CONFERENCE OF GOVERNORS. 39 



of Massachusetts, for example, should be by license. That sounds 

 like a burden, but it might possibly be done. That idea also leads 

 to another one which seems possible, and that is this ; if we cut by 

 license it means that all the forest lands (I am not talking of 

 small ones, as these might be made exempt) would be directly under 

 the supervision of this forestry commission, or whatever it might 

 be termed. With that in mind, we could perhaps develop some 

 method of taxation upon the correct basis of taxation, namely, 

 taxation upon groups, and not upon individual valuations by one 

 board of assessors here and another there. We could possibly take 

 these lands under State supervision, so that the tax might be col- 

 lected very much as the corporation tax is collected in Massachu- 

 setts, and distributed among the towns wherein the stock is owned 

 proportionately. We might see how that tax collected in all the 

 forests cut could be distributed to the towns in which the forest 

 stood, the town thereby getting finally its complete taxation. 



The whole matter is a problem, just the same as the gypsy moth 

 problem. The moment we began to deal with the gypsy moth we 

 found that it was a State problem; and this question also cannot 

 be treated by individual towns or by municipal taxation, I believe. 

 It has somehow got to be State taxation and State supervision. 



This is only suggestion, and is not a well-digested thing, but 

 I merely give it for what it is worth. 



CONCLUSIOX. 



Governor Guild. We have had some very valuable suggestions 

 presented in regard to better laws for packing and marking, the 

 need of laws for protection against deer, etc. I have received 

 several letters from people interested in orchards in regard to the 

 damage done by scale, and I would like to ask Professor Craig's 

 opinion on that same subject. Does he think it wise that uniformity 

 of laws should be considered for the compulsory spraying of orchard 

 trees, so that the diligent and progressive orchard owner should 

 not be damaged by the careless and slack condition of his neigh- 

 bor's orchard ? 



Professor Cbaig. If that question had been asked of me five 

 years ago, I should have said yes, — the orchardist who cares for 

 his orchard should be protected; but one's views change on these 

 questions as the years go on, and I am inclined to think now that 

 the battle is to the strong; that natural selection will weed out 

 the man who does not spray; and that as our orchard and fruit 

 growing progresses it will become more and more so that if a man 



