September 12, 1894.] 



Garden and Forest. 



361 



GARDEN AND FOREST. 



PUBLISHED WEEKLY BY 



THE GARDEN AND FOREST PUBLISHING CO. 



Office : Tribune Building, New York. 



Conducted by Professor C. S. Sargent. 



ENTERED AS SECOND-CLASS MATTER AT THE POST-OFFICE AT NEW YORK, N. Y. 



NEW YORK, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1894. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



PAGE. 



Editorial Articles : — Forestry in the Constitution of the State of New York.'.. . 361 



Irrigation in City Parks 362 



The Minnesota Forest Fires of September First H. B. Ayres. 362 



Foreign Correspondence : — London Letter W. Watson. 363 



New or Little-known Plants: — Some Notes on theTree Ipomceas of Mexico. 



(With figures.) . P?-o/essor J. N. Rose. 366 



Plant Notes 367 



Cultural Department : — Filmy Ferns William Scott. 368 



Fall-sowing of Annuals J. N. G. 368 



Winter Pears E. P. Powell. 368 



The Southern Tomato-blight M. H. Beckwith. 369 



Grapes, Good and Bad E. P. P. 369 



Hehanthus mollis y. N. G. 369 



Correspondence : — Monoecious or Polygamous Willows C. Gilbert Rogers. 369 



Hardy Plant Arrangements G. N. 369 



Recent Publications 369 



Notes 370 



Illustrations : — A grove of Tree Ipomceas, in Mexico, Fig. 58 364 



A branch of IpomceaWolcottiana, Fig. 59 365 



Forestry in the Constitution of the State of 

 New York. 



THE conviction that it is a public duty to take positive 

 measures for preserving; our forests is certainly be- 

 coming more strong and general. This is demonstrated 

 by the fact that a body of representative men like those 

 assembled in the Constitutional Convention, now sitting in 

 Albany, have appointed a special committee to make some 

 provision for the future of the forests of the state in its or- 

 ganic law. Not only has such committee been appointed, 

 but it has proposed an amendment to the constitution, 

 which has now been advanced to a third reading, and pro- 

 vides that all the lands of the state which have been taken 

 or shall be acquired as a forest-reservation shall be forever 

 kept as wild forest land ; that they shall never be leased nor 

 sold, and that no timber thereon shall ever be cut or sold. 

 The adoption of such an amendment would certainly put 

 a stop to some evils which we have deplored. We have 

 stated in these columns that the policy of the present com- 

 mission which encourages the selling of standing Spruce 

 above a certain size is vicious in its essence, and that if 

 carried out it will work the ultimate ruin of a large portion 

 of the forest-cover. But we also believe, and we have so 

 argued, that a comprehensive and systematic plan of forest- 

 management can be devised which will permit the cutting 

 of trees without interfering with the value of the North 

 Woods as conservators of the water-supply, which is, with- 

 out doubt, their most important function in the state. We 

 hold that no necessity exists for sacrificing the value 

 of the forests in one direction in order to preserve 

 their value in another. The absolute prohibition of cutting 

 any wood from the state preserve means actual and repre- 

 hensible waste. Experience has proved, beyond question, 

 that under proper management a forest can yield its prod- 

 ucts which are indispensable to civilized men, and can 

 even grow in productiveness every year, while its benefi- 

 cent influences on soil, climate and water-supply will re- 

 main wholly unimpaired. 



Against this position it is argued that while the state 

 forests might be maintained both as a source of timber- 

 supply and as a protective cover for the watershed under an 



ideal management, as a matter of fact no such management 

 can be hoped for while legislatures are constituted as they 

 now are, and the only way to keep the woods from 

 destruction is to forbid altogether the entrance of the axe. 

 And there is, it must be admitted, ground for apprehension 

 in this respect. As we understand the laws now existing, 

 the state forests are soon to be handed over to the charge 

 of the so-called Agricultural Department, which is generally 

 considered more dangerous and inefficient than are the pres- 

 ent administrators. But, after all, somebody must be trusted. 

 In spite of constitutions and laws, our faith must ultimately 

 rest upon the intelligence of the people and their ability to 

 select agents who will do their will. There is no justifica- 

 tion in reason or in morals for preventing the people of the 

 state from using what is their own from fear that they will 

 fail, through ignorance or greed, to use it to the best pur- 

 pose. It is true that our forests have been shamefully 

 abused; that. we have wasted much more than we could 

 use, and that even now there is no adequate recognition of 

 their real value among the people. The members of the 

 Constitutional Convention must admit, however, that they, 

 as individuals, have learned to appreciate them thoroughly. 

 They are permitted to hope, therefore, that the people and 

 their representatives in the Legislature will in time become 

 educated up to the same level. Until this time arrives the 

 woods will not be safe even under the protection of a new 

 constitution. Without an enlightened public sentiment 

 which operates directly on the administration of the forest, 

 the same waste, the same robbery, the same destruction by 

 fire will continue in spite of statutes. 



It is gratifying to know that the American Forestry Asso- 

 ciation, a body which has been criticised sometimes for 

 having a sentimental dread of tree-cutting, unanimously 

 condemned the proposed amendment at their meeting last 

 week in the White Mountains. The reasons for their pro- 

 test against this amendment seem to us entirely sound. In 

 the first place, a constitution lays down the broad policy 

 upon which all legislation must be based. It is a declara- 

 tion of principles which are to endure while laws in con- 

 formity with them are enacted, amended and repealed in 

 obedience to temporary demands. It is plain, therefore, 

 that organic law should not descend to specifications ; at 

 least, it is plain that it should not prescribe methods of 

 technical management. It is not the function of a consti- 

 tution to hamper legislation, but to give it scope and 

 efficacy. But if we grant that the regulation of forestry 

 practice is proper subject-matter for such an instrument, 

 we must admit that here, if anywhere, such a subject 

 should be treated broadly and in accord with scientific 

 truth. Now, this proposed amendment ignores the fact 

 that there is, or can be, any such thing as rational forest- 

 management. One would infer from the declaration of 

 the constitution makers that the interest of the people and 

 of the lumbermen are inevitably at war with one another, 

 whereas the lumberman, as much as any other man, has 

 an interest in good forestry, and it is to no man's ultimate 

 advantage to allow forest-products to go to waste. This 

 certainly is a serious misconception of the true relation of 

 the forest to civilized society, and it would be a grievous 

 error to embody such a doctrine in a state constitution. 

 The cause of forestry is not advanced, but hindered and 

 hampered, by the dissemination of such false notions. 



It hardly needs to be stated that we are not advocating 

 the use of the axe, except under skilled control. Not a 

 tree should be cut until some forward-looking and well- 

 considered forest-policy has been adopted, and some plan 

 of forest-management based on scientific principle has been 

 assured. There are men in this country with sufficient 

 skill and experience to devise such a plan and to carry it 

 forward into successful execution. The North Woods, from 

 their constitution and situation, are admirably adapted to 

 proper forest-management, and it would be a calamity if 

 this was prohibited. We see no more reason why the state 

 of New York should prohibit forever the cutting of its 

 forest-trees than that the same absolute prohibition should 



