FORESTS IN THEIR RELATION TO RAINFALL. 213 



unable to classify the statements as rigidly as if I were 

 dealing with exact science ; I have however, avoided 

 repetition as far as possible. 



II. The Historical Method. 

 a. General observations. — Popular writers usually rely 

 upon the historical method in support of their well- 

 intentioned arguments on this question, but although this 

 method has been superseded by the scientific method, 

 which relies on observation and experiment, it is proper 

 to deal with historical evidence at this place. 



Loffelholz-Colberg published in 1872 a comprehensive 

 catalogue of publications on forest questions which is, of 

 course, now much out of date. His list begins with Fer- 

 nando Columbus, the son of Christopher Columbus, who 

 attributed the heavy rainfall of Jamaica to its wealth of 

 forests, and the decrease of rainfall on the Azores and 

 Canaries to the removal of their forests. In the sixteenth 

 and seventeenth centuries the subject was already attract- 

 ing the attention of the French Government, and in fact 

 governmental interest in the subject goes back to the time 

 of the immediate successors of Charlemagne. It is inter- 

 esting to read over the abstracts of opinion which are 

 recorded by Loffelholz-Colberg. Every variety of opinion 

 can be found there, from those which attribute to the 

 forest about everything which is desirable in climate and 

 even endow it with a powerful influence on morals, to those 

 who believe it to be entirely without influence ; and from 

 those who think that its influence does not extend beyond 

 its own margin, to those who would attribute the deterior- 

 ation of the climate of the Old World to the removal of 

 the forests of the New. 



Leaving out of account the solutions which are purely 

 sentimental or purely theoristic, the conclusions usually 

 consist in finding a country which has been once wooded, 



