2/0 ECONOMICS OF FORESTRY. 



recognized as of importance to the general welfare, 

 there is no reason why it should not be declared 

 by law to justify the exercise of this power. And 

 while usually the right to expropriation is reserved 

 to the state, and presumably the objects are sup- 

 posed to be an advantage to the whole, there can be 

 no logical reason why this right may not be exer- 

 cised for any parts of the state, or for any consid- 

 erable portion of the community, provided the 

 interest to be subserved is communal and not indi- 

 vidual. Where the interests are of less range or 

 significance, the maxim " de minimis non curat 

 pr<ztor" may place the matter in that class of 

 cases which must be adjusted by appeal to jury 

 and by simple police regulation, as provided by the 

 Prussian law. 



In practice the expropriation of forest property 

 as a protective measure has found expression in 

 France, Italy, Switzerland, and Austria. 



In France, according to the law of 1860, private 

 woodlands could be expropriated when the owners 

 refused to reforest or keep in forest, but restitution 

 could be demanded within five years ; this very 

 improper clause was abolished in 1882. 



In Switzerland the canton is empowered to, and 

 at the request of the owner must, expropriate. 



In Italy the state, province, or community can 

 exercise this right for the purpose of reforesting 

 slopes to secure stable soil conditions and to 

 regulate waterflow. 



