298 Forestry Quarterly 



tax itself for whatever purpose it desires. The probabihty, nevertheless, 

 is that only another constitutional amendment can right the case and 

 save to the State the 375,000 acres reserve, and that will take at least 

 two years. 



In Minnesota, on the other hand, due to an unusually active propaganda 

 and campaign of public education, a great victory for the forestry cause 

 was gained, when out of eleven amendments to the Constitution proposed, 

 the only one adopted was on the retention of school and public lands 

 better adapted for timber than agricultural use as State Forests. 



Oregon escaped the attacks on its non-political Board unscathed, also 

 through a thorough popular education. 



In California, the one of the Western States which started earliest in 

 the forestry movement, its first Board of Forestry being inaugurated in 

 1885, there seems also no settled condition to have arrived, the State 

 Forester and other interests being at cross-purposes as to what the func- 

 tions of the State Board of Forestry (political) and the State Forester 

 are to be, and how to be carried out. This organization dates from 

 1905, but, according to the State Forester, "as a result of the unwise 

 elimination of essential provisions, our forests and ranges have continued 

 to be devastated." A bill to establish a system of fire wardens was 

 defeated in 1911. 



In a voluminous report by the Commission of Conservation, rendered 

 in 1912, the Southern Pacific Railroad Company was directly charged 

 as opposing adequate forest fire legislation. In 1913, an attempt was 

 made to restore the eliminated provisions of the original act, but this 

 was met by counter bills and propaganda and especially by the active 

 opposition of the California Forest Protective Association — protecting 

 against interference for the benefit of the public (?) — organized the year 

 before and said to be composed mainly of lumbermen. 



Last winter saw the resumption of the fight in the same manner by 

 the introduction of antagonistic bills before the legislature. We are not 

 advised of the outcome. 



Quite in opposite direction, locally and in spirit, the legislature of 

 Maine has before it a radical proposition of allowing the State to con- 

 demn private lands for forestry purposes the same way that lands for 

 railroad purposes are expropriated. The same bill proposes exemption 

 from taxation for timberland as long as no timber below 12 inches is 

 cut; also a curious provision permitting the sale of tree seedlings from 

 State lands. 



