87 
co 
LEGISLATION ON THE FOREST. 
law has been found impotent to prevent the destruction, or 
wasteful economy, of private forests ; and in many of the moun- 
tainous departments of that country, man is at this moment so 
fast laying waste the face of the earth, that the most serious fears 
are entertained, not only of the depopulation of those districts, 
but of enormous mischiefs to the provinces contiguous to them.* 
The only legal provisions from which anything is to be hoped, 
are such as shall make it a matter of private advantage to the 
landholder to spare the trees upon his grounds, and promote the 
growth of the young wood. Much may be done by exempting 
standing forests from taxation, and by imposing taxes on wood 
felled for fuel or for timber, something by more stringent pro- 
visions against trespasses on forest property, and something by 
premiums or honorary distinctions for judicious management of 
the woods; and, in short, in this matter rewards rather than pun- 
ishments must be the incentives to obedience even to a policy of 
enlightened self-interest. It might be difficult to induce gov- 
ernments, general or local, to make the necessary appropriations 
* “The laws against clearing have never been able to prevent these opera- 
tions when the proprietor found his advantage in them, and the long series of 
royal ordinances and decrees of parliaments, proclaimed from the days of 
Charlemagne to our own, with a view of securing forest property against the 
improvideunce of its owners, have served only to show the impotence of legisla- 
tive action on this subject.”,—CLavs, Hiudes sur 0 Economie Forestiére, p. 32. 
‘* A proprietor can always contrive to clear his woods, whatever may be done 
to prevent him; it is a mere question of time, and a few imprudent cuttings, 
a few abuses of the right of pasturage, suffice to destroy a forest in spite of 
all regulations to the contrary.”—DuNoyvER, De la Lnberté du Travail, ii., p. 
452, as quoted by Clavé, p. 353. 
Both authors agree that the preservation of the forests in France is practi- 
cable only by their transfer to the state, which alone can protect them and 
secure their proper treatment. IJtis much to be feared that even this measure 
would be inadequate to preserve the forests of the American Union. There 
is little respect for public property in America, and the Federal Government, 
certainly, would not be the proper agent of the nation for this purpose. It 
proved itself unable to protect the live-oak woods of Florida, which were in- 
tended to be preserved for the use of the navy, and it more than once paid 
contractors a high price for timber stolen from its own forests. The authori- 
ties of the individual States might be more efficient. 
