314 LOCAL FBBLINa AND PUBLIC OPINION 



blessed it." The Oonseil called for the prompt execution of the works, cast 

 blame on the conduct of the Conservator of the Forests, who had taken up 

 his residence at Gap, while by a decree of the Emperor he was required 

 to reside at Valence. From this report it appears that two communes — 

 but two only — ^had demanded the indemnities to which they were entitled, 

 and reflected on the tardiness of others to profit by a law so advantageous. 

 In the Session of 1866 it was reported that a newly-appointed Conserva- 

 tor, M. Sequinard, had fixed his residence at Gap, that his enlightened 

 experience and benevolent firmness had gained for him the complete 

 sympathy of the Conseil, that the service of reboisement discharged its 

 functions in a satisfactory manner, that the works carried out in 1865 gave 

 the following results : — 

 Extent BeboisSe, 



„ Regazonnie, 

 Number of barrages constructed. 

 Length of clayonnages, or barriers of 



hurdles, - 

 Length of barrages vivants, 

 „ Drains cut. 



On which had been expended 103,196 francs. 



But the Conseil passed a vote that the indemnities to the communes 

 should be obligatoires et non facultatifs, imperative and not simply permis- 

 sible, and that proprietors who may have re-planted their grounds with 

 trees should be released from having to reimburse to the State the advances 

 which shall have been made to them ; and ultimately the Conseil voted a 

 credit of 600 francs. 



The opposition may be supposed to have been factious and the demands 

 unreasonable, but they were not altogether so. M. Sequinard, the Con- 

 servator of |Forests in the district says, in one of the reports made by 

 him about this time, that they were not. After stating what were the 

 requirements of the enterprise, he goes on to say : " The basis of material 

 operations having been determined, it is proper to enquire who in equity 

 should bear the expense of the work. 



" The laws of 1860 and 1864 have laid down on this subject rules which 

 do not satisfy the population of the mountains, and which have made them 

 in many communes very hostile. They consider that the extinction of the 

 torrents, being demanded by the general interests, ought to be executed 

 entirely at the expense of the State, as are all other works pertaining to the 

 public interest, such as canals, roads, &c. They find it unjust that nothing 

 should be required of the wealthy populations of the valleys, to protect 

 whom is the prime object of the regeneration of the moufltains, and that, 

 discounting the profit of which they have by degrees been deprived, they 

 should withdraw from this useful operation. Further still, they believe that 

 they have a right to indemnity for the trouble which the extinction of 

 torrents will necessarily occasion them in their habits of life and in their 

 means of livelihood." 



It is impossible, says M. Sequinard, to withhold an acknowledgment 

 that these allegations are not without foundation. Then, after having 

 made some reservations suggested by the immoderate use of the pasturage, 

 an abuse which, tending to the ruin of the mountains, is the primary cause 



