29 



And provided, Wiieu the penalty imposed is above five dollars, the 

 defendant or defendants may enter into a recognizance, with good 

 security, to answer said complaint on a charge of misdemeanor, 

 before the court of quarter sessions of the peace of the county in 

 which the offense is committed, which court, on conviction of the 

 defendant or defendants of the offense so charged and failure to pay 

 the penalty imposed by this act, with costs, shall commit said de- 

 fendant or defendants to the common jail of the county for a period 

 of not less than one day for each dollar of penalty imposed. 



Section 4. Any justice of the peace or alderman, upon in- 

 formation or complaint made before him by the affidavit of one or 

 more persons of the violation of this act, by any person or persons 

 shall issue his warrant to any constable or police officer to cause such 

 person or persons to be arrested and brought before the said justice 

 of the peace or alderman, who shall hear and determine the guilt 

 or innocence of the person or persons so charged, who, if convicted 

 of the said offense, shall be sentenced to pay the penalty afore- 

 said. 



Section 5. The commissioners of each county shall, within one 

 month after the passage of this act, cause the same to be published 

 one or more times, in one newspaper of general circulation in their 

 respective counties. 



Pamphlet Laws, 1887, p. 287. 



As this paper deals with the relations of the forest to the farmer, 

 it would be out of place to introduce the wider bearings of State 

 forest reservations. There are, however, most important connections 

 existing between the State, the farmers and the forests, and it is 

 proper that they should be more fully understood. For example, 

 one may assume that so long as a forest stands on a portion of a 

 farm it is doing a public service, because of its relations to the at- 

 mosphere and the rainfall. In fact it would usually be hard to 

 show that the owner derived any more benefit from his standing 

 timber than the citizens generally did. He, however, pays all the tax 

 upon it. Indeed, during the financial stress of recent years, the 

 owners have frequently been obliged to remove the trees in order 

 to realize something from land upon which they were paying money 

 out. This may seem incredible, but it can be proven. In other 

 words, in self protection, the farmer was driven to remove forest 

 growth, which, under existing circumstances, was actually of more 

 value to the Commonwealth than tflre taxes paid upon it were. Clear- 

 ly there must be something wrong with legislation which drives a 

 man to impoverish the State! It should also be remembered at the 

 same time that forest property is the most open to damage by in- 

 truders, and yet as a matter of fact, though taxes are paid upon it, 

 the State practically accords it, no-w, no protection. The injustice of 



