222 Forestry Quarterly 



present organization is proposed, although on very large units, 

 it may be desirable to adopt the District 3 scheme of a staff 

 organization ; but this staff is more elaborate than appears neces- 

 sary. Instead of having grazing, timber sales, engineering and 

 lands specialists, probably two specialists could handle the four 

 activities (Chart 2). The changes in the district organization out- 

 lined above do not require explanation. 



The intensiveness of organization in 1907 is interesting (Chart 

 3). Take the branch of operation for example. It was divided into 

 accounts, maintenance, lands, engineering and organization. This, 

 it should be remembered, was when the administration was cen- 

 tralized in Washington. What brought this organization into 

 disrepute was the fact that it was over-organized. Accounts was 

 divided into: (1) disbursements, (2) bookkeeping, and (3) 

 receipts, each with a chief; maintenance was divided into (1) 

 purchase, (2) record, (3) supplies, and (4) photography; lands, 

 into (1) special uses, (2) claims, (3) agricultural, (4) settle- 

 ments, (5) status, and (6) boundaries; organization, under 

 a chief and assistant chief, was divided into six districts cor- 

 responding with the inspection districts, each under a forest 

 assistant or supervisor, detailed for routine work. Of course, 

 this early district organization was designed to train the super- 

 visors. Probably the mere routine under "organization" done by 

 these six men could be readily handled today by one or two 

 competent officials with perhaps the assistance of a chief clerk. 

 The organization proposed is, to be sure, somewhat similar to 

 that of 1907, but there is a vast difference. It has been sim- 

 plified ; most important of all we have trained men in the 

 office to handle the routine economically and simply. Even 

 more significant is the fact of the increased authority super- 

 visors enjoy, so that the argument that since the organization 

 did not work in 1907, it will not work today, can by no means 

 hold true. 



If the Forest Service is ever to be upon a self-sustaining basis, 

 it is absolutely essential, to my mind, that research be separated 

 from administration. Therefore, in the chart of the proposed 

 organization (p. 223), a United States Department of Agriculture 

 Bureau of Research is indicated under a chief who would be 

 assisted by an editor and perhaps by a technical expert in an 

 advisory capacity. The bureau would be divided according to 



