752 JOUKNAL OF FORESTRY 



was never absent a small body of Filipinos and Americans who, though 

 comparatively few in numbers, were strong in influence — men of wide 

 vision, clear statesmanship, broad reading, and with a true patriotism 

 of a high order — ready to support the Bureau. Although it is perhaps 

 dangerous to mention any particular friends of the Bureau in past 

 years, for fear of injustice to those whose names are omitted, it can 

 do no harm to take this opportunity of paying a well-deserved tribute 

 to Secretary Dean C. Worcester, to Secretary Winfred T. Denison 

 (who succeeded him in the Department of the Interior), to the Hon. 

 Jaime C. de Veyra (now Executive Secretary, but who as a member 

 of the Assembly drafted and was largely responsible for the passage in 

 the Assembly of the bill creating the Forest School), and more recently 

 to Delegates Ruiz, Capistrano, Ocampo, and Romualdez and many 

 others in the Assembly, and to Commissioners Ilustre and Palma in the 

 Upper House. Ever since his arrival, in 1914, Governor General Har- 

 rison has proved an unswerving advocate for all that promotes the 

 solidity of the Bureau of Forestry and the proper utilization and con- 

 servation of the forest resources of the Philippines. To these gen- 

 tlemen and to many of their colleagues the admiration of all foresters 

 is due. Without their constant and extremely influential interest the 

 Philippine Bureau of Forestry might not exist today. 



In striking contrast to previous sessions were the attitude and the 

 acts of the legislative session which has just closed (February, 1916). 

 It is true that in the first, opening days of the session the usual bill for 

 abolishing the Bureau was introduced and referred to committee — 

 from which it never emerged. Shortly afterwards a committee of 

 assemblymen was appointed by the speaker to investigate all branches 

 of the government engaged in work of an agricultural nature, with a 

 view of recommending how their activities could be conducted more 

 efficiently and economically. Although forestry is not agriculture, and 

 should not, properly speaking, have been included in the scope of 

 the resolution, we knew from past experience that the Bureau of For- 

 estry would be so included, and all past experience also pointed to the 

 foregone conclusion that the Bureau would be recommended for abol- 

 ishment. The first of these apprehensions was justified. The Bureau 

 was included in the committee's investigations; but not so with the 

 second, for the report, as finally submitted in January of the present 

 year, bore, we may be permitted to say, abundant evidence to the re- 

 sults which the "popularization campaign" of the preceding year had 

 accomplished. 



