394 



RECREATION. 



and how may they be distinguished from 

 one another? 



W. C. Baker, Graniteville, S. C. 



ANSWER. 



Bulletin No. 17, Division of Forestry, 

 U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, gives the 

 names of all the trees of the United States, 

 and especially the common names applied 

 in the various parts of the country. In 

 that you will find the name sycamore is 

 applied only to 2 genera of trees, with 3 

 species; the planer tree, in addition to 

 the sycamore, being found in Savannah 

 river swamps. There are at least 3 pop- 

 lars, and the tulip tree is often also called 

 poplar. Of cottonwoods there are 9 dif- 

 ferent species in the United States. As a 

 rule these are correctly so called, except 

 that the linden or basswood is sometimes 

 called cottonwood in Kentucky. 



To enable you to recognize the species 

 you should secure a botany. A. C. Ap- 

 gar's "Trees of Northern United States" 

 would perhaps cover most of the trees 

 found in South Carolina, if no more com- 

 prehensive botany is accessible. It might 

 also be well to secure Bulletin No. 6 of the 

 North Carolina Geological Survey at Ra- 

 leigh, N. C, which describes the trees of 

 that State fully. — Editor. 



A REPLY TO MR. MAHON. 



CHAS. CRISTADORO. 



Mr. Mahon paid me the compliment in 

 a recent number of Recreation, of refer- 

 ring to my article in the October number 

 of that magazine on the National Minne- 

 sota Park. Mr. Mahon states that he has 

 "no connection with pine lands or lum- 

 ber." From the continuous and persis- 

 tent opposition he has shown to the park 

 I judge he is a lumberman, because to-day 

 in the State of Minnesota the lumbermen 

 are the only ones who oppose the park, 

 with no other reason than that they want 

 the standing pine on the park site. 



Has Mr. Mahon, in his delightful and 

 childlike ignorance of the lumbering 

 business, ever heard of a man's cutting 

 trees in the woods off from land belonging 

 to either the State or the U. S. Govern- 

 ment? Has he ever heard a rumor of a 

 timber pirate's being prosecuted and made 

 to refund the value of such stolen timber? 

 Does Mr. Mahon realize that after a man 

 has cut timber not his own he is likely to 

 attempt to destroy partially or wholly the 

 evidence left behind him? Does Mr. Ma- 

 hon know that after first seeing that no 

 logs are left bearing the mark of the lum- 

 ber pirate the said pirate will put fire into 

 his tops, and that the fire, sweeping 

 through the cuttings, will char the tops and 

 stumps, making it difficult for an inspector 

 to say whether the timber was cut a month 

 ago or 3 years ago? If, in his infant inno- 



cence, Mr. Mahon does not know all this, 

 let him ask some old lumberman the value 

 of pine stumpage. Too well do I know it 

 has advanced. Mr. Mahon has attempted 

 to make one incident of a man valuing his 

 stumpage more, because of the Park tim- 

 ber being withdrawn, cover the whole 

 proposition of an advance in stumpage 

 from Maine to California, even to the ex- 

 tent of raising the value of the despised 

 hemlock to the level of low grade pine. 



One of the arguments used against the 

 Park was the very one that gave the lumber- 

 men credit for the whole Park scheme. I 

 think somebody accused our lumber king, 

 Tom Shevelin, of that piece of Machiavel- 

 lian diplomacy. Agitate for the Park! 

 That will result in taking out of the mar- 

 ket millions of feet of timber. It wil raise 

 the value of the stumpage we already own. 

 We will hold the Park agitation along for 

 3 or 4 years until our timber is gone. Then 

 we can exert enough influence politically 

 to kill the Park, swoop in and get the 

 lumber from the Government on the 

 homestead $i.25-an-acre plan, and there 

 you are! 



This plan, to my own knowledge, was 

 actually charged up to the long-headed, 

 general tactics of Tom Shevelin. I simply 

 repeat it to illustrate to Mr. Mahon the 

 drift of opinion in some quarters as to 

 the influence the shutting up of this park 

 area would have on the price of standing 

 timber. 



As to Duluth, I believe I know enough 

 of the geography of Minnesota to know 

 that the logs cut in the vicinity of the pro- 

 posed National Park are tributary to Min- 

 neapolis because of the waterway. But the 

 lumber camps in that region were it cut 

 over, would have to be provisioned, and 

 that would be done by the merchants of 

 Duluth. It was the temporary gain of that 

 trade which blinded the first Duluth protes- 

 tants to the ultimate and continuous mone- 

 tary benefits that would result from the 

 establishment of the Park. If the loss of 

 such trade threatened the future prosperity 

 of Duluth, as some of the original objec- 

 tors would have it, then surely Duluth's 

 future was not a brilliant one. What Mr. 

 Mahon means by asking if it is ignorance 

 or something else that prompted such 

 statements on my part, I am at a loss to 

 know. I can only reply by asking Mr. 

 Mahon whether it is "ignorance or some- 

 thing else" that makes him an opponent 

 of the Park project, the greatest proposi- 

 tion ever put forth toward the permanent 

 welfare and prosperity of Duluth. 



I would call attention to the fact of the 

 Development Committee of Duluth voting 

 with but one dissenting vote for this park. 

 That happened recently in Duluth, but no 

 doubt this will be the first intimation Mr. 

 Mahon has had of it. 



