SERVICE NOTES FOR JUNE. 



OFFICE OF THE FORESTER. 



Revised "Use Book" 



The revised edition of "The Use Book," containing the new regulations which go 

 into effect July 1, 1907, will be in the hands of supervisors by June 20. Supervisors 

 will be expected to familiarize themselves with the changed and added regulations 

 before these go into effect. 



Itinerary of Mr. Shaw 



Mr. A. 0. Shaw w T ill visit the supervisors at the following places and times to 

 instruct them in the preparation of cases for trial and in other legal matters: 



Phoenix, Ariz., June 10; Prescott, Ariz., June 11; Durango, Colo., June 13; 

 Weiser, Itlaho, June 20; Helena, Mont,, June 24; Sumas, Wash., June 28; Portland, 

 Oreg., June 30; Susanville, Cal., after July 5, indefinitely. This program may be 

 varied by Mr. Shaw as necessity demands, but he will notify the supervisors of any 

 change. 



The Forester on the pardon of Everett B. Thomas- 

 Concerning petitions for the pardon of former Forest Supervisor Everett B. Thomas, 

 who was convicted about a year ago of falsification of his accounts, the following 

 letter was written by the Forester: 



APRIL 29, 1907. 

 Mr. YV.M. <i. KEREKHOI F, 



634 Pacific Electric KuUri'my, Los Angeles, Oil. 



DEAR Mr, KEREKHOFF: Your letter and the papers transmitted by you concerning the 

 pardon of former Forest Supervisor Everett B. Thomas have been carefully considered. 

 The statements made in some of the papers of Mr. Thomas's conduct, and the rea- 

 sons given for his pardon, are so erroneous that I must refer to them in some detail. 



1. Mr. Thomas was not a good forest officer. The investigation which led to his 

 conviction showed that, although he reported frequent visits to the field, as a matter 

 of fact he almost never set foot upon the National Forests intrusted to his care. 



2. The amount involved in his frauds was not small, but large. The ten counts 

 upon which he was convicted were but a small percentage of the number of false 

 entries which could have been proven against him if it had been considered neces- 

 sary. He was not only technically guilty of petty falsifications, but actually guilty 

 of systematic and long-continued falsifications. 



3. I know of no ground whatever for the assertion that thje moneys fraudulently 

 collected by him were made up by expenditures in the interests of the Government 

 in other directions. 



4. The proceedings against him were not in any sense persecution, nor were they 

 conducted in an unfair spirit, nor did they have any relation whatever to any political 

 feud in which Mr. Thomas was on the losing side. They were instituted solely for 

 the purpose of punishing a Government officer who had, not in small but in large 

 matters, proved himself false to his trust, and to prevent like conduct on the part of 

 other public officers. 



If I believed that his pardon would be understood as tardy justice to a persecuted 

 man, or taken by any considerable number of people as a vindication of his conduct, 



(25) 



