i c e n s e s that many would be abandoned w i t h a subsequent l o s s i n Crown revenues. They po in ted out that surveys would a l s o d i s c l o s e where f r a c t i o n a l areas lay—something imposs ib l e to determine i n 1910— and would enable the Crown to compensate fo r the revenue l o s t by l i c e n s e 35 abandoment through s a l e of l i c e n s e s to cut on those f r a c t i o n a l a reas . The Report a l s o focused on two means of m a i n t a i n i n g a fu ture f low of Crown t imber revenues: c o n t r o l of l o g g i n g methods, and f i r e p r o t e c t i o n and p r e v e n t i o n . Methods employed i n l ogg ing opera t ions had a d i r e c t bea r ing both on Crown revenues, and on the f i r e hazard presented by those opera t ions d u r i n g , as w e l l as a f t e r the c u t t i n g of an a rea . To l e s s e n the f i r e r i s k , to prevent the c u l l i n g of s tands , and to maximize p o t e n t i a l Crown f o r e s t revenues from an a r ea , the Commissioners recommend-ed that merchantable t imber l e f t on s i t e a f t e r l o g g i n g be s c a l e d , and the 36 opera tor charged f u l l r o y a l t y on that wood. Furthermore, aga in to l e s s e n f i r e r i s k s , ;the Commission recommended that a l l d e b r i s l e f t a f t e r l ogg ing should be d isposed of by the ope ra to r . Th i s p r o v i s i o n was to apply to a l l l o g g i n g o p e r a t i o n s , whether on p r i v a t e or p u b l i c l a n d . I t i s important to note tha t t h i s l a s t sugges t ion was put forward s o l e l y i n the context of f i r e p r o t e c t i o n , and no th ing was s a i d aboutt.the p o s s i b l e b e n e f i c i a l or harmful e f f e c t s tha t d e b r i s might have on n a t u r a l regener-37 a t ion—about which so much time had been spent dur ing the hear ings because the Commissioners were p re -occup ied w i t h immediate fo re s t revenues, almost to the e x c l u s i o n of any longer - t e rm concern f o r r e f o r e s t a t i o n . - 85 -Four recommendations were made concerning f i r e p r o t e c t i o n and prevention. They were comprehensive and sprang d i r e c t l y from evidence received during the hearings. The Commissioners agreed with the bulk of witnesses that the government should pay for a large part 38 of f i r e protection i n f r a s t r u c t u r e . The costs of f i r e p r otection were to be borne equally by the government and by the holders of timber l i m i t s u n t i l the necessary surveys of timber lands had been c a r r i e d out. From that point on the government would pay the t o t a l cost of the pro-t e c t i o n of unalienated timber, and h a l f the protection costs f o r a l i e n -39 ated timber. The Commissioners also accepted the view of many I n t e r i o r witnesses that railways were often the major causes of f i r e s i n c e r t a i n 40 areas. Consequently, they recommended that railway companies and t h e i r operations be s t r i n g e n t l y supervised, the more so since a great deal of 41 railway construction was scheduled to begin i n the province. The Dominion Railway Commission had promised to help p r o v i n c i a l supervision of 42 the transcontinental railways. A further recommendation dealing with f i r e p r otection was that the government make a great e f f o r t to r a i s e public 43 awareness of the causes and implications of forest f i r e s . The f i n a l point on this matter was a suggestion that the government organize a f i r e p a t r o l system. Permanent rangers were to supervise f i r e wardens hired for the duration of each f i r e season. Rangers were to be given powers of 44 impressment to enable them quickly to h i r e s u f f i c i e n t men to f i g h t f i r e s . A l l four of these recommendations involved an assumption that the govern-ment would organize and pay for the greater part of f i r e protection, an idea drawn from previous p a r a l l e l developments i n other Canadian j u r i s -. 45 dictxons. - 86 -As a service to the lumber industry, and as a v e h i c l e to implement many of the changes outlined i n t h e i r Report, the Commissioners urged the creation of a Department of Forests, which would be under the con t r o l of the Chief Commissioner of Lands. The structure and functions of t h i s new Department were c l e a r l y set out i n the Report, and were akin to those of the United States Forest 46 Service. Under a Chief F o r e s t e r — " a f i r s t - c l a s s s c i e n t i f i c man, thoroughly w e l l q u a l i f i e d . . . a man of exceptional a b i l i t y " — w e r e to be a s t a t i s t i c i a n , an o f f i c e s t a f f , d i s t r i c t f o r e s t e r s , and l o c a l f o r est 47 rangers and f i r e wardens. Except for f i r e wardens, these o f f i c i a l s were to be f u l l - t i m e government employees, and none of them would be allowed to hold any timber rights or own any part of a logging or m i l l -r . 48 xng outfxt. The Department was to be responsible for implementing recommend-ations concerning the p r i c i n g and a l l o c a t i o n of fresh r i g h t s to cut Crown timber, lease and li c e n s e renewals; the o v e r a l l push towards uniformity and equality i n terms of access to Crown timber; c r u i s i n g , surveying, and gathering s t a t i s t i c s on a l l forms of timber i n the province; the super-v i s i o n of logging operations to ensure compliance with such cutt i n g regu-l a t i o n s as the government or the Department might make; increasing public 49 awareness; r e f o r e s t a t i o n ; and, of course, f i r e prevention and pro t e c t i o n . In t e r e s t i n g l y , not much had been said about the creation of a Department of Forests at the hearings. It seems, i n f a c t , to have been t a c i t l y assumed that one would be set up. - 87 -To finance the work of the Department of Forests, the Commission forwarded one other recommendation, which had broad i m p l i -cations. I t was suggested that the government create a s p e c i a l "Forest Sinking Fund" into which the government would deposit i t s whole 1910 income from f o r e s t s . Of any annual increment above the 1910 income the government was advised to set aside a proportion which would decline as the increment grew; namely, 40% of the f i r s t $500,000 above the 1910 income l e v e l , 20% of the next $250,000 above that l e v e l , 10% of the next $250,000 above that l e v e l , and 5% of any sum greater than that, i . e . 5% of any amount above $1,000,000. The model here seems to have been the United States Forest Service which, since 1905, had received a l l the revenues from the United States National Forests."^ This vast revenue was not only to be used for the mass of everyday matters f a l l i n g withinLthe purview of the Department, but also, and p a r t i c u l a r l y , on i n v e s t i g a t i v e work which would focus on r e f o r e s t a t i o n . The Report argued that in s e l l i n g c u t t i n g - r i g h t s the Crown was depleting i t s c a p i t a l stock. Thus, i t was but sound business p r a c t i c e to re-invest the income derived therefrom to provide for the replacement of that stock by ensuring the growth of a second and subsequent crop of trees."'"'" To put t h i s suggestion i n some sort of per-spective, i t should be noted that the Commissioners were asking the govern-ment to give up over a quarter of i t s annual Consolidated Revenues, and to apply this money s o l e l y to f o r e s t r y . In f i s c a l 1909-1910 the govern-ment spent 1.03% of i t s Consolidated Revenues on forest matters. In f i s c a l 1910-1911 the f i g u r e was 2.7%, and i n f i s c a l 1911-1912 i t was 1.9%. 5 2 - 88 -At the time of i t s release i n l a t e 1910, the Report was gener-53 a l l y well-received by the lumber industry, although l i t t l e commented upon by the newspapers. Later, the Report apparently gained wide currency 54 and went to a second p r i n t i n g . Some of i t s recommendations were quickly followed; others were already i n place before the Commission was ever set up; others waited over a year to be enacted i n the 1912 Forest Act; s t i l l others were never implemented. I t i s to t h i s process of enactment that we now turn, focusing primarily on the Forest Act. In early 1910 the government passed an amendment to the Land , Act."^ The section covering licenses contained two of the changes pro-posed i n the Interim Report. If the land of a li c e n s e was found to be suited and needed for a g r i c u l t u r e , the licensee could be ordered to remove the timber within a given length of time. This change constituted a further refinement i n the ongoing process of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between a g r i c u l t u r a l land and forest land. The more important part of the 1910 amendments made licenses renewable for as long as they contained merchant-56 able timber. As was anticipated by licensees, t h i s extension enhanced the security of tenure, and, therefore, the value of l i c e n s e s , but the costs of buying and holding B r i t i s h Columbia timber licenses remained, i n continental terms, r e l a t i v e l y inexpensive. A f t e r t h i s amendment was en-acted, M.J. Scanlon, the very prominent American lumberman who had exten-sive holdings i n B r i t i s h Columbia, ..put-it quite p l a i n l y : "I regard prudent investments i n B r i t i s h Columbia timber as unsurpassed by any other form of investment. At today's prices i t i s a better buy than i t was -.57 three years ago. - 89 -However, i t was not as a r e s u l t of due consideration of the Report that the amendment was enacted. Rather, i t stemmed from "a vigorous a g i t a t i o n among holders." The government had announced i n the (Spring) 1909 Session—before the Royal Commission was even a p p o i n t e d — 58 i t s i n t e n t i o n to extend the tenure of l i c e n s e s . I t appears that the Interim Report did not embody conclusions that the Commissioners had by themselves drawn from the evidence submitted before them. Rather, the Interim Report was, i n the main, a statement of what the McBride govern-ment wanted to hear, as shown by the following quote from a l e t t e r w r i t t e n 59 by Fulton and sent to Flumerfelt i n l a t e October 1909: I think i t would be decidedly better to get together...and decide on some general method of dealing with the whole subject, and .inuparticuJLarJwe might be able to come to a conclusion along c e r t a i n l i n e s as suggested by the Premier. I w i l l ask McBride...to make out and leave with me a memor-andum of the points, i f any, on which he would l i k e i f possible to have an interim report before the next Session. The Commission merely served as a sounding board to make sure that exten-sion would be a wise p o l i t i c a l move, and as 'rubber-stamp' for a d e c i s i o n which had already been taken. Furthermore, the manner i n which the terms of licenses were amended was not o r i g i n a l : both changes were conscious copies of i d e n t i c a l provisions i n Dominion licenses which had existed since 1 8 8 4 . 6 0 The 1912 Forest Act also incorporated many of the recommendations of the Report. However, to view the 1912 Act as an embodiment of the Report can be misleading. Such a perspective begs the question of the novelty of the recommendations, as contained i n the Act. In f a c t , many of both the Report's recommendations, and of the provisions of the Act had been on the - 90 -S ta tu te b o o k s — a l b e i t o f ten unenforced—almost ve rba t im even before the Commission was appo in ted . Other s e c t i o n s were but s t rengthened forms of former l e g i s l a t i o n . Were i t not fo r three important i n n o v a t i o n s , and subs t an t ive a l t e r a t i o n s of a few other s e c t i o n s , the Act would s tand h i s t o r i c a l l y more, as a s imple c o n s o l i d a t i o n of e x i s t i n g r e g u l a t i o n s . Moreover , even these three innova t ions were on ly such i n the B r i t i s h Columbia con tex t , having been l a r g e l y borrowed from other Nor th American j u r i s d i c t i o n s . The g rea te s t i n n o v a t i o n o u t l i n e d i n the Fores t Act was i n the p r o -v i s i o n of a s e r v i c e s i n f r a s t r u c t u r e f o r the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y ; namely, the c r e a t i o n of a P r o v i n c i a l Fores t Board , and a Fores t Branch . The Board was 61 made up of the Ch ie f Fo re s t e r and f i v e o ther f o r e s t r y o f f i c i a l s . I t s duty was "to ensure the c a r r y i n g i n t o e f f e c t and enforcement of the p r o -v i s i o n s of t h i s A c t . " Other than t h i s , the func t ions of the Board remained 6 2 u n s p e c i f i e d : i t s du t i e s were to be set down by O r d e r - i n - C o u n c i l . The Report p rov ides no i l l u m i n a t i o n , s i n c e i t had never mentioned such a body. I t appears tha t the du t i e s of the Fores t Board were to be i n the realm of o v e r a l l theory and p o l i c y , w h i l e those of the Fores t Branch were to be on the p r a c t i c a l and everyday s i d e . B r i t i s h Columbia ' s Fores t S e r v i c e was to be based on the Un i t ed S ta tes Fores t S e r v i c e , which had s i m i l a r d u t i e s and 63 o rgan i za txon . The Fores t Branch was to "have j u r i s d i c t i o n over a n d . . . c o n t r o l and admin i s te r a l l matters r e l a t i n g to and i n anywise connected w i t h f o r e s t r y . " - 91 -The Branch had many d u t i e s : i t was charged w i t h l o o k i n g a f t e r Crown t imber r i g h t s , a d m i n i s t e r i n g money r e c e i v e d therefrom, f i r e p r e v e n t i o n , r e f o r e s t a t i o n , d i s p o s a l of Crown t imber , " r e g u l a t i o n i n the t r a f f i c of t imber and l o g s , " and the enforcement of any r e g u l a t i o n s and laws p e r t a i n i n g 65 to f o r e s t r y . As had been recommended, none of i t s o f f i c i a l s was pe r -66 m i t t e d to own any t imber h o l d i n g s or m i l l s . However, an aspect of the c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the government and the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y was almost immediately ex-posed i n the o p e r a t i o n of the Fo re s t Branch . On the one hand was the government's d e s i r e to maximize i t s net f o r e s t revenues, on the other was the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y ' s w i sh fo r the government to spend a l a r g e pa r t of those revenues on a s e r v i c e s i n f r a s t r u c t u r e f o r that i n d u s t r y . Th i s c o n t r a -d i c t i o n was r e s o l v e d i n the government's f avour , so tha t from i t s very be-g inn ings the Branch was plagued w i t h u n d e r f i n a n c i n g . Cont rary to the R e p o r t ' s i dea of a "Fores t S i n k i n g Fund , " a l l p r o v i n c i a l f o r e s t income— save the f i r e p r o t e c t i o n revenues—was to be p a i d i n t o Conso l ida t ed 67 Revenues. Here we see the s t a r t of a t rend which has cont inued through to the present day: government f o r e s t o f f i c i a l s and departments have . always been unable to f u l f i l l p r o p e r l y the d u t i e s w i t h which they are charged, i f f o r no other reason than that they l acked c o n t i n u i t y of income, and have c o n s i s t e n t l y been u n d e r f u n d e d . ^ The other two innova t ions conta ined i n the Ac t were c e n t r a l to the work of the Fores t Branch: the d i s p o s a l of Crown t imber , should tha t be-come necessary , and f i r e p r o t e c t i o n . Whi le both se t s of arrangements were - 92 -new to the province, neither was o r i g i n a l . They were based on ex-perience drawn from Ontario, the Dominion, and the Federal Forest Reserves of the United States. Following the recommendations of the Report, the Act provided for competitive sale of cu t t i n g - r i g h t s to Crown timber. This new form of a l i e n a t i o n came^to be known as 'timber 69 s a l e s ' . As of 1911 timber licenses could no longer be issued, and, hence—apart from handloggers' licenses^-^afterV 11912'timber -salesu^ere, u n t i l 1947, the only procedure for the disposal of Crown timber.7""" Whereas the Commission had asked for i t s d e f i n i t i o n , the term ' f r a c t i o n a l area' was never even mentioned i n the Act, and so, the sole mechanism f or s e l l i n g the timber on those areas was also through timber sa l e s . For timber sales, the Forest Branch was to survey, c r u i s e , f i x an upset p r i c e , and advertise any area of timber to be sold. Each applicant had to tender a figure for a bonus, to be over and above the up-set price established, and provide a cash deposit of 10%. Deposits were refunded to a l l but the successful tenderer,.. The Minister of Lands, or an authorized government o f f i c i a l , had the d i s c r e t i o n to decide whether the bonus had to be tendered as an absolute sum, or per thousand board 72 feet. Although the Act did not prescribe the f i v e year time l i m i t for cutting that the Report had proposed, i n pr a c t i c e timber sales usually 73 did have a two or three year l i m i t imposed on them. As the Report acknowledged, the section of the Act covering timber sales had i t s o r i g i n s i n Ontario, i n the Dominion, and i n the U.S.A. 74 National Forests. Ontario had used t h i s system since 1843, the Dominion - 93 -since 1884, and the U.S.A. since 1905. Moreover,-legislation per-mitting the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works to o f f e r licenses for sale by public competition had been on the books i n B r i t i s h Columbia since early 1908, but because the moratorium was then i n place and be-cause there was no p r i c i n g mechanism set out, the clause had been • . 7 7 e s s e n t i a l l y inoperative. It i s important to note that whereas the Commission had recommend-ed timber sales be made by p u b l i c auction, the government chose the method of sealed tenders. In 1908 the Dominion government had dropped the tender system i n favour of "open bidding (which) res u l t e d i n very much 78 higher bonuses being paid." Ignoring the Commission's advise, and Dominion experience, the p r o v i n c i a l government opted for a system which, while increasing Crown forest revenues, was more favourable to buyers of B r i t i s h Columbian timber than s i m i l a r systems operating elsewhere. In a d d i t i o n to the supervision of timber sales, the Forest Branch was to provide f i r e protection, a service that private industry consider-ed most important. The work of the Forest Branch i n this area was c l e a r l y outlined i n the Act. The relevant sections were based both on the Report, and on previous l e g i s l a t i o n which was strengthened, e s p e c i a l l y i n regard to railways. The Act adopted the Commission's suggestion that the holders of timber lands and the Crown should bear equally the cost of f i r e pro-t e c t i o n . The Commissioners must have expected the Crown's share to come from the proposed Forest Sinking Fund. Rather than createcsuch a fund, the government chose to set up a smaller Forest Protection Fund. Licensees, - 94 -lessees, and owners of private timber land were to pay one cent per acre into the Fund. The government was to match this amount. The owners of timber sales would not have to contribute to the Fund. The Fund was to be used not only to f i g h t f i r e s , but also to b u i l d up services,.such as lookouts, telephones, t r a i l s , and roads so necessary 79 to prevent conflagrations. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , the f i r s t d r a f t of the Forest B i l l provided for a much broader f i r e protection assessment, covering a l l f o r e s t land. Lessees, licensees, and those owning Crown-granted forest land subject to r o y a l t i e s , were a l l to pay one cent per acre per annum. Those owning Crown-granted forest land which was not subject to r o y a l t i e s were to contribute an annual two cents per acre. In addition, those cutting on leased or licensed f o r e s t land, as w e l l as those operating on Crown-grant forest land subject to r o y a l t i e s , were to pay a further 2.5% per Mfbm cut. Those logging on Crown-granted forest land which was not subject to r o y a l -t i e s were to contribute an amount equal to 5% of the royalty c o l l e c t e d from 80 Crown grant f o r e s t land, which was subject to r o y a l t i e s . During debate on second reading of t h i s B i l l , Minister of Lands W.R. Ross j u s t i f i e d the extra assessment on lumbermen who were operating by pointing out that 81 logging i n , and of i t s e l f increased the hazard of f i r e . Presumably, the removal of the 2.5<: charge was one of the "few minor changes" suggested by delegations from the Coast Lumbermen and from the Mountain Lumber Manufact-82 u r e r s 1 Association, groups which generally l i k e d the B i l l . Since the government was i t s e l f to contribute for f i r e protection an amount equal to - 95 -tha t r a i s e d from p r i v a t e indus t ry , , i n the s h o r t - r u n the removal of the e x t r a assessment on those ope ra t ing saved the government i t s e l f a d d i t i o n a l f o r e s t expend i tu re s , something the government was, of course , anxious to do. Not on ly were lumbermen to pay on ly h a l f of the cos t s of p r o -t e c t i n g t h e i r l i m i t s , but i n a d d i t i o n the government undertook the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and running of the whole f i r e p r o t e c t i o n system. The Commission's adv ice as to the o r g a n i z a t i o n of a f i r e p a t r o l system was taken . The Fores t Branch would e n l i s t F i r e Wardens and "cons t ab l e s " 83 who were to be engaged i n both f i r e suppress ion and f i r e p r e v e n t i o n , and were charged w i t h en fo rc ing the v a r i o u s p r o v i s i o n s of the Act con-84 ce rn ing the s u p e r v i s i o n of r a i l w a y and l o g g i n g o p e r a t i o n s . I n acco rd -ance w i t h the wishes of the Commission, and f o l l o w i n g the p r a c t i c e of some American s t a t e s , government f o r e s t o f f i c i a l s were g iven broad powers 85 of impressment to he lp them f i g h t f i r e s . Another major recommendation of the Commission i n t h i s sphere had been tha t a l l opera tors be fo rced to d i spose of the s l a s h from t h e i r l ogg ing s i t e s . I f enac ted , such a p r o v i s i o n might w e l l have lessened government expendi ture on both f i r e p r o t e c t i o n and r e f o r e s t a t i o n . The c o n t r a d i c t i o n between the fo re s t i n d u s t r y ' s d e s i r e f o r cheap access to Crown t imber and minimal governmental r e g u l a t i o n of indus t ry 'S'mse of. the f o r e s t s , and the government's wish to avo id spending much on husbanding tha t r e sou rce , was i n t h i s case r e so lved i n favour of the i n d u s t r y and to - 96 -the detr iment of the r e sou rce . I n the Ac t the Commission's recommend-a t i o n was d i l u t e d to a p r o v i s i o n tha t opera tors had to d ispose of t h e i r s l a s h i f the P r o v i n c i a l Fores t Board or the M i n i s t e r cons idered such 86 s l a s h a f i r e hazard and d i r e c t e d tha t i t be d isposed o f . Ross commented lamely dur ing debate tha t fo rced s l a s h d i s p o s a l would be p r o -87 h i b i t i v e l y expensive fo r o p e r a t o r s , when he knew f u l l w e l l tha t i n the 88 U.S .A.—where stumpage cos ts were cons ide r ab ly h igher anyway — s l a s h 89 d i s p o s a l was o f ten mandatory. I n t h i s case, the government c l e a r l y showed that to save opera tors a minor cut i n p r o f i t s , and to save i t s e l f a s h o r t - r u n i nc r ea se i n f o r e s t expend i tu re s , the government was prepared to r i s k w a i t i n g u n t i l s l a s h posed a f i r e haza rd , r a the r than force removal of d e b r i s before i t cou ld become a haza rd . Desp i t e t h i s b a s i c weakness, Chie f P r o v i n c i a l F i r e Warden W.C. Gladwin c a l l e d the d e b r i s removal 90 s e c t i o n "one of the most important p r o v i s i o n s of the A c t . " H a l f a l o a f was b e t t e r than no b read . One r e g u l a t i o n cover ing l o g g i n g methods d i d manage to f i n d i t s way i n t o the A c t . The Commission's sugges t ion tha t a l l merchantable t imber not removed from any l o g g i n g s i t e sub jec t to r o y a l t y charges be 91 sca l ed and f u l l r o y a l t y charged on i t was accepted . Back of t h i s p r o -v i s i o n were three i deas : tha t stands be cut c l e a n , and as l i t t l e d e b r i s as p o s s i b l e be l e f t beh ind ; tha t sound t imber should not be wantonly wasted; and, above a l l , tha t uncut merchantable t imber meant l o s t Crown revenues. S i m i l a r r e g u l a t i o n s had been i n e f f e c t f o r s e v e r a l years i n 92 ' 93 Onta r io and Quebec. In the U . S . A . the government charged double the - 97 -normal stumpage not only on uncut merchantable timber, but, also, on 94 unnecessarily cut unmerchantable timber. , Another of the Commission's recommendations that was embodied i n the Act was the continuance of the 1907 moratorium on further alienations of Crown timber. A de facto Reserve of Crown timber had been created by th i s moratorium; the Forest Act c l a r i f i e d i t , and made the Reserve de jure. Henceforth, reserves were to be set aside " f o r the perpetual growing of timber." Neither land nor cu t t i n g - r i g h t s were i n future to be granted i n any reserve. P r o v i s i o n was made f o r the ex-change of lands- or rights previously alienated i n the areas l a t e r desigr-. nated as reserves for lands or r i g h t s i n areas outside reserves. Upon expiry, the land i n any lease or lice n s e was to be placed i n a reserve u n t i l i t had been examined by the Forest Branch. Reserves could only be 95 cancelled by an Order-in-Council. A continued reserve on unalienated Crown timber, of course, suited those holding alienated Crown timber because the reserve shut o f f the supply of fresh c u t t i n g - r i g h t s , and so, would increase the value of those r i g h t s already on the market. The Report's thrust towards uniformity of regulations was consciously r e f l e c t e d i n the Act. Speaking at the second reading, Ross s p e c i f i c a l l y stated that one of the aims of the Act was to further equality 96 i n tenures. The recommendation that Crown charges f o r cutting sawlogs on pulp or tanbark leases should be the same as charges for logging m i l l 97 timber from licenses was enacted. That the terms of leases should be made - 98 -98 as s i m i l a r as possible to those pertaining to licenses was accepted, and a section was also added allowing lessees to exchange t h e i r leases 99 for l i c e n s e s . The suggestion that no dividend i n t e r e s t i n a l i c e n s e be recognized found i t s way into the A c t . ^ ^ While the Commission had suggested that a l l licenses should be surveyed by December 31, 1915, the Act followed the time-honoured precedent of extending B r i t i s h Columbia forest deadlines, and set the date of March 31, 1918.''"^ "'" Not one year l a t e r , i n 1913, the deadline was extended i n d e f i n i t e l y , at 102 the d i s c r e t i o n of the Surveyor-General, and l e g i s l a t i o n on t h i s was 103 s t i l l being relaxed a decade l a t e r . A d i f f e r e n t aspect of the theme of uniformity was the need for more comprehensive f o r e s t data. Before the Report, few figures had 104 been systematically compiled. E x p l i c i t i n the Report, and i m p l i c i t i n the Act, was the idea that the Forest Branch would have a bureau of s t a t i s t i c s . The bureau was also a r e f l e c t i o n of the concept of govern-ment p r o v i s i o n of services for the lumber industry, and was to generate as well as compile s t a t i s t i c s on such matters as conservation, r e f o r e s t -ation, surveys and c r u i s e s . Since 1903 a l l operators had had to "keep correct books of account" covering t h e i r o p e r a t i o n s H o w e v e r , the lack of an organized Forest.Branch meant that nothing was done ei t h e r to en-sure that books were kept, nor to use figures that were gathered. Private research could furnish information on possible uses of B r i t i s h Columbia's fo r e s t s ; thus, i t was given token encouragement by a novel section i n the Act. A Special Order-in-Council could exempt from royalty payments a l l - 99 -wood used by any company to develop wood by-products. The Commission's most emphatic recommendation was accepted by the government. Contrary to overwhelming testimony given at the hearings, i n both the Interim Report and i n the F i n a l Report the Commission had strongly urged the government to r e t a i n i t s absolute r i g h t to a l t e r the terms of licenses from year to year. The 1912 Act 108 set l i c e n s e r o y a l t i e s of f i f t y cents per Mfbm, and l i c e n s e rentals 109 at $140 west, and $115 east, of the Cascades. As an Act of the Legislature, these fees could,.of^course, be changed whenever the House was i n Session. The v i c t o r y for government f l e x i b i l i t y was but b r i e f . Pressure from licensees did indeed prove overwhelming, and i n 1914 the McBride government gave i n . An amendment to the Forest Act increased the d i f f e r -ence between Coast and I n t e r i o r l i c e n s e rentals by f i x i n g rentals u n t i l 1954 at $140 west, and $100 east of the Cascades. In addition, the 1914 Act introduced a s l i d i n g - s c a l e f o r r o y a l t i e s based on the average wholesale pr i c e of lumber, and s e t t i n g out charges for every f i v e year period up to 1954.^"^ The balance between the government's short-term desire for high forest revenues with f l e x i b l e terms of tenure, and the industry's desire for long-run cheap access to the forest resource with great security of tenure was again .resolved i n favour of private industry. To circumvent the p o s s i b i l i t y of a future government amending the - 100 -A c t , and so changing the fees aga ins t the wishes of l i c e n s e e s , the schedule of fees up to 1954 was to be i n c l u d e d i n every l i c e n s e renewed a f t e r the passage of the 1914 Act.''""'""'" Th i s Act a l s o a l t e r e d the p r i c e 112 s t r u c t u r e of r o y a l t i e s by charg ing accord ing to grade, and these r i g i d new terms became pa r t of the con t r ac t between the Crown and the ho lde r of any g iven l i c e n s e . I r o n i c a l l y , the lumbermen's v i c t o r y was P y r r h i c . The r o y a l t y schedule was set i n terms of market p r i c e s for lumber, but d i d not take i n t o account p r o d u c t i o n c o s t s . Dur ing and a f t e r World War One, genera l i n f l a t i o n meant tha t both p roduc t ion cos ts and lumber p r i c e s rose ; so too d i d r o y a l t i e s , de sp i t e the f ac t that the gap between p roduc t ion cos t s and s e l l i n g p r i c e s had not widened. Hence, operators had to pay h ighe r r o y a l t i e s out of p r o f i t s which were i n r e a l terms no g rea te r than 113 be fo re . Such was the p r i c e of t h e i r p r ev ious greed. I n c o n t i n e n t a l terms, none o f the 1912 Fores t Ac t was i n n o v a t i v e . Whi le pa r t s of i t were new to B r i t i s h Columbia , f u l l y t h ree -qua r t e r s of the Act can be t r aced back to l e g i s l a t i o n which e x i s t e d even before the F u l t o n Commission was appointed i n mid-1909. Furthermore, those aspects of the Act that were new were to have s e r i o u s problems when a p p l i e d , main ly because of the ch ron i c l a c k of government i n t e r e s t i n anyth ing but d o l l a r s . Th i s problem was e x e m p l i f i e d i n the i s sue of u n d e r f i n a n c i n g . The Department of F o r e s t s ' i n i t i a l unde r f inanc ing was compounded by the wartime en l i s tmen t of many of i t s s t a f f , p a r t i c u l a r l y the f o r e s t e r s . Hence, i n v e s t i g a t i v e work and the sys temat ic c o m p i l a t i o n of s t a t i s t i c s proceeded f a r more s l o w l y than the Commission had envisaged , and was s e r i o u s l y to hamper the opera t ions of - 101 -the Department. The d i r e c t i o n of the Report had been towards u n i f o r m i t y , g rea te r knowledge of B r i t i s h Columbia ' s f o r e s t r e sources , and f l e x i -b i l i t y . A t l e a s t on paper, the Ac t d i d achieve a f a i r measure of u n i -f o r m i t y , c o n s i d e r i n g the p rev ious maze of tenures and r e g u l a t i o n s . However, i n p r a c t i c e th ings d i d not work out so smoothly, i n pa r t because of wartime p r e s su re s . Deadl ines were extended, and a l t e r e d , tenures a l lowed to l apse and much l a t e r be renewed almost at whim. A l s o l a c k i n g was the s t a t i s t i c a l base on which e q u a l i t y , u n i f o r m i t y , and l ong - run s t a b l e government f o r e s t revenues had needs r e s t . The d i f f i c u l t i e s that had been encountered w i t h the 1914 r o y a l t y schedule h i g h l i g h t e d another major problem. Without adequate knowledge of B r i t i s h Columbia ' s f o r e s t s , nor of fu ture market c o n d i t i o n s , the govern-ment had to r e t a i n f l e x i b i l i t y i n i t s approach i n order to reap the b e n e f i t s of Crown ownership. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the f l e x i b i l i t y o u t l i n e d i n the Act foreseeably proved too l o o s e . On the one hand, both the Report and the Ac t c o n s c i o u s l y l e f t government f o r e s t r y measures un fe t t e red for fu tu re gene ra t ions . On the o ther hand, n e i t h e r document set out any aims fo r the government to pursue. Throughout t h i s p e r i o d , even a f t e r the passage of the A c t , i t remained unc lea r what the government wanted from Crown f o r e s t s other than an immediate source of revenues. Dur ing debate on the second reading of the Fores t B i l l , M i n i s t e r of Lands W.R. Ross summed up the - 102 -government's o r i e n t a t i o n q u i t e s u c c i n c t l y : I n i t s main features i t (government f o r e s t p o l i c y ) stands by i t s e l f as the soundest , most e f f e c t i v e , most p r o f i t a b l e , and most convenient method of o b t a i n i n g a steady f low of revenue from the f o r e s t s that has been as yet evolved by any coun t ry . - 103 -FOOTNOTES: """Final Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Timber  and Forestry, 1909-1910, Fred J . Fulton, chair ( V i c t o r i a : King's P r i n t e r , 1910). (Hereafter r e f e r r e d to as Report.) 2 Interim Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Timber  and Forestry, 1909-1910. (Hereafter referred to as Interim Report.) Reprinted as pp. D77-78 of the Report. 3 B r i t i s h Columbia. Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia: 1912 ( V i c t o r i a : King's P r i n t e r , 1910), c. 17, "An Act respecting Forests and Crown Timber Lands, and the Conservation and Preservation of Standing Timber, and the Regulation of Commerce i n Timber and Products of the Forest." "This Act may be known and c i t e d as the 'Forest Act'," Forest Act 1912, s. 1. 4 Report, p. D78. 5 I b i d . , pp. D77-78. 6 I b i d . , pp. D78. 7The only other suggestion i n the Interim Report dealt with f i r e prevention. For the 1910 f i r e season the Commission asked the govern-ment to set aside double the amount allocated i n 1909. This was done. The Commission also gave notice of t h e i r i n t e n t i o n to recommend the creation of a Forestry Department. Both of these issues were dealt with more f u l l y , and at a l a t e r point, by the Commission. We s h a l l do l i k e -wise. g Report, p. D49. 9 See P r o v i n c i a l Archives of B r i t i s h Columbia (PABC), "Add. MSS" catalog, entry under "Fulton, Frederick John: B r i t i s h Columbia. Royal Commission of Inquiry on Timber and Forestry, 1909 O r i g i n a l s , 1909-10, 18cm.," v o l . 1, pp. 1-119, and v o l . 2, pp. 1-1112. C a l l number GR 271. (Hereafter referred to as Proceedings.) See, for example, T.F. Paterson, Proceedings, v o l . 2, p. 278; or F.S. Stevens, Proceedings, v o l . 2, p. 718. See chap. 3, above. - 104 -1 1Rep_ort, p. D49. 1 2 I b i d . , p. D50. 1 3 I b i d . , p. D49. 14 See example M.J. Scanlon, Proceedings, v o l . 2, p. 73; or Otis Staples, i b i d . , p. 849. ^Report, p. D66. 16 Report, p. D55; and also Proceedings, for example E. McGaffey, v o l . 2, pp. 139-41; or F.K. DuBois, Proceedings, v o l . 2, p. 980. "^John H. Cox, "Trade Associations i n the Lumber Industry i n the P a c i f i c Northwest, 1899-1914," P a c i f i c Northwest Quarterly 41 (October 1950): 288-308. 18 See M.R. MacLeod, "The Degree of Economic Concentration i n the B r i t i s h Columbia Forest Industry" (B.S.F. t h e s i s , Faculty of Forestry, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1971). 19 Report, p. D55. 20 T,., Ib i d . 21 See, for example, J.A. Sayward, Proceedings, v o l . 2, p. 134; or S.H. Bowman, i b i d . , p. 642. 22 Report, p. D55. 23 See, for example, R.J. Skinner, Proceedings, v o l . 2, p. 207; or J.S. Emerson, i b i d . , p. 331. 24 Report, p. D56. 2 5 I b i d . , p. D57. I b i d . 27T, Ibi d . - 105 -Ibid., pp. D50-54. 29 See e s p e c i a l l y t h e i r argument on equality between leases and l i c e n s e s ; i b i d . , p. D47. 30 See, for example, A.E. Watts, Proceedings, v o l . 2, p. 837; or Joseph Genelle, i b i d . , p. 985. 31 Report, p. D63. 3 2 I b i d . , p. D46. 3 3 I b i d . , pp. D63-64. 34 B r i t i s h Columbia. Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia: 1905, c. 33, s. 3(4). 35 Report, pp. D62-63. 3 6 I b i d . , p. D59. 37 See, for example, D.C. Cameron, Proceedings, v o l . 2, pp. 230-31; or C.F. Lindmark, i b i d . , pp. 668-69. 38 See, for example, M.B. C a r l i n , i b i d . , pp. 41-42; or W.C. Brewer, i b i d . , p . 616 . 39 Report, p. D61. 4^See, for example, Peter Lund, Proceedings, v o l . 2, p. 867; or D. MacDougal, i b i d . , p. 927. 41 Margaret A. Ormsby, B r i t i s h Columbia: a History, 2nd ed. (Toronto: MacMillan, 1976), pp. 355-56. 42 Report, pp. D61-62. 4 3 I b i d . , p. D62. 44 Ibid., pp. D60-61. - 106 -45 See chap. 2, above. 46 Elmo R. Richardson, The P o l i t i c s of Conservation: Crusades  and Controversies, 1897-1913 (Los Angeles: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1962), pp. 25-27. 47 Report, p. D67. 48 Ibid., p. D70. 49 Ibid., pp. D66-70. "^ M. Nelson McGeary, G i f f o r d Pinchot: F o r e s t e r - P o l i t i c i a n (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1960), p. 61. "'"'"Report, pp. D71-73. 52 Calculated from Report, p. D31; and H.N. Whitford and Roland D. Craig, Forests of B r i t i s h Columbia (Ottawa: Commission of Conservation, 1918), p. 120, and p. 124. 53 Western Lumberman, January 1911, p. 33, c. 1-2, and p. 36, c. 1. 54 Dai l y News-Advertiser (Vancouver), 25 January 1912, p. 13, c. 3. "'"'British Columbia. Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia: 1910, c. 28. "'^Ibid. , s .6. "'^Quoted i n Western Lumberman, January 1911, p. 34, c. 2; see also Ibid., January 1912, p. 33, c. 1; and Whitford and Craig, p. 156. 5 8 Report, p. D-49. 5 9PABC. F.J. Fulton to A.C. Flumerfelt, 22 October 1909, O f f i c i a l  Letterbooks. Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works, v o l . 9, "2nd July 1909 to 24th October 1909," p. 928. 6 Q R e p o r t , pp. D79-80. - 107 -6 1 F o r e s t Act, 1912, s.5. 62T, ., , Ib xd., s. 6. 63 Samuel P. Hays, Conservation and the Gospel of E f f i c i e n c y :  The Progressive Conservation Movement, 1890-1920 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959), pp. 27-28; and Richardson, pp. 25-27. 64 Forest Act, 1912, s.4(3). Ibxd. 6 6 I b i d . , s.4(5). 6 7 I b i d . , s.4(6). ^Timber Rights and Forest P o l i c y i n B r i t i s h Columbia: Report  of the Royal Commission on Forest Resources, Peter H. Pearse, Commissioner ( V i c t o r i a : Queen's P r i n t e r , 1976), v o l . 1, pp. 352-55. 69 B r i t i s h Columbia. Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia: 1911, c. 29, s.4. This' had been recommended i n the Report. 7^The Commissioners' recommendation that handloggers' licenses be abolished was not followed, and handloggers' licenses continued as a minor form of a l i e n a t i o n , but could only be issued by a s p e c i a l Order-in-Council. Forest Act 1912, s.31. 7 ^ I b i d . , s.10. 72 I b i d . , s.11. 73 B r i t i s h Columbia. Task Force on Crown Timber Disposal, Crown Charges for Early Timber Rights: Royalties and Other Levies for  Harvesting Rights on Timber Leases, Licenses and Berths i n B r i t i s h  Columbia: F i r s t Report of the Task Force on Crown Timber Disposal ( V i c t o r i a : Queen's P r i n t e r , 1974), p. 61. - 108 -74 Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, A History of Crown  Timber Regulations (Toronto: Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, 1957). Reprinted from The Annual Report of the Clerk of Forestry for  the Province of Ontario 1899 (Compiled with the assistance of Mr. Aubrey White, Deputy Minister of Lands and Forests, 1887-1915), p. 190. 7 5Canada. Revised Statutes (1886), v o l . 1, 49 V i c t . , c. 54, s.67; see also Report, p. D79. 76 McGeary, p. 61. 7 7 B r i t i s h Columbia. Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia: 1908, c. 30, s . 5 7 ( l ) . 7 8 Whitford and Craig, pp. 105-106. 7 9 F o r e s t Act, 1912, s.125. 80 ( L e g i s l a t i v e L i b r a r y ) : B i l l s 1912 ( V i c t o r i a : King's P r i n t e r , 1912). See B i l l no. 4: "An Act respecting Forest and Crown Timber Lands, and the Conservation and Preservation of Standing Timber, and the Regulation of Commerce i n Timber and Products of the Forest." Located i n the B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l L i b r a r y , V i c t o r i a , B r i t i s h Columbia. 81 Daily News-Advertiser (Vancouver), 21 January 1912, p. 2, c. 4; and Vernon News, 2 February 1912, p. 10, c. 6. 82 Daily News-Advertiser (Vancouver), 27 January 1912, p. 11, c. 4. Forest Act, 1912, s.125(3). 8 4 I b i d . , s.115, and s.124. 8 5 I b i d . , s.130. 8 f ^ I b i d . , s.123, -and s.124. 87 Daily News-Advertiser (Vancouver), 26 January 1912, p. 13, c. 1. 88 Western Lumberman, January 1912, p. 33, c. 1; and Whitford and Craig, p. 156. - 109 -89 Report, p. D89; and Daily News-Advertiser (Vancouver), 26 January 1912, p. 5, c. 2. 90 Writing i n the Western Lumberman, August 1912, p. 59, c. 1. Ql Forest Act, 1912, s . 5 8 ( l ) . 92 Report, p. D83. 9 3 I b i d . , p. D85. 9 4 I b i d . , p. D89, and p. D91. 95 Forest Act, 1912, s.12. 96 Vernon News, 1 February 1912, p. 10, c. 6. 9 7 F o r e s t Act, 1912, s.11(b). (That i s , the second s.11(b)—there are two of them i n t h i s Act!) 98 I b i d . , s.14. 99 Ib i d . , s.15. 100 T t . , 0 Q Ibid., s.28. 1 0 1 I b i d . , s . 2 5 ( l ) . 102 B r i t i s h Columbia. Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia: 1913, c. 26, s.7. 103 Report of the Commission r e l a t i n g to the Forest Resources of  B r i t i s h Columbia, Honourable Gordon McG. Sloan, Commissioner ( V i c t o r i a : King's P r i n t e r , 1945), p. Q95. ^ 4 W h i t f o r d and Craig, p. 116. Forest Act 1912, s.4(3) . - 110 -1 C\f\ B r i t i s h Columbia. Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia: 1903, c. 30, s.12. 1 0 7 F o r e s t Act, 1912, s.58(5). 1 0 8 I b i d . , s . 5 8 ( l ) . 1 (ID Ibid.; "east" included the A t l i n e l e c t o r a l d i s t r i c t , presumably because the density of tree growth there i s markedly lower than elsewhere west of the Cascades. " ^ B r i t i s h Columbia. Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia: 1914, c. 76, s.18; and Forest Act, 1912, s.6-14. "''"'""'"British Columbia. Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia: 1914, c. 76, s.28. 112 Ibid., s.6, and the attached schedule. Task Force on Crown Timber Disposal, F i r s t Report, p. 20. ^ ^ D a i l y Colonist ( V i c t o r i a ) , 24 January 1912, p. 1, c. 1. - I l l -CONCLUSION The McBride government's i n t e r e s t i n B r i t i s h Columbia f o r e s t s on ly extended as f a r as i n c r e a s i n g government f o r e s t revenues wi thou t unduly hampering the development of the p r o v i n c i a l f o r e s t i n d u s t r y . The ci rcumstances sur rounding the appointment of the F u l t o n Royal Commission, the o p e r a t i o n and Report of that Commission, and the sub-sequent Fores t Act of 1912, a l l bear test imony to the l i m i t e d nature of that i n t e r e s t . The government's o v e r r i d i n g concern w i t h Crown fo re s t revenues l e d i t to make more a t t r a c t i v e the commodity i t was s e l l i n g , namely, c u t t i n g - r i g h t s to Crown t imber . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , but p r e d i c t a b l y , the r e s o l u t i o n of the c o n t r a d i c t i o n between the government's d e s i r e fo r f o r e s t revenues, and the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y ' s d e s i r e fo r p r o f i t s , prec luded long- te rm concern fo r the resource base . By the time of the December 1907 moratorium on fu r the r a l i e n a t i o n , c u t t i n g - r i g h t s to approximate ly 10,000,000 acres of Crown f o r e s t l and had been a l i e n a t e d . I t i s important to note that over 90% of these c u t t i n g --v 1 r i g h t s were h e l d as t imber l i c e n s e s , the remainder be ing h e l d as l e a s e s . Timber l i c e n s e s accounted f o r a very l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of Crown f o r e s t revenues, f o r e s t revenues i n tu rn never account ing for l e s s than 20% of 2 t o t a l Crown revenues from 1905 u n t i l a f t e r World War 1. S ince t imber l i c e n s e s were annua l ly renewable, to avo id l a r g e numbers of t imber l i c e n s e s be ing surrendered—and the consequent drop i n Crown revenues—the government had to m a i n t a i n the a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of l i c e n s e s qua commodit ies. - 112 -The McBride a d m i n i s t r a t i o n employed s e v e r a l techniques to inc rease and ma in t a in the a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of t imber l i c e n s e s . Changes in t roduced i n 1905 transformed l i c e n s e s i n t o commodities by a b o l i s h i n g the prev ious r e s t r i c t i o n s both on the number of l i c e n s e s an i n d i v i d u a l cou ld h o l d , and on the t rans fe rance or s a l e of a l i c e n s e to a t h i r d p a r t y . The 1905 changes a l s o inc reased l i c e n s e e s ' s e c u r i t y of tenure from 5 to 21 y e a r s . The r e s u l t of those changes was that the number of 3 l i c e n s e s i n good s tand ing rose more than t e n f o l d i n j u s t two y e a r s . I n c r e a s i n g l i c e n s e e s ' s e c u r i t y of tenure—and, t h e r e f o r e , the a t t r a c t i v e -ness of h o l d i n g Crown timber—was the impetus behind the d e c i s i o n i n 1909 4 to make l i c e n s e s renewable as long as they conta ined merchantable t imber . Another method used to m a i n t a i n the a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of ho ld ings of Crown t imber was to p rov ide l e g a l access to that t imber at a low and s t a b l e c o s t . Much of the F u l t o n Commission's hear ings had been taken up_ w i t h the q u e s t i o n of f i x i n g l i c e n s e r o y a l t y and r e n t a l charges fo r f i v e or more years i n advance, r a t h e r than from year to year as was then the case . Licensees favoured some f i x i t y , the Commission d i d not , "and nor i n 1912 d i d the government. However, as we have seen, i n 1914, i n a move designed to b o l s t e r the a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of h o l d i n g l i c e n s e s i n a depressed economy, the government adopted a formula s e t t i n g l i c e n s e fees f o r the next f o r t y y e a r s . The cos t of access to Crown t imber was a l s o , i n p a r t , determined by the o b l i g a t i o n s imposed upon ho lde r s r ega rd ing such mat ters as f i r e p r o -- 113 -t e c t i o n and l o g g i n g r e g u l a t i o n s . In the s h o r t - r u n the more f i r e p r o -t e c t i o n was p rov ided by the government, and the l e s s l o g g i n g methods were government-regula ted, the more a t t r a c t i v e and p r o f i t a b l e h o l d i n g s of Crown t imber were . Hence, the government's c o n s i s t e n t p r a c t i c e was the min imal r e g u l a t i o n of the i n d u s t r y , combined w i t h the i n c r e a s i n g p r o v i s i o n of c e r t a i n s e r v i c e s . For example, a l though the Commission had recommended that l o g g i n g methods be r e g u l a t e d , s p e c i f i c a l l y suggest-i n g tha t s l a s h d i s p o s a l be compulsory, operators were ab le to convince the government that such r e g u l a t i o n would be p r o h i b i t i v e l y expens ive , and so . the recommendation was not implemented. The recommendations cove r ing f i r e p r o t e c t i o n were implemented, but on ly because, w h i l e they upped the cos t of h o l d i n g Crown t imber very s l i g h t l y (5% to 6%), the r e t u r n to lumbermen i n terms of a necessary s e r v i c e more than adequately compensated them f o r the a d d i t i o n a l annual charge of one cent per a c r e . Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , where the recommendations s u i t e d the i n d u s t r y they were accepted by the government, but i n the few ins tances such as l o g g i n g r e g u l a t i o n s where the recommendations of the Commission d i d not s u i t the i n d u s t r y , they were not adopted. The p r a c t i c e of min imal government r e g u l a t i o n has e s p e c i a l s i g n i f -icance i n r e l a t i o n to the ques t ion of c o n s e r v a t i o n , a concept much d i s -cussed towards the end of the f i r s t decade of the twen t i e th cen tu ry . Con-s e r v a t i o n was used as a l e v e r to pry from the government, v i a the F u l t o n Commission, fu r the r concess ions , most no tab ly the 1910 ex tens ion of the tenure of t imber l i c e n s e s . L icensees argued that i f t h e i r l i c e n s e s were - 114 -a l l to e x p i r e a f t e r 21 y e a r s , u n t i l tha t p o i n t stands would be s laughtered fo r on ly t h e i r f i n e s t t imber , a w a s t e f u l p r a c t i c e . I n f a c t , of course , they were i n t e r e s t e d i n extending the tenure of t h e i r l i c e n s e s not because of c o n s e r v a t i o n , but because ex tens ion would i n -crease the va lue of those l i c e n s e s . When at the hear ings a r e a l con-s e r v a t i o n i s s u e , such as s l a s h d i s p o s a l , came up i t was seldom t a l k e d of i n terms of c o n s e r v a t i o n , but r a the r i n terms of c o s t , thereby underscor ing the impress ion tha t the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y was not the s l i g h t e s t b i t i n t e r e s t e d i n c o n s e r v a t i o n , save as a l e v e r and as a propaganda t o o l . The government p r e f e r r e d minimum r e g u l a t i o n to conser -v a t i o n f o r two reasons . Minimum r e g u l a t i o n and l a c k of measures promoting conse rva t ion made h o l d i n g s of Crown timber cheaper and more a t t r a c t i v e to the i n d u s t r y . A l s o , that absence of r e g u l a t i o n s and conse rva t i on measures made l o o k i n g a f t e r Crown f o r e s t s cheaper and e a s i e r f o r the government i t s e l f , as l e s s Crown revenues would have to be expended on a government s t a f f to superv i se the implementat ion of conse rva t i on p r a c t i c e s . Fores t f i r e s was the one area of conse rva t i on t ha t , by 1910, ne i t he r the government nor the^ i r idus t ry cou ld a f f o r d to i g n o r e , p r e c i s e l y because f i r e had a p a l p a b l e , immediate impact on the f o r e s t r e sou rce . P r o v i d i n g f i r e p r o t e c t i o n was par t of the p o l i c y of making h o l d i n g s of Crown t imber a t t r a c t i v e , but even i n the area of f i r e p r o t e c t i o n a cheap compromise was reached. The government had planned to charge operators more than non-operators—because l o g g i n g posed more of a f i r e hazard—and, then to match that t o t a l l e v y . I n s t ead , the government was persuaded to - 115 -charge a low f l a t rate equally to a l l holders of Crown timber. This saved the government i t s e l f money because i t had to match a lower levy. Here again we see the government balancing short-run p r o f i t s f o r industry and net fo r e s t revenue for the government to the advantage of the former, and to the detriment of the resource base. In an examination of p r o v i n c i a l f o r e s t r y arrangements i n B r i t i s h Columbia two other points stand out: the 1912 Forest Act was not "unique" as Robert E. C a i l claimed,'' e i t h e r i n terms of previous p r o v i n c i a l p r a c t i c e , or i n terms of continental developments, e s p e c i a l l y i n Eastern Canada. I f anything, the reverse was the case, as the province borrowed most of i t s f o r e s t r y l e g i s l a t i o n from other j u r i s -d i c t i o n s . Just as timber l e g i s l a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia was not unique, neither was the Report of the Fulton Royal Commission seminal. As with most Royal Commissions, i t was appointed to elaborate on, and to j u s t i f y p o l i t i c a l l y , changes which had already been decided upon by the government; for example, the extension of the tenure of timber l i c e n s e s . Unfortunately for the government t h e i r Commissioners seized upon a current fashion, becoming a l i t t l e too interested i n conservation. The government triumphed over t h i s obstacle by the d i l u t i o n or non-implementation of the Commission-ers' recommendations i n that sphere, and through the dexterous i n c l u s i o n of the word "Conservation" i n the f u l l t i t l e of the 1912 Forest Act. Conservation of forests does not, however, simply mean protection from f i r e of e x i s t i n g timber—which was a l l the McBride administration took - 116 -i t to mean—but r a the r the a p p l i c a t i o n of the concept of s c i e n t i f i c management of the f o r e s t resource base. Without the consent of the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y , however, n e i t h e r conse rva t ion nor s c i e n t i f i c management of the f o r e s t resource base could be put i n t o e f f e c t , because of the McBride government's extreme dependence on h i g h net f o r e s t revenues to f inance i t s p u b l i c works a c t i v i t i e s . This dependence made the government more beholden to the lumber i n d u s t r y than v i c e v e r s a . Hence, that government f e l t fo rced to comply—whether i t wished to or n o t — w i t h p r i v a t e i n d u s t r y ' s sho r t - t e rm p r o f i t - o r i e n t e d d e s i r e s , fo r fear of d i s -p l e a s i n g i n d u s t r y , and l o s i n g the Crown's major source of revenue. - 117 -FOOTNOTES: "^Calculated from F i n a l Report of the Roya l Commission of  I nqu i ry on Timber and F o r e s t r y , 1909-1910, Fred J . F u l t o n , c h a i r ( V i c t o r i a : K i n g ' s P r i n t e r , 1910), p . D23, and p . D27. 2 C a l c u l a t e d from B r i t i s h Columbia, B r i t i s h Columbia i n the  Canadian Confedera t ion : a Submission Presented to the Royal Commission  on D o m i n i o n - P r o v i n c i a l R e l a t i o n s by the Government of the P rov ince of  B r i t i s h Columbia ( V i c t o r i a : K i n g ' s P r i n t e r , 1938), pp. 243-47, t ab l e 124. 3 See chap. 2, above. 4 See chap. 4, above. ~*Land, Man, and the Law: the D i s p o s a l of Crown Lands i n B r i t i s h  Columbia, 1871-1913 (Vancouver: U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia P r e s s , 1974), p . 91 , and p . 96 . B r i t i s h Columbia . S ta tu tes of B r i t i s h Columbia: 1912 ( V i c t o r i a : K i n g ' s P r i n t e r , 1912), c . 17, "An Act r e s p e c t i n g Fores t s and Crown Timber Lands, and the Conserva t ion and P r e s e r v a t i o n of Standing Timber, and the R e g u l a t i o n of Commerce i n Timber and Products of the F o r e s t . " - 118 -SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS: C a i l , Robert E. Land, Man, and the Law: the Disposal of Crown Lands i n B r i t i s h Columbia, 1871-1913. Vancouver: University of B r i t i s h Columbia Press, 1974. Grainger, M.A. Woodsmen of the West. 2nd ed. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1964. Hayes, Samuel P. Conservation and the Gospel of E f f i c i e n c y : the  Progressive Conservation Movement, 1890-1920. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959. Henderson's B r i t i s h Columbia Gazetteer and Directory. Vancouver: Henderson's, 1910. La Forest, Gerard V. Natural Resources and Public Property Under the  Canadian Constitution. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969. McGeary, M. Nelson. G i f f o r d Pinchot: F o r e s t e r - P o l i t i c i a n , Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1960. Mandel, Ernest. Marxist Economic Theory. London, England: M e r l i n Press, 1974. Nelles, H.V. The P o l i t i c s of Development: Forests, Mines, and Hydro- e l e c t r i c power i n Ontario, 1849-1941. Toronto: MacMillan, 1974. Ormsby, Margaret A. B r i t i s h Columbia: a History. 2nd ed. Toronto: MacMillan, 1976. Parker, Charles Whately. Who's Who and Why. Vancouver: Canadian Press Association, 1911. Richardson, Elmo R. The P o l i t i c s of Conservation: Crusades and Controversies, 1897-1913. Los Angeles: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1962. Robin, Martin. The Rush for S p o i l s : the Company Province, 1871-1933. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1972. Taylor, G.W. Timber: History of the Forest Industry i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Vancouver: J . J . Douglas, 1975. Turabian, Kate L. Student's Guide f o r Writing College Papers. 2nd ed., revised. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969. Urquhart, M.C., and Buckley, Kenneth A.H., eds. H i s t o r i c a l S t a t i s t i c s of Canada. Toronto: MacMillan, 1965. - 119 -BOOKS: Whitford, H.N., and Craig, Roland D. Forest Resources of B r i t i s h  Columbia. Ottawa: Commission of Conservation, 1918. ARTICLES: Chambers, E.T.D. "Forest Resources." i n Province of Quebec, v o l . 16 of Canada and Its Provinces, edited by Adam Shortt and A.G. Doughty. 23 v o l s . Toronto: Publishers' Association of • Canada, 1914. Cox, John H. "Trade Associations i n the Lumber Industry i n the P a c i f i c Northwest, 1899-1914." P a c i f i c Northwest Quarterly 41 (October 1950)T 285-311. Dobie, Edith. "Party History i n B r i t i s h Columbia, 1903-1933." i n H i s t o r i c a l Essays on B r i t i s h Columbia, edited by J . Friesen and H.K. Ralston. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1976. Dobie, Edith. "Some Aspects of Party History i n B r i t i s h Columbia, 1871-1903." P a c i f i c H i s t o r i c a l Review 1 ( A p r i l 1932): 235-51. Dodds, Gordon B. "The Historiography of American Conservation." P a c i f i c Northwest Quarterly 56 ( A p r i l 1965): 75-81. Fernow, B.E. "Forest Resources and Forestry." In Province of Ontario. v o l . 18 of Canada and Its Provinces, edited by Adam Shortt and A.G. Doughty. 23 v o l s . Toronto: Publishers' Association of Canada, 1914. Flumerfelt, A.C. "Forest Resources." i n P a c i f i c Province, v o l . 22 of Canada and Its Provinces, edited by Adam Shortt and A.G. Doughty. 23 v o l s . Toronto: Publishers' Association of Canada, 1914. Howay, F.W. "The Settlement and Progress of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1871-1914." i n H i s t o r i c a l Essays on B r i t i s h Columbia, edited by T. Friesen and H.K. Ralston. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1976. McGeary, M. Nelson. "Pinchot's Contributions to American Forestry." Forest History 4 (Summer 1961): 2-5. Pinchot, G i f f o r d . "How Conservation Began i n the United States." A g r i c u l t u r a l History 11 (October 1937): 255-65. - 120 -ARTICLES: Reid, Keith, and Weaver, Don. "Aspects of the P o l i t i c a l Economy of the B.C. Forest Industry." i n Essays i n B.C. P o l i t i c a l  Economy, edited by Paul Knox and P h i l l i p Resnick. Vancouver: New Star Books, 1974. Sage, W.N. "Federal P a r t i e s and P r o v i n c i a l P o l i t i c a l Groups i n B r i t i s h Columbia, 1871-1903." B r i t i s h Columbia H i s t o r i c a l  Quarterly 12 ( A p r i l 1948): 151-69. Smith, H.A. "The Early Forestry Movement i n the United States." A g r i c u l t u r a l History 12 (October 1938): 326-46. THESES: Anderson, D.E. "The Growth of Organized Labor i n the Early Lumber Industry of B r i t i s h Columbia." B.A. essay, Department of Economics and P o l i t i c a l Science, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1944. Bryce, Murray D. "The Finances of the Government of B r i t i s h Columbia (1866-1946)." B.A. essay, Department of Economics, P o l i t i c a l Science, arid Sociology, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1949. E l l i s o n , Thomas Duncan. "The H i s t o r i c a l Development of the Forest P o l i c y of the Government of the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, as seen i n the Statutes." B.A. essay, Department of History, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1962. Heaps, Terry. "B.C. Timber 1888-1914: an Exhaustible Resource." MS, av a i l a b l e from the author, Department of Economics, Univ e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. K e l l y , E l i z a b e t h F. "Aspects of Forest Resource Use P o l i c i e s and Administration i n B r i t i s h Columbia." Master's t h e s i s , Department of P o l i t i c a l Science, University of B r i t i s h Columbia. 1976. Lawrence, .Joseph ,C. "Markets and C a p i t a l : a History of the Lumber Industry of B r i t i s h Columbia (1778-1952)." Master's t h e s i s , Department of History, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1957. McCarter, Ken. "Party Platforms and Manifestos i n B.C." MS i n the Special C o l l e c t i o n s D i v i s i o n of the University of B r i t i s h Columbia Library, 1976. - 121 -THESES: McDonald, Robert A. - J . "Business Leaders i n Early Vancouver, 1886-1914." Ph.D. t h e s i s , Department of History, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1977. MacLeod, M.R. "The Degree of Economic Concentration i n the B r i t i s h Columbia Forest Industry." B.S.F. th e s i s , Faculty of Forestry, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1971. Smith, Brian R.D. " S i r Richard McBride: a Study i n the Conservative Party of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1903-1916." Master's t h e s i s , Department of P o l i t i c a l Science, Queen's University, 1959. Yerburgh, Richard E.M. "An Economic History of Forestry i n B r i t i s h Columbia." Master's thes i s , Department of History, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1931. GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS: B r i t i s h Columbia. B i l l s 1912. V i c t o r i a : King's P r i n t e r , 1912. B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l L i b r a r y . B r i t i s h Columbia. B r i t i s h Columbia i n the Canadian Confederation: a Submission Presented to the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial  Relations by the Government of the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. V i c t o r i a : King's P r i n t e r s , 1938. B r i t i s h Columbia. L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly. "Sessional c l i p p i n g books." B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l L i b r a r y . B r i t i s h Columbia. Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia: 1903-4. V i c t o r i a : King ' s P r i n t e r , 1904". , B r i t i s h Columbia. Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia: 1905. V i c t o r i a : King's P r i n t e r , 1905. B r i t i s h Columbia. Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia: 1908. V i c t o r i a : King's P r i n t e r , 1908. B r i t i s h Co lumb i a . Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia: 1910. V i c t o r i a : King's P r i n t e r , 1910. B r i t i s h Columb i a . Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia: 1912. V i c t o r i a : King's P r i n t e r , 1912. B r i t i s h Columbia. Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia: 1913. V i c t o r i a : King's P r i n t e r , 1913. - 122 -GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS: B r i t i s h Columbia. Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia: 1914. V i c t o r i a : King's P r i n t e r , 1914. B r i t i s h Columbia. Task Force on Crown Timber Disposal. Crown Charges f or Early Timber Rights: Royalties and Other  Levies f o r Harvesting Rights on Timber Leases, Licenses and  Berths i n B r i t i s h Columbia: F i r s t Report of the Task Force  on Crown Timber Disposal. V i c t o r i a : Queen's P r i n t e r , 1974. B r i t i s h Columbia. Task Force on Crown Timber Disposal. Forest Tenures i n B r i t i s h Columbia. V i c t o r i a : Queen's P r i n t e r , 1974. Canada: 1867-1939. v o l . 1 of Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial  Relations. N.J. Rowell and R. S i r o i s , chairs. 3 v o l s . Ottawa: King's P r i n t e r , 1940. Canada. Revised Statutes (1886), v o l . 1, 49 V i c t . , c. 54. F i n a l Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Timber and Forestry, 1909-1910. Fred J . Fulton, chair. V i c t o r i a : King's P r i n t e r , 19 O f f i c i a l Letterbooks. Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works. P r o v i n c i a l Archives of B r i t i s h Columbia. Ontario. Department of Lands and Forests. A History of Crown Timber Regulations. Toronto: Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, 1957. Reprinted from The Annual Report of the Clerk of Forestry  f o r the Province of Ontario, 1899. Premier. Letterbook. O f f i c i a l . "November 24, 1904-May 1, 1906." P r o v i n c i a l Archives of B r i t i s h Columbia. Premier's Papers. Correspondence Inward (McBride). P r o v i n c i a l Archives of B r i t i s h Columbia. P r o v i n c i a l Archives of B r i t i s h Columbia. Add MSS catalog. "Fulton, Frederick John: B r i t i s h Columbia. Royal Commission of Inquiry on Timber and Forestry, 1909 O r i g i n a l s , 1909-10, 18cm." 2 v o l s . C a l l Number (PABC) GR 271. Pr o v i n c i a l Archives of B r i t i s h Columbia. ' V e r t i c a l F i l e s ' . Report of the Commissioner r e l a t i n g to the Forest Resources of B r i t i s h  Columbia. Honourable Gordon McG. Sloan, Commissioner. 2 v o l s . V i c t o r i a : Queen's Pr i n t e r , 1956. - 123 -GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS: Report of the Commission r e l a t i n g to the Forest Resources of B r i t i s h  Columbia. Honourable Gordon McG. Sloan, Commissioner. V i c t o r i a : King's P r i n t e r , 1945. Timber Rights and Forest P o l i c y i n B r i t i s h Columbia: Report of the  Royal Commission on Forest Resources. Peter H. Pearse, Commissioner. 2 v o l s . V i c t o r i a : Queen's P r i n t e r , 1976. NEWSPAPERS AND JOURNALS: Daily Colonist ( V i c t o r i a ) . D a i l y News-Advertiser (Vancouver). Daily Times ( V i c t o r i a ) . Daily World (Vancouver). Grand Forks Gazette. Inland Sentinel (Vancouver). Kamloops Standard. Semi-Weekly World (Vancouver). Vernon Times. Weekly News-Advertiser (Vancouver). Western Lumberman. Vancouver and Winnipeg: Hugh C. MacLean Co. Ltd. 1904- . Before October 1908, t h i s journal was also published under the successive names of B r i t i s h Columbia Lumberman; Lumberman and Contractor; and Western Canada Lumberman. BIBLIOGRAPHIES: B r i t i s h Columbia. U n i v e r s i t y . Faculty of Forestry. "U.B.C. Theses i n Forestry and Related Subject F i e l d s . " MS Uni v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Library, 1968. - 124 -BIBLIOGRAPHIES: Davis, Richard C. North American Forest History: a Guide to Archives  and Manuscripts i n the United States and Canada. Santa Barbara: C l i o Books, 1977. Fahl, Ronald J . North American Forest and Conservation History: a  Bibliography. Santa Barbara: C l i o Books, 1977. Holmes, Marjorie C. Publications of the Government of B r i t i s h Columbia. V i c t o r i a : King's P r i n t e r , 1950. Holmes, Marjorie C. Royal Commissions i n B r i t i s h Columbia. V i c t o r i a : King's P r i n t e r , 1945. Smith, Anne M. "Canadian Theses i n Forestry and Related Subject F i e l d s , 1913-1962." Forestry Chronicle 38 (September 1962): 376-400. Timmer, V., et a l . "Canadian Theses i n Forestry and Related Subject F i e l d s , 1963-1967." Forestry Chronicle 44 (October 1968): 39-42. - 125 -APPENDIX A GLOSSARY OF COMMON TERMS: ' b e r t h s ' - areas of Crown t imber l and h e l d by i n d i v i d u a l s or companies, 'board f o o t ' - a measure of lumber of l o g s , denot ing the volume of a p i ece of wood 12" x 12" x 1" (see a l s o ' f b m ' ) . ' C o a s t ' - l and l y i n g to the west of an imaginary l i n e drawn a long the summit of the. Cascade mountain range. 'Crown grant l a n d ' - l and s o l d or g iven away by the Crown. - an assessment of the volume of t imber w i t h i n a g i v e n s t a n d , c a r r i e d out by a sampling method. ' c u l l i n g ' - s e p a r a t i n g the sound logs from the unsound ones. ' f r a c t i o n a l a reas ' - s m a l l areas of Crown t imber l and l y i n g between l a r g e r areas of Crown t imber l and which were h e l d under l i c e n s e or l e a s e . *fbm' - foot board measure (see a l s o 'board f o o t ' ) ' hand loggers ' l i c e n s e ' - a l i c e n s e to cut t imber on an u n s p e c i f i e d area of una l i ena t ed Crown t imber l a n d , f o r a f l a t fee per annum; use of steam-powered l ogg ing machinery f o r b i d d e n . ' I n t e r i o r ' - l and l y i n g to the east of an imaginary l i n e drawn along the summit of the Cascade mountain range. ' l e a s e s ' - areas of Crown t imber land h e l d under r e n t a l from the Crown; the l e ssee was o b l i g e d e i t h e r to cons t ruc t and operate an appurtenant m i l l , or to pay a h igher r e n t a l ; r o y a l t i e s were a l s o charged per Mfbm of t imber cut from areas under l e a s e . ' l i c e n s e s ' - see ' t imber l i c e n s e s ' , and ' hand loggers ' l i c e n s e s ' . - 126 -' l i m i t s ' - areas of Crown t imber l and h e l d by i n d i v i d u a l s or companies. 'merchantable t imbe r ' - s t and ing t imber which i t would be p r o f i t a b l e to l o g . 'Mfbm' - one thousand board f e e t , ' r e n t a l s ' - amount p a i d per acre on l e a s e s , and per 640 or 1,000 acres on t imber l i c e n s e s . ' r o y a l t y ' - amount of tax per Mfbm of l ogs a r r i v i n g at a m i l l , payable on logs cut from t imber l e a s e s , t imber l i c e n s e s , t imber s a l e s , hand loggers ' l i c e n s e s , and l and Crown-granted a f t e r 1887. ' s c a l i n g ' - measuring the fbm of a l o g . ' s l a s h ' - wood d e b r i s l e f t on s i t e a f t e r l o g g i n g . ' s t a k i n g ' - a means of a l l o c a t i n g . t i m b e r l i c e n s e s : the p r o s p e c t i v e l i c e n s e e s imply drove a s take i n t o one corner of a sqaure m i l e a r ea of t imber , and a p p l i e d to V i c t o r i a fo r a t imber l i c e n s e to cover tha t a r e a . ' t imber l i c e n s e ' - a l i c e n s e to cut t imber on e i t h e r 640 or 1,000 acres of Crown l a n d ; r o y a l t i e s were a l so charged per Mfbm of t imber cut from areas under t imber l i c e n s e . ' t imbe r s a l e s ' - c u t t i n g - r i g h t s to areas of t imber , a l l o c a t e d by p u b l i c b i d d i n g f o r t imber which had been c r u i s e d by Crown agents . ' u n a l i e n a t e d ' - Crown t imber l and n e i t h e r he ld under l i c e n s e or l e a s e , nor Crown-granted. 'upset p r i c e ' - the reserve p r i c e of Crown t imber at an a u c t i o n . - 127 -APPENDIX B An attempt was made to co r r e l a t e witnesses' views on key issues with those witnesses' backgrounds. I t had been hoped that a d i s t i n c t i o n between the views of operators and those of non-operators could be drawn. However, th i s did not prove possible because no consistent c o r r e l a t i o n s were found. Below i s a table showing witnesses' views on selected issues; witnesses are l i s t e d i n order of appearance. KEY:. 1 - b i g business: operator. 2 - big business: non-operator. 2* - big business: operator/non-operator c l a s s i f i c a t i o n inappropriate. 3 - small business: operator. 4 - small business: non-operator. 4* - small business: operator/non-operator c l a s s i f i c a t i o n inappropriate. 5 - u n c l a s s i f i e d business. 6 - business organization. 7 - government. 8 - labour. 9 - miscellaneous, including t o t a l l y u n c l a s s i f i e d , p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l s , and private experts. + - YES X - NO Big business was defined as lumber companies meeting one or more of the following c r i t e r i a : companies or i n d i v i d u a l s holding more than 10 timber l i c e n s e s , or having c u t t i n g - r i g h t s to more than 6,400 acres, or - 128 -hav ing more than 30 employees, or r ep re sen t ing ' o b v i o u s ' b i g bus iness (such as eas t e rn banks, or the Canadian P a c i f i c R a i l w a y ) ; or from R. A . - J . McDonald 's t h e s i s on the compos i t ion of the e l i t e of the Vancouver bus iness community at t h i s t ime . Smal l bus iness covers those o u t f i t s d e f i n i t e l y f a l l i n g below the c r i t e r i a used fo r b i g b u s i n e s s . Other c a t e g o r i e s , f o r example government, are s e l f - e v i d e n t from the Proceed ings . - 129 -TABLE II WITNESSES' VIEWS BY NAME AND BY BACKGROUND NAME OF WITNESS Code er ran c -H CO a 3 01 CO r l CO r l o o CD i-t 01 O rH to •rl 5^  a) CO to a) r l J-l rH c c CO « c to >> 01 to > CO rH to c 3 01 r l c a. to JJ to o rH a) M H 00 cj o 01 s CO c CO U u u C u-i e •H S r l •H U o u rH 0) 3 rH o U •rl a) o i H i-l CO 3 r l « CO co rH u 3 01 CO o J3 II 0 to e cw 0) CO —' o CO 01 01 CJ .u «H C o o r< u >> CU CO CO C •r* rH c II r J 01 •T-t o 01 rH 50 •H l-l 11 •U .n CO CD u u U u C M rH 00 01 o rH •H •o r l e a • A 3 CO 3 s CO O 01 00 o> •H tO CO 01 *H c 0) 0) CJ a 0 U-l •H 3 rH 3 00 3 rH ^ CO 4J UH r l rH w a 3 > o w C o C O 01 to 01 •rl to o cj to OJ rH •H rH •rl U r l CJ c 4J > O. 3 o o. a) Q. T H 4J •a -U OJ CJ 01 T H o CO tr rH o •H J ! - i U E a c 3 X to •H rH 00 to II 0) rH c j C ca 01 C 0 to a o • H rH a. rH •g - H M CO S a. 3 u ,e to c/o C/3 <! 3 W.A. Anstie 6 + + + + X + 50 + A.T. Frampton 4* R.D. Craig 2 X M.B. Carlin 1 50 L + L.H. Solly 2* B W. Blakemore 2 + 50 M.J. Scanlon 1 + L E.E. Billinghurst 6 J . Ducrest 4* R.H. Campbell + J.A. Sayward 5 + 50 P + E. McGaffey 6 + W. Regan 2* + X 50 J.W. Coburn 5 + X 100 P + T.A. Smith 5 + F.L. Ward 2 R.J. Skinner 7 + + + X 50 L + T. Wilson 7 + D.C. Cameron 1 + + + 50 L W. Murray 1* A. MacMillan 9 T.F. Paterson 1 + + + 60 L + J.S. Emerson 1 X + + 50 + J . O'Brien 1 75 L W.T. Cox 7 + + B + W.I. Paterson L + X X 50 E.H. Heaps 1 + X X 10 50 L + W. Tytler 2 10 J .H. Latremouille 7 50 B J .A. Magee 1 + X 90 50 L A . J . Lammers 1 + X A . J . McDonald 7 + + P R. Trinder 7 65 L A. McL. Hawkes 7 + M.V. Allen 7 + C.T. Daykin 7 + Brett 7 + Swift 7 + P. Ellison 7 C.J . Becker 7 P + S.C. Smith 3 X L H. Lang 7' O.L. Boynton 1 + + + 5 50 B X W.C. Brewer 1 + X 50 S.H. Bowman 1 + + X 100 C.F. Lindmark 1 X X 50 B + C.R. Skene 5 50 50 B J.M. Kellie 2 + + + X 90 A.G. Lang 9 + L + F.S. Stevens 5 + L + A.N. Wolverton 2 + + 50 J.M. Lay 2* 50 G.0. Buchannan 6 + X + 5 50 A.A. Carney 7 50 C.S. Drewery 9 B R.J . Long 7 B H. Anderson 7 A. Leiten 1 + + X 50 L + - 130 -TABLE II continued: NAME OF WITNESS er- B 3 c •rl CO a 3 a) CO U CO IH 0 0 CO rH u o rH CO •H >, •o a) CO AJ CO CU r l CD AJ rH c C CO CO c CO 4 J u CO > CO rH 3 CO B 3 CD u a a CO AJ CO 0 rH IV cu *AH 0 0 CJ o 01 a CO c 01 CO IH rH AJ o C UH c •H 6 u • ' i H u 0 r l rH 11 3 CO C J AJ -H a) o •H rH AJ CO 4 J 3 U AJ c CO rH u 3 r-> CJ CO o ja II O CO o CIH a) •a CO O CO aj cu o AJ UH C • H o n M CD CO 03 a, c • H rH a il • 4 CU AJ o CD rH 0 0 i H r l rH 11 AJ 4 3 CU 01 r l U CO r l <AJ rH 0 0 III o rH • H • 3 u B ea • n 3 o. 3 s CO o a) 0 0 CD • H CO CO dl • H C 0) CU CJ 3 o UH •H 3 3 0 0 3 rH >i CO A J CA* u rH A J CJ o > O AJ AJ C o C o CU CO 01 •> ^ H CO O CJ CO CD rH •rl rH •H M u o c AJ > H= a. 3 o CM O. 01 CU *H AJ •a AJ CD o CU •H 0 CO CT rH •H r4 AJ c e C 3 X CO •H rH 0 0 CO II 1) rH C J = CO CD C o CO o 5 •H rH 0 , rH i H Code rH CO s a. 3 C J X C J r J 8^ CO C/3 CO < 3 J . F . Armstrong 7 A.E. Watts 1 + Fink 9 0. Staples 1 P. Lund 1 + + C M . Edwards 9 E.C. Chudleigh 2* A.T. Short 2* E. Mallendaine 7 W. Pearce 2* G.F. Stevenson 6 A.F. Krapfel 1 + D.V. Mott 9 + D. MacDougall 7 D.H. Telford 1 R.H. McCoy 1 J.W. Murphy 7 A. DeWolff 1 W.S. Bell 1 A. McDougal 1 + F.K. DuBois 1 + J.W. Lawry 2 J . Genelle 1 A. Robinson 1 + F.W. McLaine 2* C. Mix 7 J . Leamy 7 E. Bucklin 1 + E . J . Fader 2 A.L. Lewis 1 T. Turnbull 8 X + W. Dodd 8 X + H.A. Stoney 8 X + J . Clark 1 + A.D. McRae 1 + J . Oliver 7 + P.D. Roe 1 + + A. Hamilton 8 X + N. McKinnon 2 + + W.H. Higgins 1 X F.H. Parks 1 + A. Haslam 7 W.C. Gladwin 7 R.H. Chapman 7 N.J. McArthur 6 J.H. Demsey 6 H.H. McDougall . 6 T. Magnusson 6 E.P. Bremner 2* J . Moravec 2* W.J. Whiting 2* W.J. Sutton 5 + E . J . Palmer 1 J . J . Shallcross 2* T. Elford 1 D. Hankin 1 Erich Ulin 9 S. McB. Smith 9 + 50 L + + L + + X 100 L 100 B B X 50 B X X X B 50 X X X X X X X 50 50 X X X X 50 X + 50 X X 80 50 L 50 L 50 L 50 L 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094794/manifest

Comment

Related Items