32 REPORT OF THE FOREST COMMISSION. 



powers and limitations might be. There is, of course, no real 

 basis for such an attitude since several shade tree commissions, 

 notably those of Passaic, Newark and East Orange, have* been 

 doing effective work for upwards of 10 years. The State For- 

 ester has had a number of conferences with the Attorney Gen- 

 eral and with a committee of shade tree commission officials on 

 a revision of the laws. It is hoped that a reasonable bill can 

 be presented for enactment during the coming legislative ses- 

 sion. 



One of the chief needs of shade tree commissions outside of 

 large cities is for technical advice. Few have the money to em- 

 ploy a forester, or really enough work for one. The members 

 of the commission themselves have little technical knowledge, 

 yet want to do good work for their community. The state 

 foresters have accordingly stood ready to advise and assist in 

 every way whenever called upon to do so. In the spring visits 

 were made to a majority of the communities having shade tree 

 commissions, apparently with good results. One outcome of 

 these visits was the preparation of the circular reproduced as 

 Fig. 23. These were published by the Forest Commission but 

 distributed in the main by the local shade tree commissions. 

 The recommendations made were based chiefly upon the recog- 

 nized facts that a shade tree commission may be more effective 

 if it has the knowledge and authority of the Forest Commission 

 behind it, and that individuals can be induced to do right by 

 their trees if they definitely are told how. 



CO-OPERATION. 



The central idea in shade tree work is co-operation. Property 

 owners, the municipality and the state itself each has a part to 

 play. The state's interest is broad, being chiefly to make its 

 territory attractive and to harmonize and unify the efforts of 

 the several communities. The communities' interest is to in- 

 crease local values and to strengthen individual aims and ef- 

 forts. The property owners are commonly divided into two 

 classes: those who resist all outlay and are satisfied with indif- 

 ferent results, and those who are willing to be taxed moder- 

 ately for public improvements. The latter must, of course, 



