66 PROTECTION AOAINST MAN. 



the estate, whose right extended over tlie wliole, Avithin its 

 proper boundaries, there might be third jjersons, having 

 rights within the boundaries also. When this is the case 

 it is often popularly (but inaccurately) said that the owner- 

 ship is liiititt'd. Oicnership in itself is an ultimate and 

 indivisil^le rig) it ; if a person is owner at all, he is simply 

 owner, he cannot be something more or less, so long as he 

 retains the legal title at all. But around the riyht of on ner- 

 sJiij) cluster also a number of subsidiary rights and enjoyments, 

 some of which can be broken off, so to speak, and come into 

 the hands of other persons. Hence, though the ownership 

 remains, the enjoyment of it may be either absolute and 

 unfettered or may be limited. One obvious way in which 

 such limitation arises, is by some contract — such as a lease, 

 pledge, or mortgage, or loan of the estate ; with that kind, 

 however, the present w'ork is not concerned. There is another 

 class of rights of third ])arties which do not arise out of any 

 lease or temporary contract, and their existence often causes a 

 very considerable limitation of a forest owner's enjoyment and 

 control of his property. 



4. Rules of Protecting Forest Property. 



Before discussing the nature of these rights, some brief 

 rules may be given, which apply to the protection of the 

 forest property or estate as such-; to secure the area, general 

 title, and legal position of the property. 



(a) See that the forest is regularly and permanently 

 demarcated, both as to its general outer boundaries and as 

 to all inner boundaries — which mark the limits to which 

 certain rights extend, or in which there are no rights other 

 than the owner's. 



(h) Provide convenient means of entrance to and exit from 

 the forest and its various compartments. 



(c) Exercise the rights of ownership in the forest, especially 

 near its outer boundaries ; let no one have an excuse for 

 saying it could not be known that any one was in possession, 

 or was owner of the place. The mere fact of possession 

 renders the assertion of ownership much stronger before the 

 courts of law, in cases of disputed ownership. 



