already 23 States including Pennsylvania own about six and one-half million acres of land as State Forests. The chief difficulty so far has been in getting the money to buy or the generous owner to give lands for this purpose.

But public ownership does not stop here. It has been carried into our county, township, and city Governments. The Massachusetts Forestry Association has been doing a big service through its program to secure a "town" or township forest in every township in the State. Let me quote from a recent report issued by this Association: "For ten years the Massachusetts Forestry Association has published bulletins and special article on the advantages of town forests. Scores of editorials on the subject have appeared in the press and hundreds of columns have been devoted to it. Thousands of citizens have heard lectures on forestry in which the value of the town forest was emphasized. The most effective argument of all, however, is the record of the towns that have established or voted to establish such forests. Of these 41 municipalities, 29 have appropriated $25,372.00 or $875.00 per town; 36 have set aside 3,454 acres or 96 acres per town; 28 have planted 464,500 trees or 16,600 trees per town. There are 107 other towns that have appointed official committees to report on the subject at the next town meeting. In other words over 40 per cent of our cities and towns have taken some action toward the creation of Town Forests." This shows what a real live Association can do through interesting the people in forestry. Again in Connecticut the State Forestry Association has recently succeeded in purchasing what it calls the People's Forest through public subscription.

Here allow me to digress long enough to emphasize the value of a State Forestry Association, whether the State has secured a Forestry Department or not. Having been connected with such an Association for 14 years, I can speak with some measure of experience. Although the results often seem small or altogether lacking, and although in some cases the State Forestry officials have to do a large part of the work, the common interest of even the few faithful men and women continues from year to year as a very decided and helpful effect on the public opinion. of the State. The ideal Forestry Association is one entirely

separated from the State Forestry Department, for it wields a much larger influence upon the public and the legislature than one maintained under the guidance of a State employee. So far as I know the Massachusetts Forestry Association mentioned above is the only organization of the kind with a full-time paid secretary. One or two others have a secretary paid part-time but most or all of the Associations especially in the South pay their officials nothing. This is a great handicap to their effectiveness but is a sad necessity. I do want to emphasize the fact, however, that every State in the South should have a Forestry Association and that all the people interested in Forestry and Forest Fire Prevention should make a point of supporting that Association.

In my own State of North Carolina there are now some 25,000 acres of forest land owned and protected by the municipalities of 20 or more of our mountain towns for the purpose of protecting their water supplies, and this total is gradually being increased. Undoubtedly the same conditions hold in many other States. These areas are held as necessary parts of the city water systems, and as a rule no other use of the land is permitted. The city of Asheville bases a large part of its popularity on its pure water supply and it considers its 18,000 acre watershed as not merely a profitable but an essential investment.

The value of public forests for education, as well as for recreation and commercial use, must be emphasized. This is being done in the most recent proposition in the South. The establishment of a Community Forest by the city of Savannah was suggested at our last Forestry Congress. This idea seems to be taking shape. Plans are under way to secure a considerable area of forest land not far from the city so that the citizens could use it freely and often for all legitimate recreation. The larger part of it would be used to grow timber and probably the timber sold at a suitable time and the area reforested according to the approved plans. In this way the people of the city would learn what forestry was and the advantages of better forest practice. It is maintained that "A well located tract of land purchased cheaply and set aside for natural reforestation would be a good investment in two ways: first, it would pay as a source of timber for pulp wood or fuel, of naval stores and

other forest products. The second (and perhaps it is the greatest) value might come from making this an experiment reservation and carrying on various experiments in planting, natural reforestation, protection from fire and hogs, etc." The advantage of such an object lesson owned by the people themselves would be incalculable.

In advocating public ownership we are, I think apt to magnify the first cost. This is a mistake because in practically every case lands are not likely to decrease in value so will eventually become probably the most visible asset which the State can show for its annual expenditures. I feel that this Congress would make no mistake in emphasizing along with its policy of Forest Fire Prevention this companion policy of public ownership of the poorer forest lands.

REPORT OF THE TREASURER

2

C. B. HARMAN, Secty.-Treas.

The President announced the following committee:

Resolutions Committee-W. D. Tyler, E. W. Gates, Page S. Bunker, D. V. Dierks, Frederick Dunlap, Mrs. Florence H. Stone, O. O. Axley, Dr. A. C. Millar, T. C. Rosbrough, George

Vaughan, E. Murray Bruner, J. B. Woods, W. L. E. Barnett, J. G. Peters, Goodrich Jones.

Committee on Nominations-E. O. Siecke, H. E. Hardtner, Chapin Jones, W. L. Hall, C. A. Plymale.

Committee on Place of Meeting-Dr. Herman Von Schrenk, James Boyd, W. D. Tyler, Eugene Baker, W. L. E. Barnett.

"WHAT PRACTICAL FORESTRY CAN DO
FOR ARKANSAS"

By J. R. HAMLEN

CHAIRMAN, HONORARY ARKANSAS FORESTRY COMMITTEE

When Mr. Roosevelt was President, we often heard, many of us for the first time, the phrase "Conservation of Natural Resources." I wonder, how many of us then appreciated the profound sense of that appeal. We knew in a general way what the words meant, but only a few of us, then or since, went further and attempted to apply the force of a conservation policy to our own immediate and pressing requirements.

The result finds Arkansas, today, at the threshold of one of her most vital problems, which unless solved, is quite likely to produce effects of a far reaching character upon her commercial future. I refer, of course, to the alarming shortage of our timber supplies and the necessity of replenishing them—a task, the immense importance of which cannot be over-estimated.

It is hardly necessary to mention the reasons for this shortage. It is sufficient to say, that reckless cutting, without foresight in days gone by, and in a sense of lavishness which indicated a never-ending supply of timber, is one of them. A prodigality of carelessness towards the ever-present dangers of forest fires, is another. And the continued destruction of forests without any fixed thought or plan of replanting them, is still another.

Tardy, however, as we have been to recognize the pending consequences of this short-sighted policy, there is still opportunity left to us, to make amends and prevent a death blow to an ancient, honorable and profitable industry. But those of us, who now realize the dangers of a complete obliteration of our forests and of the problems which confront us, are not able by ourselves, alone, to solve them. It is far too large a task to

accomplish without the combined influences of all our agencies -professional, industrial and political alike, within the State.

Therefore, I desire to call upon the legislature, now fortunately in session, and also the citizens of Arkansas, to combine their forces and help us fix upon a policy and enact effective legislation which will ultimately do more for the State than anything I now have in mind. The Honorary Arkansas Forestry Commission, which was appointed some time ago by Governor McRae, has submitted after careful consideration, a Forestry Bill, simple in language, but powerful in intent and we hope the present General Assembly will promptly pass it and thereby make the first step towards permanent forestry relief.

So far, Arkansas has done practically nothing as a State to protect, preserve or perpetuate its forests. It hasn't even a State Fire Warden. And yet information gathered officially by the United States Forest Service shows that 2137 fires occured in 1923, and were reported to the Forest Service in Washington. These fires burned over 675,000 acres of standing timber with a damage of three quarters of a million dollars. I am told that these figures do not anywhere nearly represent the total number of fires that occured in the State that year, or the total burned acreage or damage thereto.

Thirty-five States out of the forty-eight have enacted some sort of forestry legislation creating State forestry bureaus or departments and most of these States are coöperating with the Federal Government in fire contol work. Until Arkansas follows suit, adequately, she is not permitted by law to benefit from the use of Federal aid, as provided under the Weeks' Law for fire prevention.

I have been asked to briefly discuss "What Forestry Can. Do for Arkansas." Perhaps I may best answer this question by stating how Arkansas will suffer if nothing is now done to stem the tide of complete timber shortage.

There are an endless number of purely economic reasons why we should fortify our present timber supply and prevent further waste of it. The lumber industry of Arkansas has greatly added to her prosperity and the ratio of increase or decrease of this industry, in the future, will affect the welfare of the State in the same proportion. Forest products enter