582 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



"Whereas, The ballot which has been submitted to the members 

 of the Society of American Foresters on the report of the Committee 

 for the Application of Forestry was not so formulated as to permit 

 an expression of opinion on the report as a whole ; and whereas by 

 the exclusion of all reference to the minority report the members were 

 prevented from expressing a preference between the principles and 

 methods advocated by the majority and minority reports, respectively; 

 Therefore, Be it resolved by the New England Section that the ballot 

 as prepared has failed to meet the requirements of the vote passed 

 at the annual meeting of the Society, and it is recommended by this 

 section that a supplementary ballot be immediately issued that will 

 permit a direct expression of opinioii on the following three points : 



"1. Is the .principle of regulation of private property to prevent the 

 destruction of the productivity of forest land approved? 



"2. Is the principle that the enforcement of said regulatory measures 

 to be placed in the hands of the Federal Government as advocated by 

 the majority report of the Committee approved? 



"3. As a substitute for the principle of direct Federal control, is 

 the principle preferred that the immediate determination and en- 

 forcement of such regulatory measures to be under the authority of 

 the State Governments with the co-operation of the Federal Govern- 

 ment in the form of inspection, technical advice, and financial aid as 

 advised in the minority report?" 



The facts are as follows : At the annual meeting of the Society, 

 held in New York on January 14. 1920, it was moved that a referendum 

 vote on the report of the Committee for the Application of Forestrv 

 be taken clause by clause. The ballot was prepared accordingly, the 

 substance of each clause being printed on the ballot itself. Before 

 the ballot was printed, Mr. Olmsted, representing the Committee, 

 discussed the form with Colonel Greeley and the ballot as presented 

 was mutually agreed upon. Provision was not made for balloting on 

 Professor Toumey's so-called minority report, for the simple reason 

 that he signed the majority report and made no minority report. Even 

 in case Professor Toumey had submitted a minority report it would 

 not have been voted upon, for the instructions given the Secretary 

 at the annual meeting called for a referendum vote on the Committee's 

 report. To have made special provision for the voters to express 

 their preference for or against the "Toumey Reservations" would 

 have been just as inappropriate as to have made special provision for 

 a vote upon the Forester's program of forestry, which also varies from 

 the Committee's report. 



The final question was added at the suggestion of the Forest Service 

 as aft'ording a common ground upon which all might agree, and its 



