Chapter L: F. A. MAURY, Les forêts de la Gaule et de l’ancienne France, (9)

It was but natural in a democratic country that these movements sometimes became the play balls of self-seeking men, political wire pullers, and grafters, or more often of ignorant amateurs and shallow sentimentalists, aided by half-informed newspaper writers. Infinite patience was required to steer through these rocks the ship of true economic reform, and to educate legislators and constituents to its true needs. The very first forestry congress was really conceived with a view of advancing political preferment of one of its organizers, and many another “forestry” meeting was utilized for a similar purpose, the new, catchy title attracting the gullible.

One of the first State forest commissions, well endowed to do its work, soon fell into the hands of grafters, and created such scandals that they led to its abolishment, and to a set-back in the movement everywhere. Arbor day sentimentalism discredited and clouded the issue before the business world; the movement was in constant danger at the hands of its friends. Antagonism of the lumber world was aroused by the false idea of what the reform contemplated, and, in the absence of technically trained foresters to instruct the public and the amateur reformers, and to convince legislators of the absolute need of discontinuing old established habits, progress was naturally slow, and experienced many setbacks.

It was a hard field to plow, grown up with the weed growth of prejudice and custom, and means and tools for the work were inadequate.

The federal government was naturally looked to to take the lead. The first two agents, employed in the Department of Agriculture to “report on forestry”, unfortunately lacked all technical knowledge of the subject, the first, a most assiduous worker, being a writer of local histories and gatherer of statistics, the second a preacher. The third, the writer himself, had at least the advantage of this technical training, but, at the same time, the disadvantage of being a foreigner, who had first to learn the limitations of democratic government. Only the paltry sum of $8,000 was at his disposal for plowing the ground, and even after the agency had been raised to the dignity of a Division in 1886, for years no adequate appropriations could be secured, and hence the scope and usefulness of the work of the Division was hampered.

The Forestry Association, inaugurated with such a flourish of trumpets and with such a large membership at the start, had in the first two years dwindled to a small number of faithful ones, and was without funds when the writer became its secretary.

In spite of these drawbacks, the propaganda had progressed so far in 1891, that, through the earnest insistence of the then Secretary of the Interior, John W. Noble, who had been won over to the views for which the Division and the Association stood, a clause was enacted by Congress in “An act to repeal timber-culture laws and for other purposes,” giving authority to the President to set aside forest reservations from the public domain. Again, this important legislation, which changed the entire land policy and all previous notions of the government’s functions concerning the Public Domain, was not deliberately enacted, but slipped in as a “rider”, at the last hour, in Conference Committee. In this connection the name of Edward A. Bowers, in 1887 Special Agent in the Department of the Interior, and later Assistant Commissioner of the General Land Office, deserves mention as most active in securing this reservation policy.

Acting under this authority, Presidents Harrison and Cleveland proclaimed, previous to 1894, seventeen forest reservations, with a total estimated area of 17,500,000 acres.

The reservations were established usually upon the petition of citizens residing in the respective States and after due examination, the Forestry Association acting both as instigator and as intermediary.

Meanwhile no provision for the administration of the reserves existed, and the comprehensive legislation devised by the Chief of the Division of Forestry, which included withdrawal and administration of all public timberlands, failed to be enacted, although in the Fifty-third Congress it was passed by both Houses, but failed to become a law merely for lack of time to secure a conference report. But the purpose of the advocates of forestry was to create such a condition as would compel Congress to act, by continually withdrawing forested lands that would lie useless until authority was given for their proper use and administration.

In order to secure influential support from outside, a committee of the Forestry Association induced the then Secretary of the Interior, Hoke Smith, in 1896, to request the National Academy of Sciences, the legally constituted adviser of the government in scientific matters, to investigate and report “upon the inauguration of a rational forest policy for the forested lands of the United States.” After an unnecessary so-called “junket” of a committee of the Academy to investigate the public timberlands, a preliminary report was submitted recommending the creation of thirteen additional reservations, with an area of over 20 million acres, and later a complete report was made with practically the same recommendations which had been urged by the Forestry Association.

President Cleveland, heroically, proclaimed the desired reserves all on one day, Washington’s birthday, 1897, without the usual preliminary ascertainment of local interests, and immediately a storm broke loose in the United States Senate, which threatened the overthrow of the entire, toilsomely achieved reservation policy; and impeachment of the President was strongly argued in a two-day (Sunday) session. Congress, however, came to an end on March 4, before it had taken any action, but, as it had also failed to pass the annual Sundry Civil Appropriation Bill, it was immediately recalled in extra session.

Then, again, by a clever trick and in an indirect and surreptitious manner, instead of by open, direct and straightforward consideration and deliberation of a proper policy, most important legislation was secured in the Sundry Civil Appropriation Bill, which provided for the temporary suspension of the reservations lately set aside until they could be more definitely delimited, private claims adjusted, and agricultural lands excluded, by a survey, for which $150,000 was appropriated to the United States Geological Survey. The agricultural lands were then to be returned to the public domain for disposal. At the same time, provisions for the administration of the remaining reservations, much in the sense of the legislation advocated by the Division of Forestry and by the Forestry Association, and especially for the sale of timber, were hung on to this appropriation clause. Under this act the reserves were administered until 1904.

If the interior history of this bit of legislation were revealed, it would probably appear that, not conception of the importance of the subject, but the need for the employment of a certain organized survey party in the Geological Survey was at the bottom of it.

While this law had set aside one year and a limited sum to accomplish the survey, this could not, of course, be done, and hence appropriations were continued, and the date for the segregation of the lands was deferred _sine die_. For years this forest survey continued, giving rise to magnificent volumes, issued from the Geological Survey, describing the forest reservations--a very useful, educational piece of work, not at all contemplated by the legislation--for which not less than $1.5 million have been expended. By 1905 some 110,000 square miles had been examined when this work was handed over to the Forestry Bureau.

Thus it happened, almost by accident, that finally the aims of the reformers were realized, the appointment of forest superintendents, rangers, etc., to take charge of the forest reservations was secured, and rules and regulations for their administration were formulated by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, marking the beginning of a settled policy on the part of the United States government to take care of its long neglected forest lands. In this work of first organization the name of Filibert Roth, a German-born forester, deserves mention.

Meanwhile, the Division of Forestry had continued to bring together and distribute in the shape of reports, bulletins, circulars, addresses and letters, such information useful for the education of the public, of wood consumers, and timberland owners, as its limited appropriations permitted, undertaking also some scientific investigations, especially in the line of timber physics.

Soon after, in July, 1898, when the writer resigned his position as Chief of the Division of Forestry, to organize the first professional forest school, the New York State College of Forestry, Mr. Gifford Pinchot, took charge of the division. Young, ambitious, aggressive, with some knowledge of forestry acquired in Europe and with influential connections and a large fortune, he easily secured the first need for effective sowing on the well-plowed field before him--appropriations. Whatever had been feebly begun could be broadly, sometimes lavishly, extended, and the new idea of making “working plans” for private timberland owners could be developed--a great educational work, which, earlier, when even co-operation with State institutions was considered a questionable proposition, would have been turned down as too paternal.

In five years the appropriations had increased tenfold, to over $250,000; and in the first decade of the new regime, around $3,000,000 had been spent on forestry investigations, not counting expenditures on forest reservation account.

A further strong support came into the field, when Mr. Roosevelt became President of the United States, in 1901, and unreservedly threw his overpowering influence into the balance, to advance forest policies.

Owing to his interest, the withdrawal of public timberlands from entry proceeded at a rapid rate: by 1902, the reservations had grown to 65 million acres; in 1905, there were over 100 million acres included; and by the end of his administration, 175 million acres had been placed in reservation.

The anomalous condition, which placed the survey of the forest reserves in the Geological Survey, their administration in the Land Office, and the scientific or technical development of forestry in the Department of Agriculture, was finally ended in 1904, when, on February 1st, the whole matter was placed in the hands of the Department of Agriculture, with its Forestry Division, which had been changed into a Bureau of Forestry, and then changed its name again to Forest Service.

With this transfer, it may be said, the federal forest policy was fully established, at least for its own lands, and all that remains to be done is the perfection of details in their administration and the development of silvicultural methods.

With appropriations which now (1907) exceed $950,000 for investigating work alone, limitless opportunity seems to be open to extend the many directions of inquiry and solve the silvicultural problems, and satisfy the educational function of this government agency.

But, besides the administration of the federal timberlands and the educational and other assistance of private owners, a further expansion of the Forest Service is developing under the paternalistic and socialistic tendencies referred to before, which may ultimately lead to the purchase and federal control of forest reserves in the Eastern States. Such expansion, was, indeed, proposed in the establishment of reserves in the White Mountains and the Southern Appalachians, propositions which have been resisted by Congress for the last seven years, but with ever weakening resistance. Finally in 1910, success was attained, and the federal government placed in position to acquire these forest areas, to the amount of $10,000,000.

Meanwhile the single states have begun to develop their own policies.

Outside of legislation aiming at protection against forest fires--which nearly every State possessed from early times, ineffective for lack of machinery to carry it into effect--and outside of the futile attempts to encourage timber planting referred to, no interest in timberlands was evinced by State authorities for the first two-thirds of the century, since practically all these lands had been disposed of to private owners, and the authorities did not see any further duties regarding them.

The first State to institute a commission of inquiry was Wisconsin, in 1867; but with the rendering of the report, prepared by I. A. Lapham, one of the active early propagandists--the matter was allowed to mature for thirty years.

The next State to move, in a feeble way, in 1876, was Minnesota, the legislature making an annual grant of money to its forestry association.

The appointment of commissions of inquiry then became fashionable.

New Hampshire appointed such a commission in 1881, which reported in 1885, without result, and another commission in 1889, whose report, in 1893, led to the establishment of a permanent commission of inquiry and advice, with a partial supervision of forest fire laws. Vermont followed suit with a commission of inquiry, in 1882, whose report made in 1884, remained without consequences.

In Michigan the expedient was resorted to of constituting the State Board of Agriculture a commission of inquiry, whose report, published in 1888, had also no consequences except those of an educational character.

Similarly, the State of Massachusetts ordered the State Board of Agriculture in 1890, to inquire “into the consideration of the forests of the State, the need and methods of their protection,” with similar results, or lack of result.

In New Jersey, the matter was referred to the State Geologist, who, since 1894, has made reports on forest conditions and needs. Similar reference of the subject was made in the State of North Carolina, in 1891, and in West Virginia.

The first more permanent State institution deliberately established as an educational and advisory agent was the Forestry Bureau of Ohio, in 1885, which published a number of annual reports, but eventually collapsed for lack of support.

In the same year, three important States, New York in the East, Colorado in the Middle States, and California in the West, seemed simultaneously to have awakened to their duty, largely as a result of the propaganda of the American Forestry Association.

In California, a State Board of Forestry was instituted, with considerable power and ample appropriations, which, however, eventually fell into the hands of unscrupulous politicians and grafters, the resulting scandals leading to its abolishment in 1889.

In Colorado, which when admitted to Statehood in 1876, had, in its Constitution, directed the general assembly to legislate on behalf of the forestry interests of the State, these interests were rather tardily committed to a forest commissioner, who was charged to organize county commissioners and road overseers throughout the State as forest officers in their respective localities, to act as a police force in preventing depredations on timbered school lands and in enforcing the fire laws. Col. E.T. Ensign, who had been most instrumental in bringing about this legislation, was appointed commissioner, and, with singular devotion, in spite of the enmity aroused by his activity, which eventually led to a discontinuance of appropriations, tried, for a number of years to execute this law. With his resignation from the office, this legislation also fell into innocuous desuetude.

In New York, concern in the water supply for the Erie Canal, had led such a far sighted statesman as Horatio Seymour, twice Governor of the State and once running for the Presidency, to conceive the need of preserving the Adirondack watershed in State hands. Accordingly a law was passed, in 1872, naming seven citizens, with Horatio Seymour chairman, as State park commission, instructed to make inquiries with the view of reserving or appropriating the wild lands lying northward of the Mohawk, or so much thereof as might be deemed expedient, for a State park. The commission, finding that the State then owned only 40,000 acres in that region, and that there was a tendency on the part of the owners of the rest to combine for the enhancement of values should the State want to buy, recommended a law forbidding further sales of State lands, and their retention when forfeited for the non-payment of taxes.

It was not until eleven years later, in 1883, that this recommendation was acted upon, when the State through the non-payment of taxes by the owners of cut-over lands had become possessed of 600,000 acres.

In 1884, the comptroller was authorized to employ “such experts as he may deem necessary to investigate and report a system of forest preservation.” The report of a commission of four members was made in 1885, but the legislation proposed was antagonized by the lumbermen’s interests. The legislature finally passed a compromise bill, which the writer had drafted at the request of Senator Lowe, entitled “An act establishing a forest commission, and to define its powers, and for the preservation of forests,” the most comprehensive legislation at that time.

The original forest commission, appointed under the act of 1885, was superseded in 1895, by the commission of fisheries, game, and forests, which brought allied interests under the control of a single board of five members appointed by the Governor for a term of five years. In 1903, the commission was changed to a single commissioner, and another backward step was taken in 1911 by handing over the work of this commissioner to the newly created State Conservation Commission, consolidating with it several other commissions.

Here, then, for the first time on the American continent, had the idea of State forestry, management of State lands on forestry principles, taken shape; a new doctrine of State functions had gained the day. Not only was the commission charged to organize a service, with a “chief forester” and “underforesters,” to administer the existing reserve according to forestry principles, but also from the incomes to lay aside a fund for the purchase of more lands to constitute the State forest preserve. Unfortunately, instability of purpose, the characteristic of democracy, spoiled the dream of the forester. Both, commission and chief forester were, of course, political appointees, and, rightly or wrongly, fell under the suspicion, when proposing the sale of stumpage, that they were working into the hands of lumbermen. A set of well-meaning but ill-advised civic reformers succeeded, in 1893, in securing the insertion into the Constitution, then being revised, of a clause preventing the cutting of trees, dead or alive, on State lands, declaring that they shall forever be kept as “wild lands.” Later, this constitutional provision was deliberately set aside by the commission, which began to plant up some of the fire-wasted areas, the legislature appropriating money for this breach of the Constitution because it was popular: and lately permission has also been granted by the legislature to remove trees from burnt areas in order to reduce the fire danger--the foolish objection of a Constitution notwithstanding.

In 1897, new legislation was passed to authorize the State to purchase additional forest lands within a prescribed limit, to round off the State’s holdings, a special agency, the Forest Preserve Board, being constituted for that purpose. Under this law, some $3,500,000 have been spent, and by 1907, over one and a half million acres had been added to the State Forest Preserve. This large area is withdrawn from rational economic use, reserved for a pleasure ground of wealthy New Yorkers, who have located their camps in the “wilderness” under the avowed assumption that the State can be forced to maintain forever this anomalous condition.

In later years, private planting has been encouraged by the Commission selling plant material from the State nurseries at low rates.

The most important administrative function of the Commission has been the reduction of forest fires, in which, also owing to political conditions, only partial success has been attained. The legislation of 1885 for the first time attacked this problem in a more thorough manner, providing for the organization of a service, and this served as an example to other States who copied and improved on it. Notably the forest fire legislation of Maine (1891), of Wisconsin (1895), and of Minnesota (1895) was based on this model.

Another of the large States to start upon and, differently from New York, to develop consistently a proper forest policy, was the State of Pennsylvania. As a result of a persistent propaganda by the Pennsylvania Forestry Association, formed in 1886, and especially by its active secretary, Dr. J. T. Rothrock, a commission of inquiry was instituted in 1893. Before its report was established, the legislature of 1895 provided for an executive Department of Agriculture, and included in its organization a provision for a Division of Forestry, the botanist member of the previous commission, Dr. Rothrock, being appointed Commissioner of Forestry at the head of the Division. Two years later, the final legislation, which firmly established a forest policy for the State, was passed namely for the purchase of State forest reservations. All later legislation was simply an expansion of these propositions. By 1910, the State had acquired by purchase, wild, mostly culled lands to the extent of over 900,000 acres, and the Commission had progressed far towards providing for their management and recuperation.

The unusually disastrous conflagrations of 1894; the growing conviction that the pleaders of the exhaustibility of timber supplies were right, accentuated by a rapid decline in White Pine production and a rapid, and, indeed, almost sudden, rise in stumpage prices; the example which the federal government had set in withdrawing public timberlands from spoliation; together with an increasing number, not only of advocates of saner methods, but of technically educated men, who came from the schools lately organized--all these influences had worked as a leaven in all parts of the country so as to bring in the new century with a realization of the seriousness of the situation. And, within the first seven years of the century, the change of attitude, at least, was almost completed in all parts of the country, and among all classes, the lumbermen and others depending directly on wood supplies becoming especially prominent in recognizing the need and value of forestry.

State after State came into line in recognizing that it had a duty to perform, and in some way gave expression to this recognition, so that, by 1908, hardly a State was without at least a germ of a forest policy.

Two principles had been recognized as correct and were brought into practice, namely, that the forest interests of the State called for direct State activity, and that eventually the State must own and manage at least portions of the forest area. The first principle took shape in appointing single State foresters, [as in Maine (1891 and 1903); in Massachusetts (1904); in Connecticut (1903); in Vermont (1906); in Rhode Island (1906)]; or Commissions or Boards [as in New York (1885), changed to a single commissioner with Superintendent and State foresters in 1903; in Pennsylvania (1901); in New Hampshire (1893); Maryland with a State forester (1905); Wisconsin, with a State forester (1905); Indiana (1901-03); Louisiana, with a State forester (1904); Michigan (1899); Minnesota (1899); California (revived, with a State forester, in 1905); Washington, with a State forester (1905); Kentucky (1906); in New Jersey, with a State forester (1904); Alabama (1907).]

A very important feature in these appointments was the fact, that, more and more professional or technically educated men displaced the merely political appointees, or were at least added to the commissions.

The idea of State forests found expression, more or less definitely, in setting aside forest reservations or else in enabling the State to accept and administer donations of forest lands. Among the States recognizing this principle were New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, California.

Where neither of these two principles had as yet found application, at least some agency was established to give advice and investigate or experiment in matters of forest interests, and sometimes to offer assistance to private woodland owners or planters, as in Delaware, Ohio, North Carolina, etc.

Meanwhile, largely through the influence and with the co-operation of the federal Bureau of Forestry, private owners had begun, if not to apply, at least to study the possibility of the application of forestry to their holdings. The Bureau prepared “working plans” which were now and then followed in part, or at least led to attempts at a more conservative method of logging. Notably, various paper and pulp manufacturers realized the usefulness of more systematic attention and conservative methods in the use of their properties. In this connection the object lesson furnished by Mr. G. K. Vanderbilt on his Biltmore Estate in North Carolina, which was begun by Mr. Pinchot and conducted by Dr. C. A. Schenck, a German forester, requires special mention as the first, and for nearly 20 years continued experiment in applying forestry methods systematically in America. At present writing the continuance of this experiment is in doubt.

With the second decade of the century, we shall enter upon the flood tide of development, when no more need of argument for its necessity, and only the question of practicable methods, will occupy us.

* * * * *

So far, silviculturally, the selection forest, i.e., culling the best and the stoutest, practiced hitherto by the lumberman, without reference to reproduction, but carried on somewhat more conservatively, is still the method advocated in most cases by the Forest Service. This so-called conservative lumbering is, to be sure, the transition to better methods. According to reports of the federal Forest Service in 1907, some million acres of private timberland were under forest management or conservatively lumbered.

Planting of waste or logged lands, as distinguished from planting in the prairies, which had, sporadically and in a small way, been done by individuals here and there for many years, is practised in ever increasing amount, both by State administrations and by private owners; the New York State College of Forestry starting such planting in its College Forest on a larger scale and systematically, in 1899. At present writing, the forestry department of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company is perhaps the largest single planter in the country, having set out over four million trees (by 1910), with the avowed purpose of growing railroad ties.

By 1908, popular interest in forest conservation had become so keen, and at the same time paternalistic tendencies so fully developed by the Roosevelt administration--the federal government having entered upon extensive plans of reclaiming lands by irrigation, and preparing to develop water powers, and inland waterways,--that the time seemed ripe to bring all these conservative forces into unity.

The President called together in conference the governors of all the States with their advisers, together with the presidents of the various national societies interested, and others, to discuss the broad question of the conservation of natural resources.

As a consequence national and State Conservation Associations and Commissions were formed in all parts of the Union, and a new era of active interest in economic development seems to have arrived.

4. _Education and Literature._

The primary education of the people at large and of their governments in particular, the propaganda for the economic reform contemplated by the forestry movement, was carried on, as stated, by the federal Division of Forestry and especially by the forestry associations, which sprang up in all parts of the country, by means of their annual and special meetings, aided by the general press and sometimes by special publications.

The first _Journal of Forestry_, a monthly publication, ventured into the world as a private enterprise, edited by Dr. Hough, soon after the Forestry Congress in Cincinnati, but it survived just one year, vanishing for lack of readers. This was followed by irregularly appearing _Forestry Bulletins_, of which the writer prepared four under the aegis of the American Forestry Association.

In 1886, the Pennsylvania Forestry Association began the publication of a bi-monthly journal, _Forest Leaves_, which has persisted to this day. In 1895, Dr. John Gifford launched another bi-monthly, the _New Jersey Forester_, soon to change its name to _The Forester_, and under that name, three years later, taken over by the American Forestry Association, continued as _Forestry and Irrigation_, changed to _Conservation_ and now again changed to _American Forestry_. Now, half a dozen or more similar publications emanate from the various State Associations. In this connection there should not be forgotten the journal, _Garden and Forest_, edited by Professor C. S. Sargent, which for ten years, from 1888 to 1897, did much to enlighten the public on forestry matters.

Some provision for technical education was made long before opportunity for its application had arisen, and, indeed, before any professional foresters were in existence to do the teaching. The new doctrine attracted the attention of educational institutions, and the desire to assist in the popular movement led to the introduction of the subject, at least by name, into their curricula; the professor of botany or of horticulture, adding “forestry” to his title, and explaining in a few lectures the objects, and, as far as he knew them, the methods of forestry; or, at least some lectures on dendrology and forest geography were introduced in the botanical courses. By 1897, twenty institutions--land grant colleges--had in this way introduced the subject.

Perhaps the first attempt to present systematically a whole course of technical forestry matter to a class of students was a series of twelve lectures, delivered by the writer, at the Massachusetts College of Agriculture in 1887, and another to students of political economy at Wisconsin University in 1897.

The era of professional forest schools, however, was, inaugurated in 1898, when the writer organized the New York State College of Forestry at Cornell University, and almost simultaneously Dr. Schenck opened a private school at Biltmore.

A year later, another Forest school was opened at Yale University, an endowment of the Pinchots, father and sons. In 1903, the University of Michigan added a professional department of forestry, and then followed a real flood of educational enthusiasm, one institution after another seeing the necessity for adding the subject as an integral part to its courses. Before there were enough competent men in the field, some twenty colleges or universities called for teachers, besides private institutions. An inevitable result of this over-production of forest schools and of foresters all at once must be an overcrowding of the profession with mediocre men before the profession is really fully established.

Brief reference to the history of the first school, established by the State of New York, may be of interest, as exemplifying in a striking manner the political troubles besetting reforms under republican conditions. But for a similar occurrence in France (see p. 242), this case might be unique in the history of educational institutions. Although the school thrived almost beyond expectation, having in its fourth year attained in numbers to 70, larger than any French or German forest school at the time, and readily finding employment for its graduates, it suddenly came to an end in 1903. Its appropriation, unanimously voted in the Legislature, was vetoed by the Governor, on the alleged ground that the silvicultural methods applied in the demonstration forest of the College “had been subjected to grave criticism.” It is true the only silvicultural method officially sanctioned (by the Forest Service), the selection forest, had not been applied, yet the war against the College being waged by two wealthy bankers of New York and the well-known character of the then Governor suggest that other “considerations” than mere criticism of professional judgment were at the bottom of his action.

As from the start, the federal Forestry Bureau naturally continued in ever increasing degree to be the educator of the nation, not only as regards popular conceptions and attitudes, but as regards technical matter. Its bulletins, circulars, and reports on the subjects which come under investigation form the bulk of the American literature on the technical side of the subject. During the first 20 years of its existence, some 20,000 pages of printed matter were produced, and the next decade increased the crop of information apace. At first intended for popular propaganda, the matter printed was naturally argumentative, statistical and descriptive, but gradually more and more technical matter filled the pages, and now most of the publications are of technical nature.

One of the first extensive and important lines of investigation undertaken by the Division was that into the characteristics and strength, the timber physics, of American woods, which in its comprehensiveness commanded the admiration of even the Germans, and gave rise to a series of reports. The biology of American species, more or less exhaustively studied, was also begun in the old Division, as well as forest surveys, etc.

By 1902, enough professional interest was in the country to make the publication of a professional journal possible and desirable, the _Forestry Quarterly_ being launched by the writer, with a Board of Editors chosen mainly from the forest schools.

The first association of professional foresters was formed in 1900--the _Society of American Foresters_--which issues from time to time proceedings containing technical discussions.

The technical book literature, partly due, no doubt, to the overpowering publication facilities of the federal government, is still scanty, and good textbooks especially are still lacking in most branches.

A series of ephemeral popular books answered the demands of earlier days, but outside of Professor _Henry S. Graves’_ volumes on _Forest Mensuration_ and lately on _The Principles of Handling Woodlands_, and a few minor aid books and lecture notes, there is as yet nothing of permanent value to be recorded. The writers’ own publication, _Economics of Forestry_, is intended less for foresters than students of political economy.

Three monumental works can be mentioned in the dendrological line, however, namely the 10th volume of the XII Census (1880) on the _Forests of North America_; Micheaux and Nuttall’s _North American Silva_ in 5 volumes, 1865; and C. S. Sargent’s _Silva of the United States_, in 14 magnificent volumes,--three publications which can take rank with any similar literature anywhere.

INSULAR POSSESSIONS.

The Spanish War, in 1898, brought to the United States new outlying territory, over 150,000 square miles, in three locations, the relationship as regards government varying in the three cases, namely Porto Rico, the Sandwich Islands, and the Philippine Islands, besides several smaller islands in the Pacific Ocean.

While the latter are only temporarily under control or tutelage of the United States, and are expected sooner or later to attain complete self government, Hawaii was annexed as a Territory in the same sense as all other Territories, the inhabitants having become citizens of the United States, while Porto Rico is a dependency with partial self-government, but its inhabitants do not enjoy citizenship in the States.

All these islands are located in the tropics and hence the composition of the forest is of tropical species.

Commercially, the forests of Porto Rico and of Hawaii are relatively of little value, but their protective value is paramount, and a conservative policy is needed in order to preserve the water supply for agricultural use (sugar plantations in Hawaii) and to prevent erosion.

For Porto Rico, a beginning of forest policy was made by setting aside, in 1903, the Luquillo Forest Reservation, some 20,000 acres in the Eastern mountainous part of the island, which is under direct control of the United States government. The rest of public lands and forests was placed under the Department of the Interior of the island.

In Hawaii, even before annexation, a movement on the part of the Sugar Planters Association was made in 1897, to induce the insular government to devise protective measures. The result was the appointment of a Committee who made a report in which the writer had a hand. But not until 1903 was a Board of Commissioners of Agriculture and Forestry established, a Superintendent of Forestry appointed, an organization of district foresters effected, and a number of forest reservations established. The principle of State forest was fully recognized by planning the gradual withdrawal of some 300,000 acres and by beginning the extension of forested area by plantations. In 1910, 23 reserves with an area of 575,000 acres had been made. Distribution of plant material and of advice to planters is also part of the policy. Annual Reports are issued which attest the good common sense in the administration.

In the Philippine Islands, a territory of 120,000 square miles, largely mountainous, not only the protective but the commercial value of the timberlands is considerable. The extent is variously estimated as covering between 40 and 50 million acres (50% of total area), much of it virgin, and 16 million acres of it commercially valuable. Of the seven hundred odd species of trees, mostly heavy woods, composing the forest, some 160 are marketable at home and in China; yet almost fifty per cent. of the home consumption is imported from the States, owing to absence or inaccessibility of softwoods, and high cost due to excessive expense of present logging methods.

When the United States took charge of the islands it was found that the Spaniards had since 1863 a forestry service, manned by Spanish foresters, and in the lower ranks by Filipinos. To be sure, the activities of this forestry bureau went hardly beyond the collection of dues for timber licenses, which yielded little more than the cost of the service, although on paper excellent instructions were found elaborated.

It so happened that an officer of the American army, Captain George P. Ahern, had for some time given attention to forestry matters in the States, and he naturally was placed in charge of this bureau, in 1900. There were found to be around one million acres private and church property, the rest being considered State lands, but all private owners were required to register their holdings before being allowed to exercise their rights. A system of licenses for cutting timber, and of free use permits to the poor population was continued after Spanish models. Not only was an efficient administration gradually secured, but the technical side of dendrological and silvicultural knowledge was developed as rapidly as possible under the able administration of Captain Ahern, a continuously growing literature being the result.

INDEX.

ADMINISTRATION, Austria, 167; Canada, 424; Denmark, 316; Finland, 281;
France, 217, 219, 223, 224; Germany, 80, 120ff; Great Britain, 375;
Greece, 332, 333; Hungary, 181; India, 396; Italy, 339; Japan,
450ff; Norway, 309, 311; Portugal, 362; Roumania, 325, 327; Russia,
268, 269; Spain, 359; Sweden, 291, 301, 302; Switzerland, 197;
United States, 485, 486, 488.
Africa, 439.
Alabama, 496.
Albania, 322.
Algiers, 223, 250.
Allmende (Germany), 28.
Allotment methods, 73, 114, 120, 303.
André, 115.
Andrews, 474.
Arabia, 15.
Arborday, Germany, 63; Italy, 348; Japan, 449; Spain, 360; United
States, 477.
Area allotment, Austria, 170; France, 240; Germany, 114; Sweden, 303.
Area division, France, 240; Germany, 40, 69, 70, 74; Russia, 274.
Arnold, 272.
Artaxerxes, regulations by, 10.
Aschaffenburg, 146.
Asia Minor, 10.
Associations, Austria, 176; Canada, 435; Denmark, 319; Finland, 284;
France, 247; Germany, 148; Great Britain, 378; Greece, 334; Hungary,
184; Italy, 349; Japan, 454; Norway, 314; Roumania, 326; Russia,
271, 272; Sweden, 305; Switzerland, 201; United States, 479, 480,
481, 503.
Australia, 440.
Austria, 152.

BADEN, 120.
Baden-Powell, 390, 408.
Bagneris, 242, 246.
Balestrieri, 347.
Ball planting, Germany, 65.
Banforest, Austria, 163; Germany, 21; Great Britain, 370; Italy, 343,
344, 346; Japan, 448; Russia, 261; Switzerland, 190.
Barres, 244.
Baudrillart, 242, 245.
Baur, 133, 137, 138, 140, 147.
Bavaria, 119.
Bechstein, J. M., 131, 140, 141, 142, 148.
Beckman, J. G., 73, 76, 87.
Beckman, J., 90, 91.
Bedemar, 273.
v. Behlen, 140, 150.
Behm, 136.
Bein and Eyber, 138.
v. Berlepsch, 67, 88.
Berlin forest school, 83, 84.
Bern, 200.
Bernhardt, 150.
Bertram, 434.
Betulomania (Germany), 66.
Biermans, 107.
Biltmore, 497.
Bohemia, 170, 172, 176.
Boppe, 242, 246.
Borggreve, 112, 131, 138, 140, 150.
Borkhausen, 140.
Bose, 140.
Bosnia-Herzegovina, 155, 166.
Bowers, 483.
Brandis, 383, 394, 402, 405, 406, 408.
Braun, 132.
Brémontier, 225.
Brewer, 474.
Breymann, 134.
v. Brocke, 89.
Broillard, 242, 246.
Büchting, 87.
Buffon, 237, 239, 245.
Bühler, 202.
Bulgaria, 322.
Bunch planting, Germany, 108.
Burgsdorf, 84, 105.
Burkhardt, 108, 131, 140, 150.
Butlar, 107.

CALIFORNIA, 491, 496, 497.
Calipers, 134.
Cameralists, Austria, 168; Germany, 57, 81, 122, 143.
Canada, 409.
Cape Colony, 439.
Carlowitz, 64, 68, 86.
Catalpa (Germany), 66.
Cato, 19, 20.
Ceylon, 438.
Champagne, reboisement (France), 229.
Chevandier, 247.
Church forests, 14, 46, 55, 93.
City forests (Germany), 34, 46, 56.
Clavé, 238, 239.
Clearing system, France, 218; Germany, 108; Italy, 338; India, 402;
Sweden, 302.
Cleghorn, 393.
Cleopatra, 10.
Cleveland, 484, 485.
Clinton, 468.
Cloister forests, Germany, 37, 46, 55, 93.
Clovis, 29, 30.
Coaz, 191, 202.
Cochin China, 251.
Code forestier, 220, 222.
Colbert, 215.
Colbert’s ordinance, France, 235, 238.
Colerus, 85.
Colonies, (French), 248-252; (Great Britain), 380-441.
Colorado, 490, 491.
Columella, 19, 20.
Commissions, Austria, 162, 174; Canada, 434, 436; France, 215; Great
Britain, 375, 376, 377; Hungary, 181; Italy, 342, 344, 345; Norway,
308, 309, 312; Russia, 263, 266; Spain, 355; Sweden, 295, 297, 299;
United States, 475, 481, 489, 492, 493, 494.
Communal forests, Austria, 158, 174; France, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212,
220, 221, 222, 240; Finland, 280; Germany, 28, 46, 56, 94, 127;
Hungary, 180; India, 390, 391; Italy, 339; Japan, 446; Norway, 307,
312; Russia, 259, 260; Sweden, 291, 293; Switzerland, 195.
Compartment method, Germany, 61.
Conifer planting, Germany, 65.
Connecticut, 496, 497.
Conservation, United States, 499.
Conservation Board, Sweden, 299.
Consumption, world, 4.
Coopers Hill, 378, 406.
Coppice, France, 234; Germany, 60, 110; India, 402; Italy, 17, 338;
Switzerland, 199.
Corporation forests, see Communal Forests.
v. Cotta, 83, 99, 102, 104, 110, 113, 119, 130, 131, 135, 138, 140,
144, 145, 170, 242, 246.
Cramer, 89.
de Crescentiis, 85, 244.
Cyprus, 10, 439.

DALHOUSIE, 393.
Dalmatia, 161.
Dankelmann, 140, 150.
D’Arcy, 408.
Dehra Dun, 407.
Delaware, 497.
Demontzey, 246.
Denmark, 314.
Diameter limit, Canada, 427; France, 235; Germany, 40, 49; Sweden,
293, 298.
pricemaker, Germany, 74.
Diodorus, 14, 16.
Doebel, 75, 86.
Dokuchaev, 273.
Dombrowski, 131.
Dralet, 245.
Draudt, 136.
Duhamel, 237, 238, 245.

EBERMAYER, 142.
Eberswalde, 146.
Egypt, 14, 16.
Eisenach, 146.
Endres, 144.
Ensign, United States, 491.
Entail, Germany, 129.
Entomology, Germany, 142.
Ethiopia, 14, 15.
Evelyn’s Silva, Great Britain, 374.
Experiment stations, Austria, 176; France, 239; Germany, 147; Hungary,
184; Italy, 348; Japan, 453; Sweden, 304; Switzerland, 201.
Exports, see Imports.
Export trade, Canada, 418, 419.

FAUSTMANN, 134, 139.
Feldjäger, 81.
Felling time, Germany, 78.
Femelschlag, Germany, 61.
Fernandez, 408.
Feudal system, France, 208, 210; Germany, 33; Japan, 447.
Finland, 277.
Fires, Canada, 418, 429; France, 221, 250; Germany, 48; India, 400,
401; Sweden, 303; Switzerland, 190; United States, 465, 494.
Fischbach, 140.
de Fleury, France, 233.
Forest area, world, 4.
Forest conditions, ancient, 9; Austria, 155ff; Canada, 414-417;
Denmark, 314, 315; Finland, 279; France, 205, 206; Germany, 24, 47,
96, 109; Great Britain, 367; Greece, 328, 329; India, 383-388;
Italy, 336; Japan, 444; Norway, 306, 307; Portugal, 360; Russia,
254-258; Spain, 352; Sweden, 287, 288; Switzerland, 188; Turkey,
322; United States, 461-466.
Forest courts, France, 216; Germany, 32; Great Britain, 370, 371.
Foresters, Forestarii, 32, 36.
Forest influences, Austria, 163; France, 230; Germany, 129, 144;
Italy, 342-347; Russia, 264; Switzerland, 191, 194.
Forest management, ancient, 16.
Forest ordinances, Austria, 158, 161; France, 212-216; Germany, 37,
38, 52.
Forest organization, Austria, 169-172; France, 239, 240; Germany, 113-
120; Japan, 452; Russia, 274; Sweden, 303.
Forest police, Austria, 164-166.
Forest protection, by ancients, 16, 18; Germany, 141, 142.
Forest rent, Germany, 118, 139.
Forest schools, Austria, 175; Canada, 436; Denmark, 319; Finland, 283;
France, 241, 242-244; Germany, 83, 84, 90, 145; Great Britain, 377,
378; Hungary, 183, 184; India, 405; Italy, 347, 348; Japan, 450,
451, 454; Norway, 310, 313; Portugal, 364; Russia, 270, 271; Spain,
355, 356; Sweden, 303, 304; Switzerland, 190, 200; United States,
487, 500, 501.
Forest service, see Administration.
Forest use control, early, Austria, 158; Denmark, 316; France, 213ff;
Germany, 36ff, 49, 50, 55, 56; Hungary, 180; Norway, 308; Sweden,
294.
Forestry congress, Canada, 429; United States, 480.
Forestry council, Germany, 149.
Forestry journals see Journals.
Forestry, origin, 2, 41.
Form factors, Germany, 134.
Form quotient, Germany, 135.
Frederick the Great, 72.
French revolution, 126.
Frontier forests, ancient, 13, 15.
France, 222; Germany, 28; Hungary, 180.
Fürst, 131, 132, 142.

GALICIA, 160.
Gamble, 408.
Gayer, 108, 131, 132.
German influence, Denmark, 317, 332; France, 242; India, 380; Russia,
262; Sweden, 295; Switzerland, 191; United States, 480, 497.
Germany, 22.
Gibson, 393.
Gifford, 500.
Giessen, 146.
v. Gleditsch, 84.
Göchhausen, 86.
Goeppert, 112.
Graves, 503.
Great Britain, 365.
Grebe, 142.
Greece, ancient, 10, 14, 16.
modern, 327.
Grenzmark, 13.
Guiot, 237, 245.
Guyot, 243, 246.
Gwinner, 131, 140.

HARRISON, 483.
Hartig, G. L., 83, 94, 98, 110, 113, 121, 130, 131, 132, 133, 136,
138, 139, 140, 145, 149, 170, 242, 245, 246.
Hartig’s rules, 102, 104, 105.
Hartig, R., 112, 141, 136.
Hartig, Th., 132, 141.
Hauch, 319.
Haug, 112.
Hausväter, 85.
Hawaii, 505.
Hennert, 72, 74, 75.
Henry, 246.
Hess, 102, 142.
Heyer, E., 138.
Heyer, G., 102, 117, 134, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 146, 150.
Heyer, K., 101, 106, 111, 116, 130, 131, 134, 147.
Heyer, K. method, 120.
Historical periods, Germany, 25, 26.
Hodges, 479.
Holy groves, 13, 15, 16.
Hossfeld, 112, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138.
Hough, 475.
Huber, 115, 134, 136, 137.
Huffel, 239, 247.
Hundeshagen, 100, 111, 116, 125, 130, 131, 135, 137, 140, 147, 171.
Hungary, 154, 178.
Hunting grounds of Romans, 13.
Hygienic influences, Italy, 344, 347.
Hypsometer, Germany, 75, 134.

IMPORTS, CANADA, 418; Denmark, 315; Finland, 277; France, 206;
Germany, 24, 126; Italy, 338; Great Britain, 368; Norway, 308;
Spain, 353; Sweden, 289; Russia, 253.
Improvement fellings, France, 235; Germany, 110.
Increment measuring, Germany, 75.
Index per cent. Germany, 117.
India, 14, 380.
Indiana, 496, 497.
Indo-China, 251.
Information bureau, Germany, 128.
Isaiah, reference, 10.
Israelites, 10, 13.
Istria, 160.
Italy, 11, 335.

JACOBI, 70.
Jacquot, 247.
Jaeger, 112, 138.
Jaeger, holzgerechte, Germany, 56, 81, 86.
Japan, 442.
Jews, 10, 13.
Josephus, reference to forest destruction, 10.
Journals, Austria, 178; Canada, 435, 436; Denmark, 319; Finland, 284;
France, 247; Germany, 149, 150; Great Britain, 379; Hungary, 184;
India, 408; Italy, 349; Norway, 314; Roumania, 326; Russia, 271;
Spain, 360; Sweden, 304, 305; Switzerland, 202; United States, 480,
481, 499, 500, 503.
Judeich, 117, 140, 170.
Judeich and Nitzsche, 142.
Jung, 90.

KAIGODOROV, 273.
Kaiser, 132.
Karl, 138.
Karlsruhe, 146.
Karst, 156, 161, 173, 174.
Kauschinger, 142.
Kentucky, 496.
Klipstein, 114.
Kogl, 172.
König, 100, 111, 112, 116, 132, 135, 136, 138, 272.
Korea, 455.
Krafft, 112, 133, 140.
Krain, 159.
Kravchinsky, 273.
Kregting, 73, 113.
Krohne, 75.
v. Kropf, 72, 74, 75.
Kuntze, 136, 137, 138.

LANDES, reboisement, France, 226, 227.
Landolt, 191, 202.
v. Langen, 68, 70, 88, 309, 316.
Lapham, 489.
v. Lassberg, 88.
Laurop, 142, 144, 148.
Lefebvre, 249.
Lehr, 140, 144.
Leiria forest, Portugal, 363.
Literature, ancient, 19; Austria, 178; Denmark, 319; France, 244-247;
Germany, 22, 41, 67, 84-91, 130ff; Great Britain, 379; Hungary, 183;
Italy, 349; India, 405; Russia, 271, 272; Sweden, 303; Switzerland,
202.
Litter, 51, 133.
Logslides, Germany, 79.
Lorentz, 238, 242.
Lorey, 112, 131, 136, 137.
Louisiana, 496.
Lumber industry, United States, 471; Canada, 419, 420.

MACEDONIA, 11, 322.
Maine, United States, 494, 490.
Malay States, 438.
Manteuffel, 63, 107.
Maria Theresa reforms, Austria, 161, 180.
Mark forests Austria, 154; France, 207; Germany, 27ff, 37, 44, 46, 95;
Norway, 307; Sweden, 290ff.
Marsh G.P., 474.
Maryland, 496.
Massachusetts, 490, 496.
Matsuno, 450, 453.
Mauritius, 439.
Mayer, 141.
Mayr, 132.
McClelland, 394.
Mediterranean countries, 10, 12, 320.
Meister, 202.
Mensuration, Germany, 73, 78, 133ff.
Mercantilistic system, Germany, 42, 53, 126.
Mesopotamia, 10.
Méthode à tire et aire, Germany, 58, 217; France, 236.
Meurer, 85.
Meyer, 144.
Micheaux, 245, 478.
Michigan, 490, 496, 497.
Mine forests, Austria, 159; Hungary, 180.
Minnesota, 489, 494, 496, 497.
Moreau de Jonnès, 130.
Morozov, 273.
v. Moser, 89.
Mound planting, Germany, 107.
Mount Lebanon, 10, 14.
Mühlhausen, 132.
Müller P.E., 319.
Müller, U., 138.
Münden, 146.
Munich, 84, 146.
Municipal forests, 14.

NANCY, 242, 406.
Nanquette, 242, 243, 246.
Napoleon, 219.
Natural regeneration, development in Germany, 39, 58ff.
Navy reservations, Canada, 424; France, 215; Great Britain, 374;
Russia, 262; United States, 469.
Nestorov, 273.
Newfoundland, 437.
New Hampshire, 490, 496, 497.
New Jersey, 490, 496, 497.
New York, 490, 491-494, 498.
New South Wales, 441.
Ney, 131.
Nisbet, 379.
Noble, 483.
Noerdlinger, 132, 138, 156.
Normal forest, Austria, 170, 171; Germany, 115; Hungary, 181.
North Carolina, 490, 497.
Norway, 305.
Nurseries, ancient, 20; Germany, 106, 107; Hungary, 182.
Nursetree method, Germany, 60.

OETTELT, 68, 70, 74, 76, 77, 134, 136.
Ohio, 490, 497.
Oliva de Serres, 244.
Ordinances, Austria, 158, 161, 165; France, 214, 215, 216, 217, 233;
Germany, 33, 38, 47, 48, 49ff, 62; Italy, 340; Japan, 447; Norway,
310; Spain, 355; Sweden, 294; United States, 467.
Orlov, 273.
Otozky, 273.
Oxford University, 378, 406.

PALESTINE, 9, 13.
Palladius, 19.
Parade, 242, 246.
Paradises of Persians, 13.
Pasture in forests, Greece, 331; India, 400; Italy, 346.
Pasture woods, Germany, 62; Switzerland, 193, 195, 196.
Pathology, Germany, 141.
Paulsen, 115, 136.
Pearson, 401.
Pennsylvania, 495, 496.
Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 498.
Persia, 14.
Perthuis, 245.
Peter de Crescentiis, 41, 244.
Pfeil, 101, 104, 111, 126, 130, 131, 132, 139, 142, 143, 144, 145,
150.
Physiocratic doctrine, Germany, 43.
Pinchot, 487, 497, 501.
Philippines, 505, 506.
Planting, Austria, 172, 173; Denmark, 318, 319; France, 224ff;
Germany, 39, 62, 65, 66, 82, 166ff; Great Britain, 369; India, 404;
Japan, 451, 453; Portugal, 362, 363; Russia, 276; Sweden, 302;
United States, 476, 477, 478, 498.
fund, Germany, 65; Russia, 269; Spain, 358.
budgets, Germany, 66.
Plant material distribution, Germany, 128; Hungary, 182; Italy, 346;
Portugal, 364; Russia, 267; United States, 498.
Pliny, 19, 20.
Poland, 275.
Polewood management, Germany, 61.
Portugal, 360.
Porto Rico, 504.
Pressler, 111, 112, 117, 134, 136, 138, 139, 140.
Private forests, ancient, 15; Austria, 158, 162; Canada, 423; Denmark,
317; Finland, 283; France, 206, 207, 212, 224, 240, 241; Germany,
29, 55, 128; Greece, 333; Hungary, 179; India, 390, 391; Italy, 339;
Japan, 447; Norway, 308; Portugal, 361, 363; Russia, 273; Spain,
360; Sweden, 293; Switzerland, 195, 196.
Property conditions, ancient, 12; Austria, 157; Canada, 422, 423, 424;
Denmark, 216, 217; Finland, 280; France, 212; Germany, 27-36, 42-47,
92; Great Britain, 375; India, 388; Italy, 339, 342; Japan, 447,
450; Norway, 307; Portugal 361; Russia, 259, 260; Spain, 352;
Sweden, 290ff; Switzerland, 189; United States, 458, 461.
Protection forest, Austria, 163; France, 222, 250; Hungary, 181;
Italy, 342; Japan, 453; Norway, 312, 313; Russia, 264, 265, 266;
Switzerland, 194, 196.
Puton, 242, 243, 246.

QUEENSLAND, 441.

RAILROAD planting, United States, 479, 498.
Ramann, 142.
Ratzeburg, 142.
Réaumur, 77, 238, 245.
Reboisement, Austria, 150, 159, 165; Denmark, 317; France, 223, 224,
229, 232, 238; Germany, 62, 106; Great Britain, 377; Hungary, 181;
Portugal, 363; Russia, 269, 275, 276-277; Italy, 344, 345; Norway,
311; Russia, 276; Spain, 358, 359.
Reforestation, see Planting and Reboisement.
Reservations, Canada, 424, 425, 432; United States, 469.
Reum, 140.
v. Reuss, 118, 134, 246.
Ribbentrop, 383, 380, 408.
Richter, 134.
Rhode Island, 496.
Rights of user, ancient, 15; Denmark, 322; France, 206, 210, 211, 221;
Germany, 21, 32, 44, 47, 96, 128; Greece, 331; India, 388, 389, 390,
391; Japan, 447; Norway, 307, 313; Sweden, 291; Switzerland, 195.
Road building, Germany, 132.
Robinia, Germany, 66.
Roger, 408.
Romans, forest conditions, 11.
wood markets, 12.
management, 12.
ownership, 16.
Roosevelt, 487, 499.
Rostaing, 338.
Rotations, France, 234, 237; Germany, 139, 140; Russia, 274.
Roth, 486.
Rothrock, 495.
Roumania, 321, 324, 327.
Roumelia, 322.
Royal trees, India, 389; Japan, 448.
Rudzsky, 273.
Runnebaum, 132.
Russia, 253.

DE SALOMON, 246.
Sand dune planting, Denmark, 318; France, 225, 226, 250; Germany, 65;
Hungary, 180, 183; Italy, 338; Russia, 276.
Sargent, 500.
Saxony, 119.
Saw, use, Germany, 77, 78.
Scandinavia, 285.
Schenck, 497, 501.
Schiffel, 135.
Schilcher, 113.
Schlich, 378, 379, 383, 408.
Schneider, 138.
Schoener, 134.
Schroeder, 142.
Schuberg, 137.
Schwappach, 132, 137, 138, 144.
v. Seckendorff, 165.
Seebach modified beech forest, Germany, 109.
Seed tree management, France, 234.
Seed tree methods, Sweden, 302.
Seigniorage, Austria, 159; Germany, 32, 43, 44, 54, 92.
Selection forest, Austria, 172; Finland, 281; France, 206, 235, 237,
239; Germany, 40, 58, 62, 108, 110; India, 402; Italy, 338; Norway,
313; Russia, 274; Sweden, 302; Switzerland, 198; United States, 498.
Senft, 142.
Servia, 323.
Servitudes, see Rights of user.
Seutter, 137, 139.
Seymour, 491.
Shelterwood system, Austria, 172; France, 238, 239, 242; Germany, 102,
107, 105, 108; Switzerland, 198.
Shifting sands, see Sand dunes.
Siberia, 254, 255, 256.
Sihlwald, 190.
Silviculture, Austria, 172; France, 235-240; Denmark, 318; Germany,
57ff, 68, 102-112; India, 402; Romans, 16, 17; Russia, 274; Sweden,
302; Switzerland, 198.
Slavish countries, 321.
Smalian, 134, 135.
Smith, Adam, 93, 143.
Smith, Hoke 484.
Soil knowledge, Germany, 142.
Soil rent, Germany, 117, 138, 139.
Solitude, school, Germany, 84, 90.
Sologne, reboisement, France, 228.
South Australia, 440.
Southworth, 430.
Sowing, Germany, 63.
Sowing cones, Germany, 64.
Space number, Germany, 135.
Spain, 9, 11, 349.
Späth, 110, 136.
Stahl, 84, 89, 91.
Starr, 473.
State foresters, Canada, 431; France, 220; Germany, 120; United
States, 496; Switzerland, 198.
State forests, Austria, 167, 168; Denmark, 317; Finland, 280, 281,
282, 283; France, 210, 218, 219; origin in Germany, 92; Great
Britain, 374, 375, 376; Greece, 331; Hungary, 180, 181, 182; India,
388, 396; Italy, 339; Japan, 450, 451; Norway, 307, 311; Portugal,
362; Russia, 256; Spain, 357, 358, 359; Sweden, 290, 291, 292.
State supervision, Austria, 161-165; Germany, 144; Greece, 333;
Hungary, 181; France, 220-223; Finland, 283; Denmark, 316; Italy,
342ff; Japan, 452; Norway, 312; Portugal, 363; Russia, 263ff; Spain,
360; Sweden, 297, 299ff; Switzerland, 193.
v. Steuben, 480.
Stoetzer, 132.
Straits Settlement, 438.
Strip system, Austria, 172; Germany, 59; Russia, 274.
Styria, 159, 160, 162, 171.
Successive fellings, Germany, 61, 102.
Supplies, of world, 4.
Swamps reclaimed, Russia, 277.
Sweden, 287.
Switzerland, 185.
Syria, 10.