Forestry Notes. 



73 



swayed by private interests. In the hands of spoilsmen, demoralization 

 would quickly succeed the present high standards of the Forest Service, 

 while the intimate relation of the forests to the welfare of greater 

 numbers of individuals would tend to make their administrative control 

 a highly coveted political prize. At the same time the value of their 

 resources would certainly arouse a cupidity which would be exceedingly 

 difficult to control. Scandalous maladministration might easily follow. 

 The Federal Government is better watched, farther removed from local 

 influence, more stable, and better equipped with a non-political system 

 and machinery. 



The underlying purpose of the proposed transfer of the national forests 

 to the States is really not to substitute State for Federal control, but 

 rather to substitute individual for public control. Its most earnest ad- 

 vocates are the very interests which wish to secure such control. The 

 object of the whole States Rights movement, as it affects the national 

 forests,, is to transfer to private owners for speculative or monopolistic 

 purposes public resources of enormous value. Retention of these re- 

 sources under public ownership is needed to protect the people from 

 abuses which are every day being demonstrated on lands over which 

 the public has already lost control. The proposition is one which the 

 people as a whole would repudiate in an instant if they understood 

 what is proposed. The only danger lies in the fact that some legislation 

 adverse to the national forest system may be passed when the public 

 as a whole is ignorant that it is planned or does not understand the 

 meaning. Vigilance in the defense of its interests and intelligence in 

 the perception of the true character of masked attacks upon those inter- 

 ests are of fundamental necessity if the public is to protect itself. — Henry 

 S. Graves, Chief Forester, in American Forestry. 



[Note. — See also article by Mr. Graves, entitled "Shall the States Own 

 the Forests?" in the New York Outlook for December 28, 1912.] 



Christmas . . . The Forest Service upholds the Christmas-tree 

 Trees. custom, but recognizes at the same time that the indis- 



criminate cutting of evergreens to supply the holiday 

 trade has produced a bad effect upon many stands of merchantable kinds 

 of trees in different sections of the country. . . . 



Germany is conceded to have the highest developed system of forest 

 management of any country, yet its per capita use of Christmas trees is 

 greatest. The cutting of small trees for Christmas is not there consid- 

 ered in the least as a menace to the forest, but, on the contrary, as a 

 means of improving the forest by thinning and as a source of revenue. 

 It is therefore constantly encouraged. 



There is little doubt but that the time will come when the Christmas- 

 tree business will become a recognized industry in this country, and 

 that as much attention will be given to it as will be given to the growing 

 of crops of timber for other uses. . . . — American Forestry. 



