294 JOURNAIv OF FORESTRY 



a ruling obtained by the Secretary from an attorney, to the effect that 

 the by-laws were changed before the election, and required the 

 Treasurer to be a member of the Board. This change was made after 

 the ballots had been cast. Although a vacancy has existed on the 

 Board since March 2. 1920, by the refusal of Director Gaskill of New 

 Jersey to accept election, no move was made to elect the Treasurer to 

 this vacancy and enable him to serve. 



In view of these facts the members present should exercise judg- 

 ment in deciding upon the advisability of entrusting the affairs of the 

 Association to a Board so organized that the members of the Associa- 

 tion, as well as a majority of the Board would cease to exercise any 

 effective control over either the finances or the policy of the Association. 



Herman H. Chapman, 

 Director, American Forestry Association. 



Professor Chapman has since stated that at the meeting of the Board 

 in the morning of the same day that the annual meeting took place, 

 the Board agreed, after a two hours' fight on his part, to modify 

 some of these points. They did not agree, however, to change the 

 provision for seven perpetual directors or the provision by which they 

 should have the power to amend the by-laws. The latter point was 

 not even discussed. Since, however, no attempt was made to explain 

 or reconcile the discrepancies in the summaries by Professor Chapman 

 and the Secretary, and since the amendments themselves were not 

 presented to the meeting, there was no way in which those present 

 could tell exactly what it was they were voting on. 



On the conclusion of Mr. Pack's statement, Mr. Wells presented a 

 number of arguments against the adoption of the proposed amendments 

 and read in full a letter to Mr. Pack from Mr. H. A. Reynolds, Secre- 

 tary of the Massachusetts Forestry Association, also opposing the 

 adoption of the amendments. Mr. Reynolds' letter called particular 

 attention to the fact that the organization proposed gave practically 

 complete control of the Association to the Board of Directors, seven 

 of whom would be permanent members, including authority to elect 

 officers, to nominate the elective members of the Board, and to amend 

 the by-laws. He pointed out that these changes, making possible as 

 they did the control of the Association by special interests for their 

 own purposes, were extremely dangerous and were more than likely to 

 forfeit public support and thus endanger the usefulness of the Asso- 

 ciation. He therefore urged that no such action should be taken 



