NOTES AND QUERIES. 199 
vO TE Sen Orr RES: 
A NOTE UPON THE CRITICISM OF THE REPORT OF THE DEPART- 
MENTAL COMMITTEE ON FORESTRY IN THE PREFACE TO 
The Forester, BY DR NISBEY—AND HIS REPLY THERETO. 
My attention was called by Dr Nisbet to the views expressed 
in his book upon certain points in this Report and Evidence. 
His criticisms seem to me unsubstantiated by facts, and over- 
strained, even if they be taken in the light of an argument for 
Protection. The facts given in Dr Schlich’s evidence as to the 
finance, situation, prairie value, quality of soil, stocking and 
management of the Anthonsthal Range are not disputed, and 
therefore Dr Nisbet’s contention reduces itself to this—that the 
example in question, being so favourable, it should have been 
rejected by the Committee. But this example was only one out 
of several that are to be found in the Evidence—some of them 
bearing upon much larger areas—whilst the total German forest 
area and its net return are well enough known. 
Moreover, the example given from the Anthonsthal Range 
could be superseded by even more remarkable figures. In the 
Tharander Forstlicher Jahrbuch are given the following averages 
of net annual revenue during the ten years 1894-1903 :— 
The net revenue of 
Per acre a year. 
The ANTHONSTHAL Range has risen from 38s., 
as given by Dr Schlich, to . . 43S. 
The Sosa Range, of 3760 acres, has yielded ‘ 45S. 
And the CRoTTeNnpborF Range, of 4078 acres, . 48s. 
This shows, at any rate, that the Anthonsthal return is not the 
highest. It belongs to the Schwarzenberg Forstamt division, in 
which there are 
46,812 acres, of which the mean net revenue 
per acre per annum is ; ; : 28s. 
while the Marienberg Forstamt, with an area of 
44,830 acres, yields a net annual revenue per 
acre of ; : ; . , 30S. 
so that the Schwarzenberg Forstamt is again not the highest. 
