348 JOURXAL OF FORESTRY 



Mr. Pack has stated in Board meeting that if there were even a pos- 

 sibihty of getting back the principle of any money invested in forestry, 

 there would be some excuse for lumbermen to practice it. but that up 

 to that time such was not the case. He also stated in 1921 at a Board 

 meeting that the parties from whom he expected to obtain the endow- 

 ment to apply on employing a forester as field agent, expressed the fear 

 that unless provision were made to perpetuate the present Board of 

 Directors by creating life terms, this money might be ultimately used 

 to employ a man who would spread the revolutionary doctrines of 

 Gifford Pinchot. 



Mr. Pack is probably sincere in believing that the general public is 

 interested in Memorial Trees, Roads of Remembrance, The Forest 

 Poetic, and even in Fire Prevention and other forward steps which call 

 for public expenditures. He did not commit himself on the Snell 

 Bill, however, until satisfied that the measure had the united support 

 of the large associations of lumbermen throughout the country, after 

 which the American Forestry Association actively took up publicity in 

 its behalf. Mr. Pack is a life director. 



IV. R. Brown is an officer and owner in the Brown Corporation 

 of Berlin Mills, N. H., which owns enormous areas of spruce and 

 balsam timber in New England and especially in Canada, and is engaged 

 in logging these lands and in paper manufacturing. Mr. Brown's in- 

 terest in forestry is genuine and practical. As a member of the New 

 Hampshire Forestry Commission for over ten years he has done great 

 service in promoting fire protection in that State and is an expert on 

 fire insurance for standing timber. Mr. Brown, however, distrusts the 

 wisdom and ability of public officials in administering any legislation 

 of a mandatory character having to do with brush disposal or restric- 

 tions on cutting. 



His views are, that whatever the forest owner does toward securing 

 forest conditions, on his cut-over lands, with the exception of fire pro- 

 tection, must be paid for by the public, "and the American principle 

 of quid pro quo carried out in place of un-American mandatory laws 

 for the restriction of cutting which would be confiscatory in character 

 and should never be worked except as a last resort in the direst emerg- 

 ency." This skepticism leads him in the same article to question the 

 efficiency of the work of the U. S. Forest Service on the National 

 Forests in the words, "Doubts have been expressed . . . that there 



