No. 2, November, 1920] FORESTRY 83 



were killed by insects and 10 per cent by other causes. This amounts to a loss of \ per cent 

 per annum, which is less than in pine stands. Insects will be an important feature in future 

 timber-sale practice, through their effed upon the reserved stand and upon the black-jack 

 stage of the western yellow pine. — E. N. Munns. 



600. Peters, J. G. Co-operation between the federal government and the states. Jour. 

 Forestry 18: 477-485. 1920. — The whole question of a national forest policy devolves upon 

 the finances. Acquisition of forests by the federal government is slow and can not keep up 

 with denudation. State acquisition of cut-over lands is desirable on a large scale, but the 

 cost is more than the states can bear. Planting of denuded lands is badly needed and the 

 nation, the states and private owners should each bear a part in the cost. Fire protection 

 through 1 he present Week's law will assure the maintenance of present areas of young stands 

 and will aid nature in reforesting large areas, but additional funds are necessary to make the 

 plan of real nation-wide benefit. Farm forestry has a real place in the forest program, supply- 

 ing part of the needs of the rural population. — E. N. Munns. 



601. Peyton, Jeannie S. Forestry movement of the seventies, in the Interior Department, 

 under Schurz. Jour. Forestry 18: 391-405. 1920.— A history of the four years of the forestry 

 movement in the United States of America under Secretary Carl Schurz and General 

 James A. Williamson, Commissioner of the General Land office. The bills drafted and not 

 passed by Congress in that period were forerunners of the present system of forest adminis- 

 tration and regulation. — E. N. Munns. 



602. Pinchot, Gifford. Where we stand. Jour. Forestry 18 : 441-447. 1920 — A resume" 

 of the principal arguments against the proposed national forest policy for the United States 

 shows the objection because of possible confiscation is merely an attempt to dodge the main 

 issue. The constitutionality of the measure must be passed upon after the laws have been 

 drawn up. The national government is better able to handle the administration of a forest 

 policy than are the individual states, while the fear of bureaucracy is not supported by past 

 developments. There is an awakening of the forestry profession to the realization of the 

 need of such a policy, and their activity in its favor. — E. N. Munns. 



603. Preston, John F. Discussion of the Pinchot Committee report. Jour. Forestry 18: 

 460-464. 1920. — Federal action in a forest program is needed, but the proposed plan is wrong 

 in attempting to force the measure upon the lumber industry rather than having it come 

 about through education. The state is the strongest point in the unit and state legislation 

 should be sufficient to bring about the desired end. Cooperation with the lumbermen is 

 to be desired in any plan. — E. N. Munns. 



604. Rane, F. W. Use of wood for fuel. Proc. Soc. Promotion Agric. Sci. 39: 48-53. 

 1919.— Attention is called to the availability and value of wood for fuel, especially in New Eng- 

 land. The suggestion is made that wood obtained in clearing out wood-lots and from forest 

 trees unsalable as lumber be cut into lengths suitable for use in stoves, furnaces, and fire- 

 places instead of into 4-foot or cord-wood lengths, as at present. The utilization of wood in 

 the production of different chemicals is pointed out as a future asset of great value to the 

 United States.—//. N. Vinall. 



605. Ridsdale, P. S. The memorial trees of the United States. Garden Mag. 30: 177-1S0. 

 * fig. 1920. 



606. [Ridsdale, P. S.] State forests in Massachusetts. Amer. Forestry 26: 323. 1920. 



607. Riemenschneider. Die preussische Forstverwaltung und das Landwirtschafts- 

 ministerium. [The Prussian Forest Service and the Ministry of Agriculture.] Deutsch. 

 Forstzeitg. 35: 170-171. 1920.— The Forest Service was transferred from the Ministry of Fi- 

 nance to that of Agriculture in 1880. It is suggested that this change has not proved altogether 



