KAURI LAND. 53 
of old New Zealand. In Europe, only England and the Balkan States 
are, as regards forestry, in the position of New Zealand; and the Balkan 
States are not destroying demarcatable forest like New Zealand is. Their 
forest is inaccessible. Turkey even has a better forest policy than New 
Zealand, though in truth it is not carried out. Great Britain is paying 
a heavy penalty—forty-three millions yearly, in *peace-times—for im- 
ported timber and the loss of the pick of its manhood. What forestry 
means to the best parts of industrial Europe—the Rhine Valley, for 
instance—can, as mentioned, be easily seen by studying the large-scale 
War-maps attached to this report (p. 188), and of which there are copies 
at the clubs and larger stationers’ shops. | 
Like some other things of which New Zealand has the best in the 
world, it may be said judicially that the Dominion has probably the most 
valuable timber-tree. I have long been in the habit of assigning that place 
to Californian Redwood, which, amongst its many good qualities, has had 
a well-authenticated stand of timber going up to the extraordinary figure 
of one million board feet per acre. (Elliott, ‘‘ Important Timber Trees, 
U.S.A.’’) That was when I had only a book knowledge of Kauri. Now, 
when I consider the majestic growth of Kauri on a soil too poor, and in 
a climate too wet, to produce anything else approaching its value; when 
I see the size of Kauri, its breadth and height approaching those of the 
largest trees known, and its yield of sawable timber double; when I 
reflect on the soundness and good shape of Kauri giving the minimum 
of waste in working it up; and the all-round value of Kauri timber, in 
this respect so much like Teak; I am forced to conclude that though 
silviculturally Californian Redwood has qualities not possessed by Kauri. 
it is certain that Kauri ranks with Oak, Teak, Mahogany, Red Cedar, 
and some half-dozen others of the world’s best timbers, while at the 
same time it gives about double the timber per tree of any of them. 
The Press of Christchurch of 17th April, 1918, had cable news —‘* Sir 
William Schlich is amazed that nothing is done to restore the Kauri, one 
of the finest coniferous timbers in the world, beyond the reservation of a 
few acres for sentimental purposes,’’ 
ECONOMIC USE OF KAURI LAND. 
The ‘gum ’’ lands north of Auckland even in this time of inflated 
land-values are only valued at about £1 per acre. Thus vanishes here 
the first difficulty of forestry in New Zealand—high land-values. 
The Kauri-gum Commission of 1898 said,— 
Generally speaking, the good land is in the valleys and is of comparatively 
small extent: 5,000 acres here, then a stretch of perhaps 10 miles of poor pipeclay 
gum land; next 6,000 acres of fair settlement lands, and again a stretch of 15 
miles of pipeclay lands, andsoon, . . . There are stretches of gum land every- 
where throughout the north, where repeated burnings have caused every vestige 
of soil to disappear. 
The “‘gum’’ in the ground shows that this was once Kauri forest. 
To reproduce the Kauri forest by the agency of Manuka, as a soil-restorer 
and shelter-provider, should be the same national work to New Zealand 
that the French put in hand when they started replanting their ruined 
alpine forests. 
So poor is this Kauri “‘ gum ”’ land now that the Commission actually 
recommended its being sown with gorse! The “ eum-digging "’ offers a 
unique chance for the economical restoration of the Kauri forest (p. 118), 
and thus the perpetuation of the ‘‘ gum "’ industry. 
When in Auckland I had the advantage of meeting Mr. E. P. Dansey, 
an Indian forester (trained at Nancy, France), who has held an im- 
