THE MEASUREMENT OF TIMBER. I 29 



have remained in universal use so long. Some writers explain 

 this inaccuracy as an allowance to the buyer, to compensate 

 him for the loss and waste incurred in squaring the stick. 

 Schlich, in his Manual of Forestry, says : — " In comparing this 

 with the real sectional area — -0796 x g 2 — it is found that the 

 quarter-girth method gives only 78^ per cent, of the true basal 

 area and volume, omitting 21^ per cent. The method is based 

 upon the assumption that this amount represents the waste 

 incurred in squaring the timber." If this assumption were 

 correct our sawmillers should be producing in square-edged 

 sawn timber the same number of cubic feet as the original 

 log contained, according to the quarter-girth measurement. In 

 general practice this does not hold good. For instance, the 

 writer has noted that in numerous cases, with logs of larch, 

 the percentage of bark exceeded 21 per cent. This would, 

 therefore, on quarter-girth measurement over bark, leave the 

 sawmiller practically no margin whatever for loss in slabbing 

 or saw-draught. 



The inaccuracy of the quarter-girth system was also disclosed 

 when the Government placed an import duty on foreign timber. 

 A considerable loss to the revenue would have resulted from the 

 adoption of the old system, and accordingly the Custom House 

 authorities drew up various rules of measurement, which 

 remained in force until 1866, when the duties on foreign timber 

 were abolished. The method of measuring the round timber 

 remained the same, but the divisor was reduced so as to bring 

 out the contents of the log as near to the accurate as possible. 

 The square of the quarter-girth, instead of being divided by 144 

 to obtain cubic feet, was divided by 113. In some cases the 

 square of the diameter was taken, the divisor then being 183. 

 The Standard Timber Measurer, compiled by E. A. P. Burt, 

 gives tables from which the contents of round timber, calculated 

 on these two rules, can be readily got, the result being for all 

 practical purposes accurate. 



Again the well-known prevailing custom of taking a load of 

 round timber as equal to 40 cubic feet, whereas a load of sawn 

 timber is taken as 50 cubic feet, condemns the quarter-girth 

 system. The weight of the two loads, granted the timber is of 

 equal dryness, is approximately the same, for the simple reason 

 that the true contents of the two loads are similar. The one, 

 however, is measured by quarter-girth measurement, while the 



