REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FOR

ESTRY.

HARRISBURG, PA., January 1, 1898.

HON. THOS. J. EDGE, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE:

Dear Sir: For a division which has been in existence but two years, operating in a field practically new to our people, with our plans to formulate, and our methods of work to develop, we feel that a most gratifying start has been made.

It was something to convince a people, who had grown up in sight of forests supposed to be inexhaustible, that they would do well to consider the economical methods of lumbering which are practiced in regions where timber is scare, and to provide by wise legal enactments for a restoration of the forest wealth upon which so much of our past prosperity has depended. We can hardly yet realize the full import of the change in public sentiment which has come about so swiftly but so quietly in this State. It is fair to add the strength of the forestry movement in Pennsylvania is a surprise to those in other states who are working with the same object in view.

The whole work here has been done along educational lines. That so much has been accomplished is simply evidence that our people, through their representatives, may be trusted to act wisely upon any question which has been fully stated and fairly placed before them.

Some of the work contemplated by the creation of this division has involved changes in legislation which a few years ago would have been considered as radical, yet the public has already placed the seal of its approval upon them. For example, it has been an established policy of the State, from the earliest period of its history, to dispose of its land cheaply enough to induce settlers to occupy it all as speedily as possible. There was wisdom in this in former years. But we have clearly outgrown the conditions then existing, and the necessity for a change in policy has become apparent. It is now a cause of regret that the need for a change was not discovered before the State had disposed of practically all of its lands. It is now recognized that the good of the largest number requires that a certain portion of the soil should remain as public property, to be managed for the public, in order that the natural laws upon which the prosperous perpetuity of the State depends be not violated, and the very surface of the soil, out of which so much of the wealth and all of the food comes, may be preserved in productive condition.

It was once considered the very essence of equity that all private real property should bear its proportion of taxation, and upon this idea those who prepared the last Constitution of the Commonwealth acted. It now appears that we were leading many of our best citizens by the too rigid application of a sound general principle, to despoil the State, in self-protection. It was the result of a better insight into the relations of the forests to the public that brought a rebate of taxes upon the growing farm timber, which returns to the community at large a benefit for every day that it is allowed to stand. This comes as a direct relief to the depressed agricultural industries of the State. Just here another principle may claim brief attention. The care which a savage extends to the sick of his own immediate band, civilization has developed into a right on the part of an afflicted citizen to demand care when he is unable to "do for himself." The outgrowth of this idea is seen in every hospital for which the Commonwealth provides. But even this will fail to meet calls which the near future may press upon us. Just as the most rational medical practice is preven tive, rather than curative of disease, so the broadest statesmanship will diminish the cost of curing disease, by preventing it, whenever a legitimate function of government can be brought to bear upon the case. Instead of so many hospitals we may have some sanitariums located among the birch and balsam forests. This is neither sentiment nor fancy. It is an event of the next few years. It will be entered upon because of the cold business fact that it is the cheapest thing to do, and because it will destroy a large proportion of invalidism by preventing it, and will give a self-supporting capacity to those who otherwise would have become perpetual charges upon the community. The forest reservations which have been authorized by act of the Legislature will have a large share in the natural development of this idea. The bill creating them was introduced at the request of the Pennsylvania Forestry Association. It should be stated here that the Forestry Division of the Department of Agriculture rendered all proper assistance in making its passage possible.

Then, too, we should call attention here to the change in public sentiment in regard to land sold for taxes. It is but a few years since the idea was broached that the State should become the possessor of them. The favor it met with was but scant. During the past session of the Legislature a bill providing for this was introduced as one of the measures suggested by the Division of Forestry, endorsed by the Department of Agriculture and desired by His Excellency, Governor Hastings. It passed by a practically unanimous vote. No law enacted during the session has been more heartily and universally commended over the State.

This bill, however, marks another stage in our passage to a more rational estimate of the relations of the forests to the community at

large. Becoming State property, such land would no longer be subject to taxation. In reality this is but little hardship to the counties in which it lies because as a matter of fact it now yields little or no revenue from taxes. Under the old law it must have continued to yield less with each successive year, while at the same time it would have become constantly poorer, and have led to a serious derangement of the water flow and water utilization, which would have wrought vast injury to the farm lands below, by freshets on the one hand, and a deficient water supply in dry seasons on the other.

Averting these disasters will be a public benefit which will not be confined to the counties themselves but will extend to the manufacturing and agricultural interests of the regions adjacent along the lower courses of the streams. *The increase of the forest areas, which it is safe to expect under State control, will also tend to lessen the rapidity of evaporation from the cultivated areas, and thus to a certain extent will protect the maturing crops in the season when moisture is most required. With a reasonable prospect of such advantage to the community at large, we may anticipate that any loss to the counties will be more than made good, and that means will be discovered of an equitable relief to the counties for any hardship which might be brought upon them.

There are counties in this State which have hitherto placed so high a tax upon some of their most valuable timber lands, and at the same time afforded so little protection to them against fire, that the owners have been driven to cut the timber, and thus to render the lands so valueless that they were surrenderd (by failure to pay taxes) to the counties. Thus, by one act, these counties deprived themselves of both timber and taxes. It is hardly necessary to point out that this led to a direct loss to the county in which it was done. It was a wrong to the land owner and to the community, and especially to those who are to follow.

Under conditions hitherto existing, forest restoration, on any large scale, was out of the question. The annual fires, with a merciless - punctuality, swept over the lands which had been cleared by lumbering operations, until both the young growth and, often, the soil itself were destroyed. In many cases extensive bodies of mature, valuable timber were killed. We had tolerated this until we ceased to consider it a crime to burn a forest, and had come to regard it as inevitable. We had lost sight of the fact that very often such conflagrations were deliberately started by vagrant, irresponsible persons, on ground to which they had no claim, for no other reasons than to increase the yield of berries in subsequent years. Sometimes it was done from malice, or at other times the fires arose from carelessness on

*See page 152 of Paper by Mr. Geo. S. Rafter, C. E, published in Vol. XII. Proceedings of the Amer ican Forestry Association.

the part of hunters. It should be stated here that the opening of the hunting season is usually marked by an increase in the number of these fires. In some regions they occur most frequently on Sunday, when persons who are worse than thoughtless are abroad in the woods. Comment on such a condition of affairs is unnecessary. It is enough to say that it was not only a disgrace to our civilization, but that it indicated a neglect on the part of the State to accord to the owner of such lands the protection for which taxes were paid.

It is in vain to assert that to have paid for the suppression of these fires would have led to their creation by evil disposed people who desired employment. The obvious duty of a government is to ferret out and punish such offenders, and to protect the law abiding citizen at all hazards. It is for this that the government exists, and failing to do this it neglects its first duty.

The earliest distinct, practical step toward suppression of such crimes was taken when the old act of June 2, 1870, was amended and a penalty clause attached which will compel county commissioners to make an effort to bring such offenders to justice, the State in consideration of the general benefits to be derived bearing a portion of the expenses.

The next practical measure, also originated and sanctioned by the Department of Agriculture, was placing the duty of suppressing forest fires upon constables within whose districts they occurred. It also provides a penalty for failure to perform this duty. Having the right to summon a posse to their aid, there can be no excuse for failure to greatly reduce the losses which the State has hitherto suffered from these annual fires. It should be added and emphasized that no man is required by this act to work without reasonable compensation, and that the Commonwealth assumes a fair share of the pecuniary responsibility.

It is not supposed that there will be no forest fires in the future. Some will inevitably arise. We may, however, look for a decrease in their number and for a more prompt suppression of them when they do occur. Neither do we anticipate that the best effects of this law will fol low its earliest operation. It is true, and unfortunate that it is true, that a certain number of convictions must follow before the ignorant or malicious can be brought to recognize the existence of any law. This law will be salutary just in proportion as it is rigidly enforced. An act essentially similar has been in operation in the State of New York. It is worth while to quote for a second time from the report of that Commonwealth that "ten years' experience in the matter has demonstrated that the present law relating to the protection of our woodlands from fire is a practical one. We have reason to believe that the widespread and disastrous fires which threatened the exist ence of our forests at one time will not recur."

An additional safeguard now exists by the passage of the act which authorizes peace officers to make summary arrest "on view," without a warrant having been previously obtained, of those who may be reasonably suspected of violating the laws for the protection of forest property. This was rendered necessary by the fact that in the woodland counties where such offenses are more frequent and most serious, that the formality of obtaining a warrant usually allowed the escape of the offender. Such a law has been in operation in Canada and it is believed with good results.

In certain of our counties it is still the custom to burn over ground which has been recently cleared to put it in condition to obtain a crop of grass. This "burning of the fallows," as it is called, has often been done without proper, or indeed any, precaution being taken to prevent its spread. Some of our most disastrous forest fires have been so created. One can readily see that this condition of affairs is a survival from earlier days, when each settler who opened up a home in the heart of the woods was a "law unto himself." As population increases, and as neighbors approach him, the good of all parties requires certain restraints. In conversation with those who have been accustomed to burn their fallows, it was stated in so many words that it was each man's "business to look out for himself." It was not considered the fault of the man who created the fire if it invaded the property of another, but was regarded as neglect in the second party if he allowed it to do so.

One may readily see that the prevalence of such an idea may work untold harm. It compels any citizen to live in what, at best, might be termed an "armed neutrality" with his neighbor. It opens an avenue for malice to wreak itself upon others and is in every way unsuited to the age in which we live. Some states have legislated against it by requiring such work to be done under official supervision, or at least only at proper times and with official permission. It is supposed by many of our citizens that there is no law to prevent one from creating a fire upon his own property when he sees fit, at any risk to that of his neighbor. If brought into court it would probably be discovered that this is an error, and that the legal responsibility can be placed where it belongs. The pleasantest aspect of this special problem is that it is fast working its own solution, and that we may hope accidents from this cause will constantly become rarer.

In connection with forest fires another question may any day be started. For example, "back firing" has long been resorted to as a most efficient method of heading off a previously existing forest fire. That it is open to grave abuse no one can doubt. To illustrate: A fire exists on the land of A. The land of B lies between that of A and C. In order to protect himself C may start a fire along the boundary between B and himself. A change in the wind may occur, and the