B. E. Fernow

Report upon Forestry, 1878-9, by Dr. F. B. Hough; contains references to the earlier history of forest development.

History of the Lumber Industry, by J. E. Defebaugh, 1906-7; is valuable as a reference to statistical matter.

Report upon Forestry Investigations of the United States Department of Agriculture, 1877-1898, by B. E. Fernow. House Document No. 181, 55th Congress; contains amplifications of the matter contained in this chapter.

Annual and other reports issued by the Department of Agriculture, by the various State Forest Commissions, and Forestry Associations.

For latest developments, consult Conservation (American Forestry) and Forestry Quarterly.

The great and exuberant republic of the United States, vast in extent and rich in natural resources generally, excelled and still excels in extent, importance and value of her timber resources; and, having only lately begun to inaugurate rational forest policies, promises to become of all-absorbing interest to foresters.

The marvelous growth of the nation, which from three million in 1780 had attained to a population of 76 million in 1900, and, by the last Census numbered around 92 million people, has been the wonder of the world by reason of its rapid expansion; and yet the limit is far from being reached. Annually some three-quarters of a million or more immigrants from all parts of the world arrive, and there is still room and comfortable living for at least another 100 million, if the resources are properly treated.

The large land area of nearly two billion acres (over three million square miles) is undoubtedly the richest contiguous domain of such size in the world, located most favorably with reference to trade by virtue of a coast line of over 20,000 miles, and diversified in climate so as to permit the widest range of production.

While a simple mathematical relation would make the population at present about 31 to the square mile, such a statement would give an erroneous conception of economic conditions, for the distribution of the population is most uneven, a condition which must eventually diversify the application of forestry methods in different parts of the country. In Massachusetts and Rhode Island combined, for instance, the density of population is 428 to the square mile, exceeding that of the similar-sized State of WÜrtemberg in Germany, while in the neighboring State of Maine it is not 25; the Atlantic Coast States south of South Carolina, a territory slightly larger than Germany, show about half, and the Central agricultural States about one-third the density of that densely populated country; on the other hand, some of the Western States, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico have less than three to the square mile.

Similar unevenness is found in the distribution of resources, especially of timber wealth, and, to some extent at least, the present populational distribution is explained by the uneven distribution of farm soils and timber.

Outside of the unorganized territory of Alaska and the disfranchised District of Columbia, the country is divided into 46 States and two Territories which will eventually acquire statehood. In addition, there are a number of insular possessions under the direct control of the federal government. Each State being under the Constitution sovereign in itself as far as its internal administration is concerned, it is evident that no uniformity of policies can be expected, except so far as imitativeness, in which the American citizen excels, may lead State after State to repeat the experiment attempted by one. The federal government has no direct jurisdiction in matters concerning the management of resources within the States, except so far as it still owns lands in the Western, so-called Public Land States, and a few parcels in the Eastern States over which it still retains jurisdiction.

The severest test of democratic institutions is experienced when the attempt is made to establish a policy which shall guard the interests of the future at the expense of the demands and needs of the present. Democracy produces attitudes and characteristics of the people which are inimical to stable economic arrangements looking to the future, such as are implied in a forest policy. The vast country with an unevenly distributed and heterogeneous population presents the greatest variety of natural, as well as of economic conditions; the immediate interests of one section naturally do not coincide with those of other sections; particularistic and individualistic tendencies of the true democrat are antagonistic to anything which smacks of “paternalism,” the attitude under which alone a persistent, farsighted policy can thrive. Frequent change of administration, or at least the threat of such change, impedes consistent execution of plans; fickle public opinion may subvert at any time well laid plans which take time in maturing; the true democratic doctrine of restricting State activity to police functions, and the doctrine of non-interference with private rights, as well as the idea of State rights in opposition to federal power and authority—all these characteristics of a democratic government are impediments to a concerted action and stable policy.

That, in spite of these antagonistic interests, conditions and doctrines, substantial progress toward establishing at least a federal forest policy has been made, is due to the fact that the American, in spite of his reputation as a materialistic, selfish opportunist, is really an idealist; that he responds readily to patriotic appeals; that, in spite of his rabid nationalism, he is willing to learn from the experiences of other nations; that, indeed, he is anxious to be educated. Finally, much credit is due to the men who with single purpose devoted their lives to the education of their fellow citizens in this direction.

It must, to be sure, be added that remarkable changes in the political attitude of the people have taken place in the last 30 years since the propaganda of forestry began; changes, partly perhaps induced by that propaganda, which have aided this movement, and which, if they persist, promise much for the future development of forest policies. A decidedly paternalistic, if not socialistic attitude has, lately been taken by the federal government; and by skilful construction of the Constitution as regards the right to regulate interstate relations, has led to an expansion of federal power in various directions. A similar paternalistic attitude has developed in the legislatures of several States to a noticeable degree. Even the judiciary has taken up this new spirit, and is ready to sanction interference with private property rights to a degree which, a decade ago, would have been denounced as undemocratic and tyrannical. Two courts have lately ruled that owners of timberlands may be restricted, without compensation, as regards the size of trees they may fell on their property, if the welfare of the State demands such interference.

The argument of the Roman doctrine utere tuo ne alterum noceas, which forestry propagandists have so strenuously used, seems finally to have found favor, and the inclusion of the community at large, present and future, as the possibly damaged party does not appear any more strained. The idea of the providential function of governments, as the writer has called it, seems to have taken hold of the people. The democratic doctrine of State rights, and restriction of government functions has, even among Democrats, been weakened through the long continued reign of the Republican party, the party of centralizing tendencies, to such an extent that the latest Democratic platform of a Presidential campaign (1908) outdid the Republican platform in centralizing and paternalistic propositions.

It is proper to emphasize the growth of this socialistic attitude, as it is bound to influence, and influence favorably, the further development of forest policies.

Nevertheless, it is still necessary to keep in mind that the States are autonomous, and that, while the federal government, in spite of the antagonism in the Western States, in which the public lands are situated, has been able to change its land policy from that of liberal disposal to one of reservation, it alone cannot save the situation. While a few of the States have made beginnings in working out a policy to arrest the destruction of their forest resources, which are mostly in private hands, still much water must flow down the Mississippi before adequate measures will be taken to stave off the threatening timber famine, and the energy of the various local and national Conservation associations will need to be exercised to the utmost.

1. Forest Conditions.

Three extensive mountain systems, running north and south, give rise to at least eight topographic subdivisions of the country, going from east to west.

1. The narrow belt of level coast and hill country along the Atlantic shore, from 100 to 200 miles in width with elevations up to 1,000 feet, but especially low along the seacoast from Virginia south; drained by short rivers navigable only for short distances from the mouth; a farming country, with the soils varying from the richest to the poorest; some 300,000 square miles.

2. The Appalachian mountain country, nearly of the same width as the first section, with elevations up to 5,000 feet; the watershed of all the rivers to the Atlantic, of several rivers to the Gulf, and of the eastern affluents of the Mississippi; a mountain country, of about 360,000 square miles extent, rich in coal, iron and other minerals, except in its northern extension formed of archean rock.

3. The great river basin of the Mississippi, a Central plain of glacial and river deposit, rising gradually from the Gulf to the headwaters for more than 1200 miles, and nowhere over 1,000 feet above sea level; the richest agricultural section, 700,000 square miles, more or less, in extent.

4. The plateau, rising towards the Rocky Mountains from 1,000 to 5,000 feet above sea level, some 870,000 square miles in extent, a region of scanty rainfall, hence of prairie and plain, but mostly rich soil of undetermined depth, capable of prolific production where sufficient water supply is available.

5. The Rocky Mountain region, rising from 5,000 to near 10,000 feet (except some higher peaks), an arid to semi-arid district of rugged ranges, covered mostly with forest growth, often open and of inferior kind, with tillable soils in the narrow valleys, requiring irrigation for farm use; a mining country, rich in gold and silver, extending over 150,000 square miles.

6. The Sierra Nevada Mountain Range, including the Coast Range, rarely over 7,000 feet elevation, arid to semi-arid on the Eastern slopes; humid, and supporting magnificent forest growth on the Western slopes; some 190,000 square miles.

7. The Interior Basin, lying between the two preceding mountain ranges, some 400,000 square miles; for the most part a desert, although in parts supporting a stunted growth of pinon and juniper, and, where irrigation is possible, productive.

8. The interior valleys of the Sierra, comprising about 30,000 square miles, which, under irrigation, have become the garden spots of the Pacific.

To these topographic subdivisions correspond in part the climatic and the forest conditions, although variation of soil, and of northern and southern climate produce further differentiation in types, and in distribution of field and forest.

The first three sections were originally densely wooded—the great Atlantic forest region—but farms now occupy most of the arable portions; the fourth and seventh are forestless, if not treeless, while the fifth and sixth were more or less forested—the Pacific Coast region.

Floristically also, these topographic conditions are reflected, namely in the wide, north and south distribution of species, unimpeded by intervening mountain ranges, and in the change in composition from east to west. The two grand floristic divisions of the Atlantic and the Pacific forest, having but few species in common, are separated by the plains and prairies. The Atlantic forest is in the main composed of broadleaf trees with conifers intermixed, which latter only under the influence of soil conditions form pure stands, as in the extensive pineries of the South and North, and in the northern swamps and on southern mountain tops. The central region west of the Alleghanies exhibits little conifer growth in its composition, and is most widely turned to farm use. White Pine, hemlock and spruce are the important coniferous staples of the northern section, and a number of Yellow Pine species, with Bald Cypress and Red Cedar, are the valuable conifer species in the South. As regards valuable hardwoods, there is but little change from north to south.

The Pacific forest flora is almost entirely coniferous, but here also climatic conditions permit a distinction of two very different forest regions, the Rocky Mountain forest being mostly of rather inferior development, and the Sierra forest exhibiting the most magnificent tree growth in the world.

Nearly half the country is forestless, grassy prairie and plain, some 400 million acres being of the latter description, while open prairie and brush forest, or waste land occupies 600 million acres.

Within the forest region of the East some 250 million acres have been turned into farms, leaving still two-thirds of the area either under woods, or else wasted by fire. Although any reliable data regarding this acreage are wanting, the area of really productive woodland in this section may probably be set down as not exceeding 300 million acres, which would be nearly 40% of the total area, varying from 13% in the Central agricultural States to 50% in the Southern States; Maine, New Hampshire and Arkansas being most densely wooded, with over 60%. The Rocky Mountain and Sierra forests, each with 100 million acres, would bring the total productive woodland area to a round 500 million acres, or about 26% of the whole. (Later estimates including brushlands of doubtful productive capacity, increase this area to 550 million acres.)

It is almost idle to attempt an estimate of the timber still standing ready for the axe; not only are the data for such an estimate too scanty, but standards of what is considered merchantable change continuously and vitiate the value of such estimates. The writer’s own estimate, made some years ago, of 2,500 billion feet, which by others has been treated as authoritative and forming a basis for predicting the time of a timber famine, and which was lately sustained by an extensive official inquiry, must nevertheless be considered only as a reasonable guess, ventured for the purpose of accentuating the need of more conservative treatment of these exhaustible supplies, in comparison with the consumption which represents around 45 billion feet B.M., and altogether 23 billion cubic feet of forest-grown material, the ultimate value of all forest products reaching the stupendous sum of around 1,250 million dollars. And, as in other countries, this lavish consumption of forest growth, from five to fifteen times that of Europeans, has shown in the past a per capita increase of 30 per cent. for every decade.

The bulk of the standing timber is to be found along the Pacific Coast, in the Sierra, and in the Southern States with their extensive pineries; the Northern and Eastern sections are within measurable time of the end of their virgin supplies of saw timber. The practice of culling the most valuable species has changed the composition in the regeneration, making it inferior, and large areas have been rendered worthless by fires.

The loss by fire, the bane of American forests, as far as loss in material is concerned probably does not exceed 2 or 3 per cent. of the consumption, and may be valued at say 25 million dollars per annum. But the indirect damage to forest and soil, changing the composition, baring the soil, and exposing it to erosion and washing, turning fertile lands into wastes, and brooks and rivers into torrents, is incalculable.

There is no doubt that at the present rate of consumption the bulk of the virgin supplies will be used up in a measurable time, which will force a reduction in the use of wood materials; a more or less severe timber famine is bound to appear,—indeed, has begun to make its appearance; and all recuperative measures will not suffice to stave it off, although they may shorten the time of its duration.

2. Early Forest History.

The early colonizers, settling on the Atlantic Coast soon after the discoveries of Columbus, did not, as is usually believed, find an untouched virgin forest. The aboriginal Indians had, before then, hewn out their corn fields, and had supplied themselves with fuel wood and material for their utensils; and fires, accidental, intentional, or caused by lightning, had, no doubt, also made inroads here and there. The white man, to be sure, is a more lavish wood consumer; his farms increased more rapidly, his buildings and his fireplaces consumed more forest growth, and carelessness with fire was, as it is still, his besetting sin. Moreover, a trade in timber with the Old World developed, in which only the best and largest-sized material figured. Wastefulness was bred in him by the sight of plenty, and the hard work of clearing his farm acres incited a natural enmity to the encumbering forest.

The first sawmill in the New World was erected in 1631 in the town of Berwick, Maine, and the first gang saw, of 18 saws, in 1650 in the same place,[18] while, before that time, masts and spars, handmade cooperage stock, clapboards and shingles formed commonly parts of the return cargoes of ships. By 1680, nearly 50 vessels, engaged in such trade, cleared from the Piscataqua River. The ordinances on record which were issued at the same early times by the town governments of Exeter (1640), Kittery (1656), Portsmouth (1660), and Dover (1665), restricting the use of timber, remind us of the early European forest ordinances; they were probably not dictated by any threatening deficiency of this class of material, but merely intended to secure a proper and orderly use of the town property.

The appointment of a Royal Surveyor of the Woods for the New England colonies in 1699, and the penalties imposed in New Hampshire (1708) for cutting mast trees on ungranted lands ($500 for cutting 24-inch trees), and in Massachusetts (1784) for cutting White Pine upon the public lands ($100), were probably also merely police regulations, to protect property rights of the Crown or commonwealth. That this last move was in no way conceived as a needed conservatism is proved by the fact that two years later the Legislature of Maine devised a lottery scheme for the disposal of fifty townships; and 3,500,000 acres were disposed of in this way during the twelve years following the war. Altogether the States sacrificed their “wild lands” at trifling prices.

But, when William Penn, the founder and first legislator of the State which represented his grant, stipulated, in 1682, that for every five acres cleared one acre was to be reserved for forest growth by those who took title from him, that may properly be considered an attempt to inaugurate a conservative policy, dictated by wise forethought,—an attempt, which, however, bore little or no fruit.

Thoughtful men probably at all times looked with pity and apprehension upon the wasteful use of the timber as they do now, yet squander went on, just as it still does; but the apparently inexhaustible supplies in those early times called for no restriction in its use.

At the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth century, a fuel-wood famine must have appeared in some parts of the country, just as in Germany at that time and for the same reasons, the wood having been cut along the rivers, which were the only means of transportation, and hence, the distance to which wood had to be hauled increasing the cost.

This was probably the reason why the Society of Agriculture, Arts and Manufactures of New York, after an inquiry by circular letter, issued in 1791, published, in 1795, a report on the “best mode of preserving and increasing the growth of timber.” This condition probably also led the wise Governor of New York, DeWitt Clinton, of Erie Canal fame, in a message in 1822, to forecast an evil day, because “no system of economy” for the reproduction of forest supplies was being adopted; and he added: “Probably none will be, until severe privations are experienced.”

Like Great Britain at that time, the federal government became concerned as regards supplies for naval construction, and, by act approved in 1799, appropriated $200,000 for the purchase of timber fit for the Navy, and for its preservation for future use. Small purchases were made on the Georgia coast, but nothing of importance was done until, in 1817, another act renewed the proposition of the first, and directed the reservation of public lands bearing live-oak or cedar timber suitable for the Navy, as might be selected by the President. Under this act, a reservation of 19,000 acres was made, in 1828, on Commissioners, Cypress and Six Islands, in Louisiana. Another appropriation of $10,000 was made in 1828, and some lands were purchased on Santa Rosa Sound, where, during a few years, even an attempt at cultivation was made, including sowing, transplanting, pruning, etc. This was done under a more general act of 1827, by which the President was authorized to take proper measures to preserve the live oak timber growing on the federal lands. Under these acts, altogether some 244,000 acres of forest land were reserved in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi.

But, although another act, of 1831, provided for the punishment of persons cutting or destroying any Live Oak, Red Cedar, or other trees growing on any lands of the United States, no general conception of the need of a broad forest policy, or even of a special value attaching to the public timberlands dictated these acts, except so far as the securing of certain material, then believed necessary for naval construction, was concerned. Indeed, the act of 1831 remained for 60 years the only expression of interest in this part of the federal domain.

In those early times, the extent of our forest domain was entirely unknown, and the concern of occasional early voices in public prints regarding a threatened exhaustion of timber supplies can only be explained by the fact that, in the absence of railroads, the supplies near centers of civilization, or near drivable and navigable rivers, were alone of any account.

That the earlier propagandists of forest culture received scant attention was due to the fact that conditions soon changed; and with these changes the evil day seemed indefinitely postponed, and the necessity for forest culture apparently vanished. These changes were mainly wrought by the opening up of the west, by extending means of transportation through canals and railroads, and by distributing population, whereby the need for near-by home supplies was overcome; a continental supply of apparently inexhaustible amount was brought into sight and within reach.

Meanwhile the population began to grow, immigrants began to pour in by the hundred thousand, and the westward stream opened up new country and new timber supplies, and a lumber industry of marvellous size began to develop. The small country mill, run in the manner of, and often in connection with, the grist mill, doing a petty business by sawing as occasion demanded, to order for home customers or export, gave way to the large mill establishment as we know it now; and with the development of railroad transportation and the settlement of the western country, especially the forestless prairies, the industry grew at an astonishing rate.

It is worth while to briefly trace the history of this industry, for the sake of which the need of conservative forest policies is essential.

That the petty method of doing business lasted until the middle of the century is evidenced by the census of 1840, which reported 31,560 lumber mills, with a total product valued as $12,943,507, or a little over $400 per mill. By 1876, the product per mill had become $6,500; by 1890, with only 21,000 mills, it was $19,000; in 1900, nearly the same number of mills as were recorded in 1840 (33,035) furnished a product of 566 million dollars, and in 1907, the banner year of production, the cut of 28,850 mills was reported at over 40 billion feet, and the gross product per mill had grown to $23,000, or a value for all of $666,641,367.

In 1909, 48,112 mills cut 44,509,761,000 feet valued at $684,479,859. Nearly half this product came from the Southern States.

In the fifty years from 1850 to 1900, the value of all forest products harvested increased from $59 million to $567 million, and in 1907 the value had risen to $1,280 million, representing a consumption of over 20 million cubic feet of forest-grown material.

Especially after the Civil War, the settlements of the West grew as if by magic; the railroad mileage more than doubled in the decade from 1865 to 1875, and with it, the lumber industry developed by rapid strides into its modern methods and volume. How rapidly the changes took place may be judged from the fact that, in 1865, the State of New York still furnished more lumber than any other State; now it supplies only insignificant amounts, a little over two per cent. of the total lumber cut.

In 1868, the golden age of lumbering had arrived in Michigan; in 1871, rafts filled the Wisconsin; in 1875, Eau Claire had 30, Marathon 30, and Fond du Lac 20 sawmills, now all gone; and mills at La Crosse, which were cutting millions of feet annually, are now closed. By 1882, the Saginaw Valley had reached the climax of its production, and the lumber industry of the great Northwest, with a cut of 8 billion feet of White Pine alone, was in full blast. The White Pine production reached its maximum in 1890, with 8.5 billion feet, then to decrease gradually but steadily to less than half that cut in 1908. Southern development began to assume large proportions much later; at the present time, the lumber product of the Southern States has grown to amounts nearly double that of all the Northern States combined.

But not only the unparalleled and ever increasing wood consumption, which now has reached 260 cubic feet per capita, five times that of Germany and ten times that of France, threatened the exhaustion of the natural supplies. Reckless conflagrations almost invariably followed the lumberman and destroyed generally the remaining stand, and surely the young growth. So common did these conflagrations become, that they were considered unavoidable, and though laws intended to protect forest property against fires were found on the statute books of every State, no attempt to enforce them was made.

No wonder that those observing this rapid decimation of our forest supplies and the incredible wastefulness and additional destruction by fire with no attention to the aftergrowth, began again to sound the note of alarm. Besides the writings in the daily press and other non-official publications, we find the reports of the Department of Agriculture more and more frequently calling attention to the subject.

In a report issued by the Patent Office as early as 1849, we find the following significant language in a discussion on the rapid destruction of forests and their influence on water flow:

“The waste of valuable timber in the United States, to say nothing of firewood, will hardly begin to be appreciated until our population reaches 50,000,000. Then the folly and shortsightedness of this age will meet with a degree of censure and reproach not pleasant to contemplate.”

In 1865, the Rev. Frederic Starr discussed fully and forcibly the American forests, their destruction and preservation, in a lengthy article in which, with truly prophetic vision, he says:

“It is feared it will be long, perhaps a full century, before the results at which we ought to aim as a nation will be realized by our whole country, to wit, that we should raise an adequate supply of wood and timber for all our wants. The evils which are anticipated will probably increase upon us for thirty years to come with tenfold the rapidity with which restoring or ameliorating measures shall be adopted.”

And again:

“Like a cloud no bigger than a man’s hand just rising from the sea, an awakening interest begins to come in sight on this subject, which as a question of political economy will place the interests of cotton, wool, coal, iron, meat, and even grain, beneath its feet. Some of these, according to the demand, can be[474] produced in a few days, others in a few months or a few years, but timber in not less than one generation. The nation has slept because the gnawing of want has not awakened her. She has had plenty and to spare, but within thirty years she will be conscious that not only individual want is present, but that it comes to each from permanent national famine of wood.”

The article is full of interesting detail, and may be said to be the starting basis of the campaign for better methods which followed.

Another unquestionably most influential, official report was that upon “Forests and Forestry in Germany,” by Dr. John A. Warder, United States Commissioner to the World’s Fair at Vienna in 1873. Dr. Warder set forth clearly and correctly the methods employed abroad in the use of forests, and became himself one of the most prominent propagandists for their adoption in his own country.

About the same time appeared the classical work of George B. Marsh, our minister to Italy, “The Earth as Modified by Human Action,” in which the evil effects on cultural conditions of forest destruction were ably and forcibly pointed out.

Among these earlier publications designed to arouse public attention to the subject, should also be mentioned General C. C. Andrews’ report on ‘Forestry in Sweden,’ published by the State Department in 1872.

The Census of 1870 attempted for the first time a canvas of our forest resources under Prof. F. W. Brewer, as a result of which the relative smallness of our forest area became known.

All these publications had their influence in educating a larger number to a conception and consideration of the importance of the subject, so that, when, in 1873, the committee on forestry of the American Association for the Advancement of Science was formed and presented a memorial to Congress, pointing out “the importance of promoting the cultivation of timber and the preservation of forests, and recommending the appointment of a commission of forestry to report to Congress,” there already existed an intelligent audience, and although a considerable amount of lethargy and lack of interest was exhibited, Congress could be persuaded, in 1876, to establish an agency in the United States Department of Agriculture, out of which grew later the Division of Forestry, a bureau of information on forestry matters. Dr. Franklin B. Hough, one of the signers of the memorial, was appointed to the agency. It is to be noted as characteristic of much American legislation, that this agency was secured only as a “rider” to an appropriation for the distribution of seed.

While these were the beginnings of an official recognition of the subject by the federal government, private enterprise and the separate States also started about the same time to forward the movement. In 1867, the agricultural and horticultural societies of Wisconsin were invited by the legislature to appoint a committee to report on the disastrous effects of forest destruction. In 1869, the Maine Board of Agriculture appointed a committee to report on a forest policy for the State, leading to the act of 1872 “for the encouragement of the growth of trees, exempting from taxation for twenty years lands planted to trees, which law, as far as we know, remained without result. About the same time a real wave of enthusiasm regarding the planting of timber seems to have pervaded the country, and especially the Western prairie States. In addition to laws regarding the planting of trees on highways, laws for the encouragement of timber planting, either under bounty or exemption from taxation, were passed in Iowa, Kansas and Wisconsin in 1868; in Nebraska and New York in 1869; in Missouri in 1870; in Minnesota in 1871; in Iowa in 1872; in Nevada in 1873; in Illinois in 1874; in Dakota and Connecticut in 1875; and finally the federal government joined in this kind of legislation by the so-called timber-culture acts of 1873 and 1874, amended in 1876 and 1877.

For the most part these laws remained a dead letter, excepting in the case of the federal government offer. The encouragement by release from taxes was not much of an inducement; nor does the bounty provision seem to have had greater success, except in taking money out of the treasuries. Finally, these laws were in many or most cases repealed.

The timber-culture act was passed by Congress on March 3, 1873, by which the planting of timber on 40 acres of land (or a proportionate area) in the treeless territory, conferred the title to 160 acres (or a proportionate amount) of the public domain. This law had not been in existence ten years when its repeal was demanded, and this was finally secured in 1891, the reason being that, partly owing to the crude provisions of the law, and partly to the lack of proper supervision, it had been abused, and had given rise to much fraud in obtaining title to lands under false pretenses. It is difficult to say how much impetus the law gave to bonafide forest planting, and how much timber growth has resulted from it. Unfavorable climate, lack of satisfactory plant material, and lack of knowledge as to the proper methods, led to many failures.

A number of railroad companies, opening up the prairie States, planted at this time groves along the right of way for the sake of demonstrating the practicability of securing forest growth on the treeless prairies and plains.

There was also considerable planting of wind-breaks and groves on homesteads, which was attended with better results. Altogether, however, the amount of tree planting, even in the prairies and plains, was infinitesimal, if compared with what is necessary for climatic amelioration; and it may be admitted, now as well as later, that the reforestation of the plains must be a matter of co-operative, if not of national, enterprise.

At this time also, an effort was made to stimulate enthusiasm for tree planting among the homesteaders and settlers on the plains by the establishment of arbor days. From its inception by Governor J. Sterling Morton, and its first inauguration by the State Board of Agriculture of Nebraska in 1872, Arbor Day gradually became a day of observance in nearly every State. While with the exception of the so-called treeless States, perhaps not much planting of economic value is done, the observance of the day in schools as one set apart for the discussion of the importance of trees, forests and forestry has been productive of an increased interest in the subject. Arbor days have perhaps also had a retarding influence upon the practical forestry movement, in leading people into the misconception that forestry consists in tree planting, in diverting attention from the economic question of the proper use of existing forest areas, in bringing into the discussion poetry and emotions, which have clouded the hard-headed practical issues, and delayed the earnest attention of practical business men.

Private efforts in the East in the way of fostering and carrying on economic timber planting should not be forgotten, such as the offering of prizes by the Massachusetts Society for the Promotion of Agriculture (as early as 1804 and again in 1876), and the planting done by private land holders at Cape Cod, in Rhode Island, Virginia, and elsewhere. These efforts, to be sure, were only sporadic and unsystematic, and on no scale commensurate with the destruction of virgin forest resources.

A touching attempt of two noble Frenchmen to teach their American hosts a better use of their magnificent forest resource, although of little result, should never fail of mention. AndrÉ Michaux and his son, AndrÉ Francois, who, between 1785 and 1805, explored and studied the forest flora of the United States, and published a magnificent North American Sylva in three volumes, left, in recognition of the hospitalities received, two legacies of $20,000 for the “extension and progress of agriculture and more especially of silviculture in the United States,” which bequests became available in 1870. The American Philosophical Society at Philadelphia, a trustee of one of the legacies, has devoted its income to beautification of Fairmount Park, providing a few lectures on forest botany and forestry, and collecting a forestry library, while the other legacy has been used by the Massachusetts Society for the Promotion of Agriculture to aid the botanical gardens at Harvard and the Arnold Arboretum, besides offering the prizes for tree planting referred to above.

3. Development of a Forest Policy.

This first period of desultory efforts to create public opinion on behalf of a more conservative use of forest resources was followed by a more systematic propaganda, in which the Division of Forestry, growing out of the agency in the Department of Agriculture, took the lead. This it did officially as well as by assisting the American Forestry Association, soon after organized with a view of educating public opinion. For 15 years, the chief of the Division acted either as Secretary or Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Association.

The first forestry association had been formed on January 12, 1876, in St. Paul, Minn., largely through the efforts of Leonard B. Hodges, who was the first to make plantations in the prairies for the St. Paul and Pacific Railroad. This association was aided by State appropriations, which enabled it to offer premiums for the setting out of plantations, to distribute plant material, and also to publish and distribute widely a Tree Planters’ Manual, revised editions of which were issued from time to time.

In 1875, Dr. John A. Warder issued a call for a convention in Chicago to form a national forestry association. This association was completed, in 1876, at Philadelphia, but never showed any life or growth.

In 1882, a number of patriotic citizens at Cincinnati called together a forestry congress, incited thereto by the visit and representations of Baron von Steuben, a Prussian forest official, when visiting this country on the occasion of the centennial celebration of the surrender of Yorktown.

A very enthusiastic and representative gathering, on April 25, was the result, lasting through the week, which led to the formation of the American Forestry Congress. In the same year, in August, a second meeting was held in Montreal, under the patronage of the Canadian government, and the name was changed to the American Forestry Association. In 1898, it began the publication of a propagandist journal, The Forester (later changed to Forestry and Irrigation then to Conservation, and now again to American Forestry). It has now a member-ship of over 5,000. Much of the early educational propaganda was done through this association. Indeed, this association, holding yearly and intermediate meetings in different parts of the States, became the center of all private efforts to advance the forestry movement. Twelve volumes of its proceedings contain not only the history of progress in establishing a forest policy, but also much other information of value on forestry subjects.

Other local or State forestry associations were formed from time to time, more or less under the lead of the national association, and exist now in almost every State, while several other societies, like the Sierra Nevada Club and the Mazamas of the Pacific coast, and State horticultural societies in various States, made the subject one to be discussed and to be fostered. The most active of these associations, since it was formed in 1886, publishing also a bi-monthly journal, Forest Leaves (at first less frequently), is the Pennsylvania State Forestry Association, which has succeeded in thoroughly committing its State to a proper forest policy, as far as official recognition is concerned.

Usually as a result of this associated private effort, the States appointed forestry commissions or commissioners. These commissions were at first for the most part instituted for inquiry and to make reports, upon which a forest policy for the State might be framed. Others have become permanent parts of the State organization, with executive, or merely educational functions. Such commissioners of inquiry were appointed at various times, in Connecticut (1877), New Hampshire (1881 and 1889), Vermont (1882), New York (1884), Maine (1891), New Jersey (in Geological Survey 1894), Pennsylvania (1893), North Carolina (in Geological Survey 1891), Ohio (1885), Michigan (1899), Wisconsin (1897), Minnesota (1899), North Dakota (1891), Colorado (1885), California (1885).

It was but natural in a democratic country that these movements sometimes became the play balls of self-seeking men, political wire pullers, and grafters, or more often of ignorant amateurs and shallow sentimentalists, aided by half-informed newspaper writers. Infinite patience was required to steer through these rocks the ship of true economic reform, and to educate legislators and constituents to its true needs. The very first forestry congress was really conceived with a view of advancing political preferment of one of its organizers, and many another “forestry” meeting was utilized for a similar purpose, the new, catchy title attracting the gullible.

One of the first State forest commissions, well endowed to do its work, soon fell into the hands of grafters, and created such scandals that they led to its abolishment, and to a set-back in the movement everywhere. Arbor day sentimentalism discredited and clouded the issue before the business world; the movement was in constant danger at the hands of its friends. Antagonism of the lumber world was aroused by the false idea of what the reform contemplated, and, in the absence of technically trained foresters to instruct the public and the amateur reformers, and to convince legislators of the absolute need of discontinuing old established habits, progress was naturally slow, and experienced many setbacks.

It was a hard field to plow, grown up with the weed growth of prejudice and custom, and means and tools for the work were inadequate.

The federal government was naturally looked to to take the lead. The first two agents, employed in the Department of Agriculture to “report on forestry”, unfortunately lacked all technical knowledge of the subject, the first, a most assiduous worker, being a writer of local histories and gatherer of statistics, the second a preacher. The third, the writer himself, had at least the advantage of this technical training, but, at the same time, the disadvantage of being a foreigner, who had first to learn the limitations of democratic government. Only the paltry sum of $8,000 was at his disposal for plowing the ground, and even after the agency had been raised to the dignity of a Division in 1886, for years no adequate appropriations could be secured, and hence the scope and usefulness of the work of the Division was hampered.

The Forestry Association, inaugurated with such a flourish of trumpets and with such a large membership at the start, had in the first two years dwindled to a small number of faithful ones, and was without funds when the writer became its secretary.

In spite of these drawbacks, the propaganda had progressed so far in 1891, that, through the earnest insistence of the then Secretary of the Interior, John W. Noble, who had been won over to the views for which the Division and the Association stood, a clause was enacted by Congress in “An act to repeal timber-culture laws and for other purposes,” giving authority to the President to set aside forest reservations from the public domain. Again, this important legislation, which changed the entire land policy and all previous notions of the government’s functions concerning the Public Domain, was not deliberately enacted, but slipped in as a “rider”, at the last hour, in Conference Committee. In this connection the name of Edward A. Bowers, in 1887 Special Agent in the Department of the Interior, and later Assistant Commissioner of the General Land Office, deserves mention as most active in securing this reservation policy.

Acting under this authority, Presidents Harrison and Cleveland proclaimed, previous to 1894, seventeen forest reservations, with a total estimated area of 17,500,000 acres.

The reservations were established usually upon the petition of citizens residing in the respective States and after due examination, the Forestry Association acting both as instigator and as intermediary.

Meanwhile no provision for the administration of the reserves existed, and the comprehensive legislation devised by the Chief of the Division of Forestry, which included withdrawal and administration of all public timberlands, failed to be enacted, although in the Fifty-third Congress it was passed by both Houses, but failed to become a law merely for lack of time to secure a conference report. But the purpose of the advocates of forestry was to create such a condition as would compel Congress to act, by continually withdrawing forested lands that would lie useless until authority was given for their proper use and administration.

In order to secure influential support from outside, a committee of the Forestry Association induced the then Secretary of the Interior, Hoke Smith, in 1896, to request the National Academy of Sciences, the legally constituted adviser of the government in scientific matters, to investigate and report “upon the inauguration of a rational forest policy for the forested lands of the United States.” After an unnecessary so-called “junket” of a committee of the Academy to investigate the public timberlands, a preliminary report was submitted recommending the creation of thirteen additional reservations, with an area of over 20 million acres, and later a complete report was made with practically the same recommendations which had been urged by the Forestry Association.

President Cleveland, heroically, proclaimed the desired reserves all on one day, Washington’s birthday, 1897, without the usual preliminary ascertainment of local interests, and immediately a storm broke loose in the United States Senate, which threatened the overthrow of the entire, toilsomely achieved reservation policy; and impeachment of the President was strongly argued in a two-day (Sunday) session. Congress, however, came to an end on March 4, before it had taken any action, but, as it had also failed to pass the annual Sundry Civil Appropriation Bill, it was immediately recalled in extra session.

Then, again, by a clever trick and in an indirect and surreptitious manner, instead of by open, direct and straightforward consideration and deliberation of a proper policy, most important legislation was secured in the Sundry Civil Appropriation Bill, which provided for the temporary suspension of the reservations lately set aside until they could be more definitely delimited, private claims adjusted, and agricultural lands excluded, by a survey, for which $150,000 was appropriated to the United States Geological Survey. The agricultural lands were then to be returned to the public domain for disposal. At the same time, provisions for the administration of the remaining reservations, much in the sense of the legislation advocated by the Division of Forestry and by the Forestry Association, and especially for the sale of timber, were hung on to this appropriation clause. Under this act the reserves were administered until 1904.

If the interior history of this bit of legislation were revealed, it would probably appear that, not conception of the importance of the subject, but the need for the employment of a certain organized survey party in the Geological Survey was at the bottom of it.

While this law had set aside one year and a limited sum to accomplish the survey, this could not, of course, be done, and hence appropriations were continued, and the date for the segregation of the lands was deferred sine die. For years this forest survey continued, giving rise to magnificent volumes, issued from the Geological Survey, describing the forest reservations—a very useful, educational piece of work, not at all contemplated by the legislation—for which not less than $1.5 million have been expended. By 1905 some 110,000 square miles had been examined when this work was handed over to the Forestry Bureau.

Thus it happened, almost by accident, that finally the aims of the reformers were realized, the appointment of forest superintendents, rangers, etc., to take charge of the forest reservations was secured, and rules and regulations for their administration were formulated by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, marking the beginning of a settled policy on the part of the United States government to take care of its long neglected forest lands. In this work of first organization the name of Filibert Roth, a German-born forester, deserves mention.

Meanwhile, the Division of Forestry had continued to bring together and distribute in the shape of reports, bulletins, circulars, addresses and letters, such information useful for the education of the public, of wood consumers, and timberland owners, as its limited appropriations permitted, undertaking also some scientific investigations, especially in the line of timber physics.

Soon after, in July, 1898, when the writer resigned his position as Chief of the Division of Forestry, to organize the first professional forest school, the New York State College of Forestry, Mr. Gifford Pinchot, took charge of the division. Young, ambitious, aggressive, with some knowledge of forestry acquired in Europe and with influential connections and a large fortune, he easily secured the first need for effective sowing on the well-plowed field before him—appropriations. Whatever had been feebly begun could be broadly, sometimes lavishly, extended, and the new idea of making “working plans” for private timberland owners could be developed—a great educational work, which, earlier, when even co-operation with State institutions was considered a questionable proposition, would have been turned down as too paternal.

In five years the appropriations had increased tenfold, to over $250,000; and in the first decade of the new regime, around $3,000,000 had been spent on forestry investigations, not counting expenditures on forest reservation account.

A further strong support came into the field, when Mr. Roosevelt became President of the United States, in 1901, and unreservedly threw his overpowering influence into the balance, to advance forest policies.

Owing to his interest, the withdrawal of public timberlands from entry proceeded at a rapid rate: by 1902, the reservations had grown to 65 million acres; in 1905, there were over 100 million acres included; and by the end of his administration, 175 million acres had been placed in reservation.

The anomalous condition, which placed the survey of the forest reserves in the Geological Survey, their administration in the Land Office, and the scientific or technical development of forestry in the Department of Agriculture, was finally ended in 1904, when, on February 1st, the whole matter was placed in the hands of the Department of Agriculture, with its Forestry Division, which had been changed into a Bureau of Forestry, and then changed its name again to Forest Service.

With this transfer, it may be said, the federal forest policy was fully established, at least for its own lands, and all that remains to be done is the perfection of details in their administration and the development of silvicultural methods.

With appropriations which now (1907) exceed $950,000 for investigating work alone, limitless opportunity seems to be open to extend the many directions of inquiry and solve the silvicultural problems, and satisfy the educational function of this government agency.

But, besides the administration of the federal timberlands and the educational and other assistance of private owners, a further expansion of the Forest Service is developing under the paternalistic and socialistic tendencies referred to before, which may ultimately lead to the purchase and federal control of forest reserves in the Eastern States. Such expansion, was, indeed, proposed in the establishment of reserves in the White Mountains and the Southern Appalachians, propositions which have been resisted by Congress for the last seven years, but with ever weakening resistance. Finally in 1910, success was attained, and the federal government placed in position to acquire these forest areas, to the amount of $10,000,000.

Meanwhile the single states have begun to develop their own policies.

Outside of legislation aiming at protection against forest fires—which nearly every State possessed from early times, ineffective for lack of machinery to carry it into effect—and outside of the futile attempts to encourage timber planting referred to, no interest in timberlands was evinced by State authorities for the first two-thirds of the century, since practically all these lands had been disposed of to private owners, and the authorities did not see any further duties regarding them.

The first State to institute a commission of inquiry was Wisconsin, in 1867; but with the rendering of the report, prepared by I. A. Lapham, one of the active early propagandists—the matter was allowed to mature for thirty years.

The next State to move, in a feeble way, in 1876, was Minnesota, the legislature making an annual grant of money to its forestry association.

The appointment of commissions of inquiry then became fashionable.

New Hampshire appointed such a commission in 1881, which reported in 1885, without result, and another commission in 1889, whose report, in 1893, led to the establishment of a permanent commission of inquiry and advice, with a partial supervision of forest fire laws. Vermont followed suit with a commission of inquiry, in 1882, whose report made in 1884, remained without consequences.

In Michigan the expedient was resorted to of constituting the State Board of Agriculture a commission of inquiry, whose report, published in 1888, had also no consequences except those of an educational character.

Similarly, the State of Massachusetts ordered the State Board of Agriculture in 1890, to inquire “into the consideration of the forests of the State, the need and methods of their protection,” with similar results, or lack of result.

In New Jersey, the matter was referred to the State Geologist, who, since 1894, has made reports on forest conditions and needs. Similar reference of the subject was made in the State of North Carolina, in 1891, and in West Virginia.

The first more permanent State institution deliberately established as an educational and advisory agent was the Forestry Bureau of Ohio, in 1885, which published a number of annual reports, but eventually collapsed for lack of support.

In the same year, three important States, New York in the East, Colorado in the Middle States, and California in the West, seemed simultaneously to have awakened to their duty, largely as a result of the propaganda of the American Forestry Association.

In California, a State Board of Forestry was instituted, with considerable power and ample appropriations, which, however, eventually fell into the hands of unscrupulous politicians and grafters, the resulting scandals leading to its abolishment in 1889.

In Colorado, which when admitted to Statehood in 1876, had, in its Constitution, directed the general assembly to legislate on behalf of the forestry interests of the State, these interests were rather tardily committed to a forest commissioner, who was charged to organize county commissioners and road overseers throughout the State as forest officers in their respective localities, to act as a police force in preventing depredations on timbered school lands and in enforcing the fire laws. Col. E.T. Ensign, who had been most instrumental in bringing about this legislation, was appointed commissioner, and, with singular devotion, in spite of the enmity aroused by his activity, which eventually led to a discontinuance of appropriations, tried, for a number of years to execute this law. With his resignation from the office, this legislation also fell into innocuous desuetude.

In New York, concern in the water supply for the Erie Canal, had led such a far sighted statesman as Horatio Seymour, twice Governor of the State and once running for the Presidency, to conceive the need of preserving the Adirondack watershed in State hands. Accordingly a law was passed, in 1872, naming seven citizens, with Horatio Seymour chairman, as State park commission, instructed to make inquiries with the view of reserving or appropriating the wild lands lying northward of the Mohawk, or so much thereof as might be deemed expedient, for a State park. The commission, finding that the State then owned only 40,000 acres in that region, and that there was a tendency on the part of the owners of the rest to combine for the enhancement of values should the State want to buy, recommended a law forbidding further sales of State lands, and their retention when forfeited for the non-payment of taxes.

It was not until eleven years later, in 1883, that this recommendation was acted upon, when the State through the non-payment of taxes by the owners of cut-over lands had become possessed of 600,000 acres.

In 1884, the comptroller was authorized to employ “such experts as he may deem necessary to investigate and report a system of forest preservation.” The report of a commission of four members was made in 1885, but the legislation proposed was antagonized by the lumbermen’s interests. The legislature finally passed a compromise bill, which the writer had drafted at the request of Senator Lowe, entitled “An act establishing a forest commission, and to define its powers, and for the preservation of forests,” the most comprehensive legislation at that time.

The original forest commission, appointed under the act of 1885, was superseded in 1895, by the commission of fisheries, game, and forests, which brought allied interests under the control of a single board of five members appointed by the Governor for a term of five years. In 1903, the commission was changed to a single commissioner, and another backward step was taken in 1911 by handing over the work of this commissioner to the newly created State Conservation Commission, consolidating with it several other commissions.

Here, then, for the first time on the American continent, had the idea of State forestry, management of State lands on forestry principles, taken shape; a new doctrine of State functions had gained the day. Not only was the commission charged to organize a service, with a “chief forester” and “underforesters,” to administer the existing reserve according to forestry principles, but also from the incomes to lay aside a fund for the purchase of more lands to constitute the State forest preserve. Unfortunately, instability of purpose, the characteristic of democracy, spoiled the dream of the forester. Both, commission and chief forester were, of course, political appointees, and, rightly or wrongly, fell under the suspicion, when proposing the sale of stumpage, that they were working into the hands of lumbermen. A set of well-meaning but ill-advised civic reformers succeeded, in 1893, in securing the insertion into the Constitution, then being revised, of a clause preventing the cutting of trees, dead or alive, on State lands, declaring that they shall forever be kept as “wild lands.” Later, this constitutional provision was deliberately set aside by the commission, which began to plant up some of the fire-wasted areas, the legislature appropriating money for this breach of the Constitution because it was popular: and lately permission has also been granted by the legislature to remove trees from burnt areas in order to reduce the fire danger—the foolish objection of a Constitution notwithstanding.

In 1897, new legislation was passed to authorize the State to purchase additional forest lands within a prescribed limit, to round off the State’s holdings, a special agency, the Forest Preserve Board, being constituted for that purpose. Under this law, some $3,500,000 have been spent, and by 1907, over one and a half million acres had been added to the State Forest Preserve. This large area is withdrawn from rational economic use, reserved for a pleasure ground of wealthy New Yorkers, who have located their camps in the “wilderness” under the avowed assumption that the State can be forced to maintain forever this anomalous condition.

In later years, private planting has been encouraged by the Commission selling plant material from the State nurseries at low rates.

The most important administrative function of the Commission has been the reduction of forest fires, in which, also owing to political conditions, only partial success has been attained. The legislation of 1885 for the first time attacked this problem in a more thorough manner, providing for the organization of a service, and this served as an example to other States who copied and improved on it. Notably the forest fire legislation of Maine (1891), of Wisconsin (1895), and of Minnesota (1895) was based on this model.

Another of the large States to start upon and, differently from New York, to develop consistently a proper forest policy, was the State of Pennsylvania. As a result of a persistent propaganda by the Pennsylvania Forestry Association, formed in 1886, and especially by its active secretary, Dr. J. T. Rothrock, a commission of inquiry was instituted in 1893. Before its report was established, the legislature of 1895 provided for an executive Department of Agriculture, and included in its organization a provision for a Division of Forestry, the botanist member of the previous commission, Dr. Rothrock, being appointed Commissioner of Forestry at the head of the Division. Two years later, the final legislation, which firmly established a forest policy for the State, was passed namely for the purchase of State forest reservations. All later legislation was simply an expansion of these propositions. By 1910, the State had acquired by purchase, wild, mostly culled lands to the extent of over 900,000 acres, and the Commission had progressed far towards providing for their management and recuperation.

The unusually disastrous conflagrations of 1894; the growing conviction that the pleaders of the exhaustibility of timber supplies were right, accentuated by a rapid decline in White Pine production and a rapid, and, indeed, almost sudden, rise in stumpage prices; the example which the federal government had set in withdrawing public timberlands from spoliation; together with an increasing number, not only of advocates of saner methods, but of technically educated men, who came from the schools lately organized—all these influences had worked as a leaven in all parts of the country so as to bring in the new century with a realization of the seriousness of the situation. And, within the first seven years of the century, the change of attitude, at least, was almost completed in all parts of the country, and among all classes, the lumbermen and others depending directly on wood supplies becoming especially prominent in recognizing the need and value of forestry.

State after State came into line in recognizing that it had a duty to perform, and in some way gave expression to this recognition, so that, by 1908, hardly a State was without at least a germ of a forest policy.

Two principles had been recognized as correct and were brought into practice, namely, that the forest interests of the State called for direct State activity, and that eventually the State must own and manage at least portions of the forest area. The first principle took shape in appointing single State foresters, [as in Maine (1891 and 1903); in Massachusetts (1904); in Connecticut (1903); in Vermont (1906); in Rhode Island (1906)]; or Commissions or Boards [as in New York (1885), changed to a single commissioner with Superintendent and State foresters in 1903; in Pennsylvania (1901); in New Hampshire (1893); Maryland with a State forester (1905); Wisconsin, with a State forester (1905); Indiana (1901-03); Louisiana, with a State forester (1904); Michigan (1899); Minnesota (1899); California (revived, with a State forester, in 1905); Washington, with a State forester (1905); Kentucky (1906); in New Jersey, with a State forester (1904); Alabama (1907).]

A very important feature in these appointments was the fact, that, more and more professional or technically educated men displaced the merely political appointees, or were at least added to the commissions.

The idea of State forests found expression, more or less definitely, in setting aside forest reservations or else in enabling the State to accept and administer donations of forest lands. Among the States recognizing this principle were New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, California.

Where neither of these two principles had as yet found application, at least some agency was established to give advice and investigate or experiment in matters of forest interests, and sometimes to offer assistance to private woodland owners or planters, as in Delaware, Ohio, North Carolina, etc.

Meanwhile, largely through the influence and with the co-operation of the federal Bureau of Forestry, private owners had begun, if not to apply, at least to study the possibility of the application of forestry to their holdings. The Bureau prepared “working plans” which were now and then followed in part, or at least led to attempts at a more conservative method of logging. Notably, various paper and pulp manufacturers realized the usefulness of more systematic attention and conservative methods in the use of their properties. In this connection the object lesson furnished by Mr. G. K. Vanderbilt on his Biltmore Estate in North Carolina, which was begun by Mr. Pinchot and conducted by Dr. C. A. Schenck, a German forester, requires special mention as the first, and for nearly 20 years continued experiment in applying forestry methods systematically in America. At present writing the continuance of this experiment is in doubt.

With the second decade of the century, we shall enter upon the flood tide of development, when no more need of argument for its necessity, and only the question of practicable methods, will occupy us.

So far, silviculturally, the selection forest, i.e., culling the best and the stoutest, practiced hitherto by the lumberman, without reference to reproduction, but carried on somewhat more conservatively, is still the method advocated in most cases by the Forest Service. This so-called conservative lumbering is, to be sure, the transition to better methods. According to reports of the federal Forest Service in 1907, some million acres of private timberland were under forest management or conservatively lumbered.

Planting of waste or logged lands, as distinguished from planting in the prairies, which had, sporadically and in a small way, been done by individuals here and there for many years, is practised in ever increasing amount, both by State administrations and by private owners; the New York State College of Forestry starting such planting in its College Forest on a larger scale and systematically, in 1899. At present writing, the forestry department of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company is perhaps the largest single planter in the country, having set out over four million trees (by 1910), with the avowed purpose of growing railroad ties.

By 1908, popular interest in forest conservation had become so keen, and at the same time paternalistic tendencies so fully developed by the Roosevelt administration—the federal government having entered upon extensive plans of reclaiming lands by irrigation, and preparing to develop water powers, and inland waterways,—that the time seemed ripe to bring all these conservative forces into unity.

The President called together in conference the governors of all the States with their advisers, together with the presidents of the various national societies interested, and others, to discuss the broad question of the conservation of natural resources.

As a consequence national and State Conservation Associations and Commissions were formed in all parts of the Union, and a new era of active interest in economic development seems to have arrived.

4. Education and Literature.

The primary education of the people at large and of their governments in particular, the propaganda for the economic reform contemplated by the forestry movement, was carried on, as stated, by the federal Division of Forestry and especially by the forestry associations, which sprang up in all parts of the country, by means of their annual and special meetings, aided by the general press and sometimes by special publications.

The first Journal of Forestry, a monthly publication, ventured into the world as a private enterprise, edited by Dr. Hough, soon after the Forestry Congress in Cincinnati, but it survived just one year, vanishing for lack of readers. This was followed by irregularly appearing Forestry Bulletins, of which the writer prepared four under the aegis of the American Forestry Association.

In 1886, the Pennsylvania Forestry Association began the publication of a bi-monthly journal, Forest Leaves, which has persisted to this day. In 1895, Dr. John Gifford launched another bi-monthly, the New Jersey Forester, soon to change its name to The Forester, and under that name, three years later, taken over by the American Forestry Association, continued as Forestry and Irrigation, changed to Conservation and now again changed to American Forestry. Now, half a dozen or more similar publications emanate from the various State Associations. In this connection there should not be forgotten the journal, Garden and Forest, edited by Professor C. S. Sargent, which for ten years, from 1888 to 1897, did much to enlighten the public on forestry matters.

Some provision for technical education was made long before opportunity for its application had arisen, and, indeed, before any professional foresters were in existence to do the teaching. The new doctrine attracted the attention of educational institutions, and the desire to assist in the popular movement led to the introduction of the subject, at least by name, into their curricula; the professor of botany or of horticulture, adding “forestry” to his title, and explaining in a few lectures the objects, and, as far as he knew them, the methods of forestry; or, at least some lectures on dendrology and forest geography were introduced in the botanical courses. By 1897, twenty institutions—land grant colleges—had in this way introduced the subject.

Perhaps the first attempt to present systematically a whole course of technical forestry matter to a class of students was a series of twelve lectures, delivered by the writer, at the Massachusetts College of Agriculture in 1887, and another to students of political economy at Wisconsin University in 1897.

The era of professional forest schools, however, was, inaugurated in 1898, when the writer organized the New York State College of Forestry at Cornell University, and almost simultaneously Dr. Schenck opened a private school at Biltmore.

A year later, another Forest school was opened at Yale University, an endowment of the Pinchots, father and sons. In 1903, the University of Michigan added a professional department of forestry, and then followed a real flood of educational enthusiasm, one institution after another seeing the necessity for adding the subject as an integral part to its courses. Before there were enough competent men in the field, some twenty colleges or universities called for teachers, besides private institutions. An inevitable result of this over-production of forest schools and of foresters all at once must be an overcrowding of the profession with mediocre men before the profession is really fully established.

Brief reference to the history of the first school, established by the State of New York, may be of interest, as exemplifying in a striking manner the political troubles besetting reforms under republican conditions. But for a similar occurrence in France (see p. 242), this case might be unique in the history of educational institutions. Although the school thrived almost beyond expectation, having in its fourth year attained in numbers to 70, larger than any French or German forest school at the time, and readily finding employment for its graduates, it suddenly came to an end in 1903. Its appropriation, unanimously voted in the Legislature, was vetoed by the Governor, on the alleged ground that the silvicultural methods applied in the demonstration forest of the College “had been subjected to grave criticism.” It is true the only silvicultural method officially sanctioned (by the Forest Service), the selection forest, had not been applied, yet the war against the College being waged by two wealthy bankers of New York and the well-known character of the then Governor suggest that other “considerations” than mere criticism of professional judgment were at the bottom of his action.

As from the start, the federal Forestry Bureau naturally continued in ever increasing degree to be the educator of the nation, not only as regards popular conceptions and attitudes, but as regards technical matter. Its bulletins, circulars, and reports on the subjects which come under investigation form the bulk of the American literature on the technical side of the subject. During the first 20 years of its existence, some 20,000 pages of printed matter were produced, and the next decade increased the crop of information apace. At first intended for popular propaganda, the matter printed was naturally argumentative, statistical and descriptive, but gradually more and more technical matter filled the pages, and now most of the publications are of technical nature.

One of the first extensive and important lines of investigation undertaken by the Division was that into the characteristics and strength, the timber physics, of American woods, which in its comprehensiveness commanded the admiration of even the Germans, and gave rise to a series of reports. The biology of American species, more or less exhaustively studied, was also begun in the old Division, as well as forest surveys, etc.

By 1902, enough professional interest was in the country to make the publication of a professional journal possible and desirable, the Forestry Quarterly being launched by the writer, with a Board of Editors chosen mainly from the forest schools.

The first association of professional foresters was formed in 1900—the Society of American Foresters—which issues from time to time proceedings containing technical discussions.

The technical book literature, partly due, no doubt, to the overpowering publication facilities of the federal government, is still scanty, and good textbooks especially are still lacking in most branches.

A series of ephemeral popular books answered the demands of earlier days, but outside of Professor Henry S. Graves’ volumes on Forest Mensuration and lately on The Principles of Handling Woodlands, and a few minor aid books and lecture notes, there is as yet nothing of permanent value to be recorded. The writers’ own publication, Economics of Forestry, is intended less for foresters than students of political economy.

Three monumental works can be mentioned in the dendrological line, however, namely the 10th volume of the XII Census (1880) on the Forests of North America; Micheaux and Nuttall’s North American Silva in 5 volumes, 1865; and C. S. Sargent’s Silva of the United States, in 14 magnificent volumes,—three publications which can take rank with any similar literature anywhere.

INSULAR POSSESSIONS.

The Spanish War, in 1898, brought to the United States new outlying territory, over 150,000 square miles, in three locations, the relationship as regards government varying in the three cases, namely Porto Rico, the Sandwich Islands, and the Philippine Islands, besides several smaller islands in the Pacific Ocean.

While the latter are only temporarily under control or tutelage of the United States, and are expected sooner or later to attain complete self government, Hawaii was annexed as a Territory in the same sense as all other Territories, the inhabitants having become citizens of the United States, while Porto Rico is a dependency with partial self-government, but its inhabitants do not enjoy citizenship in the States.

All these islands are located in the tropics and hence the composition of the forest is of tropical species.

Commercially, the forests of Porto Rico and of Hawaii are relatively of little value, but their protective value is paramount, and a conservative policy is needed in order to preserve the water supply for agricultural use (sugar plantations in Hawaii) and to prevent erosion.

For Porto Rico, a beginning of forest policy was made by setting aside, in 1903, the Luquillo Forest Reservation, some 20,000 acres in the Eastern mountainous part of the island, which is under direct control of the United States government. The rest of public lands and forests was placed under the Department of the Interior of the island.

In Hawaii, even before annexation, a movement on the part of the Sugar Planters Association was made in 1897, to induce the insular government to devise protective measures. The result was the appointment of a Committee who made a report in which the writer had a hand. But not until 1903 was a Board of Commissioners of Agriculture and Forestry established, a Superintendent of Forestry appointed, an organization of district foresters effected, and a number of forest reservations established. The principle of State forest was fully recognized by planning the gradual withdrawal of some 300,000 acres and by beginning the extension of forested area by plantations. In 1910, 23 reserves with an area of 575,000 acres had been made. Distribution of plant material and of advice to planters is also part of the policy. Annual Reports are issued which attest the good common sense in the administration.

In the Philippine Islands, a territory of 120,000 square miles, largely mountainous, not only the protective but the commercial value of the timberlands is considerable. The extent is variously estimated as covering between 40 and 50 million acres (50% of total area), much of it virgin, and 16 million acres of it commercially valuable. Of the seven hundred odd species of trees, mostly heavy woods, composing the forest, some 160 are marketable at home and in China; yet almost fifty per cent. of the home consumption is imported from the States, owing to absence or inaccessibility of softwoods, and high cost due to excessive expense of present logging methods.

When the United States took charge of the islands it was found that the Spaniards had since 1863 a forestry service, manned by Spanish foresters, and in the lower ranks by Filipinos. To be sure, the activities of this forestry bureau went hardly beyond the collection of dues for timber licenses, which yielded little more than the cost of the service, although on paper excellent instructions were found elaborated.

It so happened that an officer of the American army, Captain George P. Ahern, had for some time given attention to forestry matters in the States, and he naturally was placed in charge of this bureau, in 1900. There were found to be around one million acres private and church property, the rest being considered State lands, but all private owners were required to register their holdings before being allowed to exercise their rights. A system of licenses for cutting timber, and of free use permits to the poor population was continued after Spanish models. Not only was an efficient administration gradually secured, but the technical side of dendrological and silvicultural knowledge was developed as rapidly as possible under the able administration of Captain Ahern, a continuously growing literature being the result.