EDITORIAL 



369 



timber resources but the people's confidence in this de- 

 partment was further manifested by entrusting it for the 

 first time with an adequate area of state forest land. 



The time is rapidly passing in our various states when 

 state property in land, timber and other natural resources 

 can be neglected or mismanaged with impunity by officials 

 imbued with the ideas of partisan politics and the era 

 when such property can be stolen outright belongs to the 

 recent past. But the public has yet to learn that the man- 

 agement of such property is a business which requires sta- 

 bility of policy, the retention of expert managers, and the 

 elimination of the "spoils system, " even though the latter 



be euphemistically termed "responsibility to the people." 

 State forest property must be kept in the hands of trained 

 state foresters and managed on the merit system. Minne- 

 sota has had this system since 1911, and when the people 

 of Minnesota realize that the proper development and pro- 

 tection of their 300,000-acre playground depends upon con-" 

 tinuing the efficient and non-political organization of the 

 State Forest Service, under the State Board of Forestry, 

 there will be less chance in the future than there was this 

 year that they will permit legislation jeopardizing their 

 heritage of forest and lake front, that is destined to become 

 the most prized possession of generations yet to come. 



A BACKWARD STEP IN VERMONT 



" 7ERM0NT has abolished her State Forestry Board 

 \ and subordinated her State Forestry Department 

 to the Commissioner of Agriculture. Incidental to 

 this change, both the state forester and the assistant 

 state forester, comprising the technical force of this 

 department, have resigned. 



This upheaval in Vermont presents vividly the struggle 

 between the old and the new ideals in state government in 

 this country. We have stated repeatedly in these pages 

 that state forestry cannot be efficient as a part of the par- 

 tisan political game as it is usually played. An attempt to 

 do any effective work in fire protection, the rational man- 

 agement of forest lands, especially if state owned, and 

 public education in forestry if entrusted to politicians with- 

 out professional training is worse than a waste of time, for 

 it will bring forestry into disrepute among the unthinking 

 public. 



Vermont made a good beginning in state policy ten 

 years ago, when the State Board of Forestry was estab- 

 lished and empowered to appoint a trained forester. They 

 secured and retained until the present year one of the most 

 capable and experienced foresters in the country a man 

 whose reputation amongst the profession is above reproach. 

 Under this forester the work in Vermont forged rapidly 

 ahead. A state-wide system of fire protection was organ- 

 ized, planting increased rapidly and a policy of purchasing 

 state forests was begun, which promised in time to yield 

 great results as demonstrations of forestry practice. 



But close students of state organization have realized 

 that forestry in Vermont was all this time resting upon an 

 unstable foundation, and was after all at the mercy of the 

 strong political machine which for generations has con- 

 trolled the destinies of this rock-ribbed New England 

 community. The board which had the appointive power 

 was composed of four men, only one of whom was a 

 scientist. Of the other three, the Governor was one, and 

 the Governor appointed the remaining two. 



Forestry was originally taken up by a number of men 

 prominent in political life in Vermont, with the sincere pur- 

 pose of benefiting the state. Under their encouragement 

 the department was launched and was given the needed 

 support. But this was autocracy. Sooner or later the will 

 of these rulers was bound to clash with the interests of the 



public and that is just what happened. A prominent 

 citizen bestowed a tract of land upon the state to be man- 

 aged as a state forest . Another prominent citizen suggested 

 the name of a retainer for custodian. The retainer was 

 appointed. It shortly developed that the state forest 

 was being run, not according to the ideals of practical and 

 economic forest management, but for the dual purpose of 

 carrying out the personal ideas of the donor and of pro- 

 viding a permanent job for the henchman. To the student 

 of the spoils system in American politics it will not appear 

 surprising that these overlords of an American common- 

 wealth decided that a technical expert who refused to 

 consent to the retention of an incompetent assistant 

 should therefore be gotten rid of, even if in the process it 

 were necessary to tear down the entire department. 



Efficiency and party politics are absolutely incompat- 

 ible. The two cardinal principles of efficient organization 

 are, first, that the man directly responsible for the job shall 

 be qualified to perform the duties required of him, and, 

 second, that he be given the power to select and remove 

 and to oversee and control the subordinates required in 

 carrying out this work. The latter principle was grossly 

 violated, and as a result the state forester resigned and the 

 department itself was reorganized out of existence as a 

 penalty for this insubordination. 



The new law provides that the commissioner of agri- 

 culture shall act as state forester, in addition to serving as 

 state nursery inspector, director of the agricultural schools 

 of the state, cattle commissioner, and state ornithologist. 

 An amendment, not contemplated by the original law, 

 but secured by the friends of forestry, reads that he must 

 appoint a deputy who shall be a professionally trained 

 forester. The commissioner has the power of apportion- 

 ing the funds to be spent for forestry, and makes all ap- 

 pointments. The deputy of forestry, therefore, has no real 

 authority, but is a subordinate, from this time forth, who 

 can be expected to give no further trouble. The custodian 

 whose retention precipitated this issue between personal 

 government and business efficiency still holds his job. 



American Forestry calls attention to this situation 

 because of the deep significance of the events described. 

 There are many who claim that state governments in this 

 country do not possess the elements of stability necessary 



