154 MINNESOTA STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 



DESTRUCTION OF THE FORESTS. 



J. B, HARRISON, SECRBTARY OF N. H. FOREST COMSIISSIOKERS. 



All the forest lands in New Hampshire are private propertj^ and the 

 owners have the same right under our laws as the owners of any other 

 property, to do as they please with their own possessions. The forestry 

 commission has no more power of supervision, direction or control over 

 the forests in this state than we have over the conditions of life on the 

 moons of Mars. We can talk and write about the forests, the value of 

 our scenery and all the rest of it, as we might about the little moons, and 

 the sawmill holds its fateful course, just the same. 



The people of the state can, of course, do nothing collectively for the 

 preservation of our forests and scenery, except in a legal and constitu- 

 tional way, that is, by legislative enactment. An act of the legislature 

 would be required, establishing some method or system of administration 

 and providing for the necessary supervision. But, while the forests 

 remain private property, the state appears to have no power to exercise 

 such control or supervision over them as would be adequate for their 

 preservation. The state can enact laws for defence against forest fires, 

 and if the people would enforce and obey them it would often have a good 

 effect: but it would not save our. scenery. The sawmill would still 

 gnaw its relentless way up one side of every valley and down the other. 



The individual owners can, of course, treat their wooded lands wisely, 

 if they choose and know how. They could utilize in time the entire 

 growth and produce of the forests without destroying or impairing forest 

 conditions, but apparently they, in general, neither choose to nor know 

 how. To bring about such conditions of general enlightenment and co-oper- 

 ation as would lead to the preservation of the forests by the action and 

 management of the individual owners, is practically impossible. We 

 cannot command the means and conditions which would be necessary for 

 such educational work. It appears to me that the only plan by which we 

 can reasonably hope to accomplish anything vital for the preservation of 

 our forests and scenery is that of state ownership of our mountain lands. 

 Any considerable or adequate interference by the state with the man- 

 agement of forests which are private property is out of the question. 

 There is no provision in our system of government for anything of the 

 kind, and no disposition on the part of the people to attempt the intro- 

 duction of anything so foreign to our usages. So far as I can see or judge, 

 it is certain that while our mountain forests remain private property 

 nothing effective will be done for their preservation or for their rational 

 management. 



The White Mountain forests are more valuable as scenery, as the indis- 

 pensable enviroment and theatre of our summer resort business, than for 

 the production of lumber, and in all our thought of these matters the 

 lumber interest should be subordinated to the scenery interest. But 

 there is no necessary antagonism between the two interests when they 

 are intelligently managed. Until 1867 the state owned vast tracts of 

 forests in the regions which are now being desolated. The transaction by 

 which these lands were transferred to private ownership was wholly in- 

 defensible, if not inexplicable. The price paid for them was palpably 

 nominal and unreal. I think the people of New Hampshire should now 

 resume possession of these lands by the exercise of the right of eminent 



