362 RECENT LEGISLATION IN PRUSSIA. 



have the right of offering their observations and objections against pro- 

 posed legislation and management.^ 



In regard to the administration of forests belonging to institutions 

 (churches, schools, &c.) in the five eastern provinces, a State supervision 

 is not particularly prescribed by law. As for the remainder, they are 

 not restricted in the management of their forests.^ In the former duchy 

 of Nassau, the administration of forests for all uses, is left with the own- 

 ers. The State authorities are empowered to take measures to prevent 

 the entire devastation of woodlands. The proprietors are required to 

 furnish the Revier/orster with statistics of the aunual cuttings and cul-' 

 tivation, but are not bound to accept and carry out any of his directions 

 beyond the restriction of devastating practices.^ 



iPrivate forests are, like the preceding, subject to a variable legislation 

 in the different provinces. In the old Bavarian provinces, individuals 

 have not the right of clearing or of entirely cutting off" the forests located 

 on the slopes or summits of mountains, or on pebbly ground, or in places 

 where their presence is necessary to retain the soil, or to maintain the 

 supply of springs and rivers. They must also replant parts destroyed 

 by fire. Fines are imposed for violation of these rules, and the work of 

 reboisement is executed at their expense. Beyond this the proprietary 

 right is not subject to restrictions. In the old duchy of Nassau, the 

 administration of private forests is left with the owners, but the State 

 agents may interpose to prevent clearing and devastation. Owners are 

 obliged to make annual reports of their cuttings, and upon the manage- 

 ment of their woodlands, without, however, being restrained, provided 

 that their working is not of the nature of devastation, when they must 

 accept the modifications i^roposed by the agents. 



In the old electorate of Hesse, the forest authorities may oppose the 

 devastation of private forests, and compel their owners to replant wasted 

 portions. 



In Hesse-Homburg, individuals cannot destroy their forests, and for 

 all properties having an area of over 20 arpents, plans of cultivation 

 and of working must be submitted to the authority charged with in- 

 spection. 



In the provinces of Schleswig Holstein, the owners of forests are sub- 

 jected by the State to certain rights of usage as to fire- wood, in favor of 

 villages, and must work according to rules of management, and may not 

 clear without the permission of Government. 



In the provinces of the Ehine, all clearing is forbidden without pre- 

 vious license from the Government, and the forestal authorities have 

 the right to forbid all working contrary to the principles of forest 

 economy. 



In the other provinces, the State does not enjoy the right of inspec- 

 tion that is exercised over private forests in the provinces above des- 

 ignated ; every owner has the right to enjoy and to dispose of his forests 

 as he chooses^ so far as the rights of the public are not affected. 



Under the operation of actual law therefore, in the different provinces 

 in the empire, there exists a difference almost fundamental between the 

 administration of communal forests and those belonging to individuals; 

 and while the former are everywhere subject in a greater or less degree to 

 the surveillance of the State, the latter are for the most part completely 

 free. 



'Electorate of Hesse, edict of organization, June 29, 18"21, and regulations of March 

 5, 1840. Law of Hesse-Hombnrg for forest organization, February 5, 1835. Ordinances 

 of grand duchy of Hesse, April 1, 18-22, December 29, 1823, and June 23, 1831. 



2 Bavarian forest law of March 28, 1852. 



'Naesau, edict of November 9, 1876. 



