98 
PARK AND CEMRTERY 
never be other than smooth and close to the main 
stem, instead of along the line of the collar. A limb 
or branch that cannot be supported while being cut 
should be cut twice — making the first operation re- 
move the principal weight of the limb. The second 
should be made with a view to the healing over of the 
surface exposed by the cut. 
Pruning should be influenced by the eventual 
height of the lowest branches above the ground. This 
will often be dictated by the heights and locations of 
the boughs. It is seldom advisable to reckon upon 
the lowest limbs being nearer the ground than 13 feet. 
Locations of street trees are partly dependent 
upon the width of the street, whether or not there 
are central or extra wide side planting reservations ; 
the distance between the curb, the building limit 
and whether the street is straight or curved. We do 
not favor the quincunx arrangement, although it per- 
mits of the use of wider spreading trees and has some 
merit when used on curved streets. 
Trees located upon or within abutting property 
lines have the advantage of giving a more dignified 
appearance to the street by the suggestion of added 
width. It also enables the roots to spread in all direc- 
tions with more freedom and probably prolongs the 
life of the tree. In addition, however, it is apt to 
cause the soil in the front lawn area to become very dry 
and make the maintenance of a continuously dense and 
green turf very difficult if indeed it can be done at all. 
Some of the trees so located permit of only the coarser 
shade enduring grasses to exist. 
The decision of whether street trees should be 
planted near the curb or near the property bound 
should also be influenced by the probable planting 
upon the abutting estates. Border plantations along 
the street property lines tend to enclose an estate and 
secure a degree of privacy and seclusion and it is prob- 
able that in the future these plantations will be more 
common. The openness of front yards and lawns 
now so prevalent is possibly due to the national spirit 
of democracy, but if so it is paradoxical when found 
in a country whose people are also noted for their 
love of home. Be that as it may, the fact remains 
that such plantings would influence the location of the 
trees upon a street. 
The building limit and the extent of each adjoin- 
ing estate bears upon this phase. The noted beauty 
of Euclid avenue in Cleveland owes a large part of 
its fame to the building restriction. Upon a street of 
this sort much wider spreading and taller growing 
trees may be used without losing that nicety of adjust- 
ment as regards proportion. 
Cooling influences and shade often justify closer 
planting than the eventual beauty of a scene of which 
the trees are a part, would dictate. Umil T. Mische. 
No tree is well understood until it is understood 
in all the stages of its growth. — Va)i Rensselaer. 
NEW ENGLAND ASSOCIATION OF PARK 
SUPERINTENDENTS, 
The fourth annual meeting of the New England 
Association of Park Superintendents, held at Hartford, 
Conn., July 9 and 10, was the largest and most inter- 
esting meeting the Association has held. Nearly 
every city in New England was represented, and the 
papers read were of unusual interest. The first day 
was given to the transaction of routine business, re- 
ports of officers and committees, election of officers,, 
and the banquet, at which the discussion of park mat- 
ters was taken up. Eighty people were seated at the 
banquet at the Allyn House, during which the follow- 
ing papers were read : 
Charles E. Keith, superintendent parks, Bridgeport, 
“Things.” 
John C. Olmsted, landscape architect, Brookline, 
I\Iass., “The Hartford Park System.” 
Thomas C. Cook, superintendent parks. New Bed- 
ford, Mass., “Souvenir Trees as Means of Enhancing 
the Attraction of Our Parks.” 
Stereopticon views of Hartford parks, by R. N. 
Clark, engineer park department, Hartford. 
The paper by John C. Olmsted was a valuable his- 
torical account of the growth and development of the 
Hartford park system, and was rendered doubly ap- 
propriate by the fact that Erederick Law Olmsted, the 
father of the speaker, is known as the father of the 
Hartford park system. Charles E. Keith, of Bridge- 
port, compared the rapid growth and competent man- 
agement of Hartford parks with those of other cities, 
and closed with a presentation of the value of public 
parks, and of the pleasures and trials of a park super- 
intendent. 
Mr. Thomas C. Cook, New Bedford, Mass., in his 
paper on souvenir trees, emphasized the value of his- 
toric trees, and suggested the planting of trees as 
memorials of famous people or national events. He 
mentioned as examples of historic trees, the Charter 
Oak, the tree planted by Li Hung Chang at Grant’s 
tomb, Alexander Hamilton’s elm trees in New York, 
the elm on Boston Commons, and trees and groves in 
Providence, New Bedford and other cities. 
Mr. W. S. Egerton, superintendent of parks, Al- 
bany, N. Y., spoke of the Albany park system, and 
deplored the fact that it had gotten back into politics ; 
he discussed the laying out of parks, saying that small 
parks should be treated as gardens, and large ones as 
natural parks. Christopher Clark, a member of the 
Massachusetts board of trustees of public reservations, 
told of the work of the trustees in preserving moun- 
tain lands for public purposes. The exercises were 
brought to a close by the exhibition of sixty-eight 
stereopticon views by R. N. Clark, engineer of the 
New Bedford parks, showing scenes in Bushnell, 
