No. 4.] FORESTRY IN MASSACHUSETTS. 57 



suggested, nauioly, tluit the State \)'dy (lie entire bill, and 

 reeover the sliare of the town, it having beou found that the 

 loni; delay in havin«i^ town bills -settled makes fire flighting a 

 still less desirable occupation than it is in itself. The town 

 determines the rate of pay, which varies between $1 and $2 

 per day : but the amount to be expended on the whoh? 

 depends on the exigencies of the season. To assist the 

 })oorer towns, the State could bear the heaviest share, estab- 

 lishing a fair division upon the basis of poi)ulation or of 

 taxable value. From the practice in Canada and the experi- 

 ence in NcAV York we learn that, in addition to the reufular 

 organization, there is need, at least in specially dangerous 

 seasons and dangerous localities, to have fire patrols continu- 

 ously employed, to prevent tires, while the danger lasts. In 

 Canada these patrols are appointed by the government, and 

 paid one-half by the government, one-half by the timber 

 limit holders, — a truly democratic efficient arrangement. 

 In Massachusetts such patrols are probably indicated only 

 in a few localities of scanty population, and with large con- 

 tiguous forest areas. 



The effectiveness of patrols is attested to by the superin- 

 tendent of the New York Forest Commission. He states 

 that; "During the dry season of 1899 there were 327 tires 

 in the Adirondacks, but none of these occurred on the pri- 

 vate preserves, although these preserves include one-third of 

 our northern forests. Their exemption was due to the fact 

 that their lands were constantly patrolled. The preserves 

 employed 98 patrols in all ; the State did not employ one." 



It is far easier and in the end far cheaper to prevent forest 

 fires than to put them out. ' I note a flaw in your legisla- 

 tion, dealing with the liability of railroads for setting forest 

 fires ; it is entirely based on the civil law of liability for 

 damage to an owner, although I sujipose the sections of the 

 criminal law regarding wanton, reckless and careless incen- 

 diarism would apply if they were invoked. A requirement 

 of some precautionary measures, as prescribed b}' the New 

 York law, would certainly be appropriate. 



But all such legislation, I repeat, is useless, nay, more, an 

 evil, a moral danger, unless its execution is insured by the 



