118 



the judge of the court which decide'd the trespasser had no title, to 

 also have the additional power to lock such a man up at the expense 

 of the county as a common enemy or outlaw, until he expressed him- 

 self as willing to recognize the verdict of the court, and cease his dep- 

 redations. 



There is also, it appears to me, an additional defect in existing law 

 relating to unseated lands. For example, there is nothing stated 

 which prevents the purchaser, or the owner, of lands sold for taxes 

 at Treasurer's sale, from cutting and removing timber from the 

 ground during the two years period of redemption. Purchases are 

 often made in the expectation that once the deed has been made out 

 to the purchaser (but before the period of redemption has passed) he, 

 the purchaser, may succeed in removing considerable bodies of tim- 

 ber before the owner can have a writ of estrepement issued and served. 



It is true that the writ of estrepement is the legal remedy, but it is 

 often a costly one, to both parties, and might be easily prevented by 

 the law distinctly prohibiting any cutting, or felling of timber, until 

 the period of redemption had passed; unless by a distinct agreement 

 between the parties interested. This would certainly save much liti- 

 gation, and neither wrong any party, nor prevent lumbering by mu- 

 tual agreement, nor take any advantage of the Commonwealth. 



In addition to the suggestions already made there is urgently re- 

 quired some prompt method of dealing with ordinary trespassers on 

 timber lands. Wrong done to the single owner may indeed be small, 

 but the aggregate injury to the State during the course of the year is 

 often enormous. For example, a large portion of the forest fires are 

 started by this class of persons, who are often not only pecuniarily 

 irresponsible, but who very frequently do not belong in the community 

 and have no interest in it. Forest owners are entitled to protection. 

 Plea for it is not made as an act of charity to them, but because it is 

 inherently right that they should have it. 



In order to heighten the contrast we quote here in full the act of 

 June 18, 1895, which accords full protection to the property and pro- 

 ducts of the farmer against trespass: 



AN ACT 



To amend an act, entitled "An act to protect fruit, gardens, growing 



crops, grass, etc., and punish trespass," approved the eighth day of 



June, Anno Domini one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one, so 



as to protect berries and nuts by punishing trespass. 



Section 1. Be it enacted, &c., That section one of an act, entitled 



"An act to protect fruit, gardens, growing crops, grass, et cetera," 



approved the eighth day of June, Anno Domini one thousand eight 



hundred and eighty-one, which reads as follows, viz: "That any person 



