for France during the latter part of October of that year. There was a crying demand for forest products and the greatest possible speed for quick organization was demanded.

On January 3, 1918, six more companies embarked and one of these, Co. D, 4th Bn., later termed the 23rd Company of the 20th Engineers, was ordered to Marchenoir, a small village in the Department of Loir et Cher, central France. This is one of the most beautiful and fertile parts of France, and frequently termed the Garden of France. Here also the purest French is spoken and the peasants are considered the kindliest, most hospitable, affable and humorous of any peasant class in France. How could they be otherwise when surrounded from early spring to late fall with such an abundant vegetation and great masses of bright, beautiful flowers. The quality and size of their horses and cattle are unequaled anywhere else in the country. Even the forests appeared to be made up of larger and better timber than most other regions. Company D of the 4th Battalion was fortunate in being so favorably placed.

The operation was on the Forest of Marchenoir, a stand of hardwoods, mainly pedunculate oak (Quercus pedunculata), the wood of which corresponds closely to the white oak (Q. alba) so common in Pennsylvania. There were five (5) parcelles (compartments) and four (4) part parcelles comprising 116.5 hectares (288 acres) of mature timber to cut, estimated to contain about 6,000,000 board feet of lumber. The cutting was clear, that is, all the trees were taken. So again this operation was fortunate for the selection system followed on so many American operations in France, made progress more slow and laborious, as greater care had to be exercised in felling the trees to prevent injury to those left standing. Cutting began about the 28th of January, but not very briskly nor under favorable conditions. The weather was bad, due to frequent rains, I might say continuous rains, and mud was a serious handicap. The men were billeted in barns in the town and then in tents in the forest. The tents were without floors, but each one was equipped with a Sibley tent stove (cone shaped). Tools and other working equipment were not at hand and the greatest difficulty was encountered to obtain them. Men were being sent across faster than equipment could be shipped. Each battalion before sailing had worked out the equipment needed, but generally what was ordered for one battalion was finally used by other overseas forces. The Marchenoir operation obtained a saw mill, which, I believe,

had been ordered by the 10th Engineers. Up to the middle of February we had only a few axes and cross cut saws available, so work was slow. However, we had three 3-ton English make trucks, and then 60 head of horses arrived, but no harness nor wagons. These latter were received toward the end of February and in the meantime a fairly good supply of axes and cross cut saws. The early part of March saw a 50 H. P. Farquhar boiler and engine on the ground, followed a few days later by a ten thousand board feet capacity saw mill. These were quickly set substantially, for there was a year's work ahead and hard oak timber to be sawed. The wisdom of substantial setting proved itself later by the fact that the mill sawed regularly 50 per cent. above rated capacity, and, on several different occasions, more than 100 per cent. above rated capacity. In other words, the day's cut of two ten hour shifts, was anywhere from 30,000 to 44,000 board feet, whereas the rated capacity in two shifts was about 20,000 board feet. By the end of March the mill was running well. The timber was of good size and quality, much better, cleaner and with fewer defects than could be found in stands of like age in this country. An order came through to furnish a quantity of timber for dock construction 8 in. x 16 in. x 32 ft. long. These were duly shipped although 32 feet was the maximum log the mill could saw. The cover plate of this issue shows two logs at the mill ready to go on to the carriage. The one on which men are standing cut two 8 in. x 16 in. x 32 ft. timbers and in addition several 2 in. planks 16 in. wide, in all about 800 board feet. The second log a similar amount.

The stand of timber was 21⁄2 miles from the mill, with a good hard road connecting. This road was not kept in repair, and heavy log wagons, trucks and tractors with trailers soon played havoc with it. All logs were skidded to the road and there loaded on either four or eight wheeled wagons, the latter proving much the better for the work at hand. With four horses attached they easily carried 1200 board feet of logs where the road was fairly good, but frequently six head were necessary, where the road became soft. The illustrations herewith are both of eight wheeled wagons and the size of the loads will be noted.

Transportation from mill to a standard gauge railroad gave considerable difficulty. The mill stood within 500 feet of a meter gauge railroad or tramway, but there was no siding. Although but one train a day passed back and forth, yet no lumber could be loaded direct. After dicker

ing with the French authorities for nearly three months a railroad was put in by our men, with our materials, and at our expense. Then we furnished two meter gauge locomotives and 10 or 12 cars and the train crew to man the "Special.” This train was run to Blois, about 18 miles, where we also had to install siding both from the narrow gauge and standard gauge roads.

Until the railroads were built, most of the lumber was hauled either to Vendome or Beaugency on trucks, trucks with trailer, or tractor with three or four trailers. The distance to Vendome was about 12 miles and to Beaugency 8 miles. The illustration shows a truck and trailer loaded with four 12 in. x 12 in. x 30 ft. timbers besides a few of smaller dimensions, aggregating approximately 1500 board feet or 7000 pounds in weight.

The Marchenoir operation produced results which gave it an enviable position among the better of the A. E. F. lumbering jobs and did its part toward winning the war. Let the people of the United States not forget the part lumbering played in gaining this end. W. Gard Conklin.

The fire wardens are notified by telephone by interested citizens, by other fire wardens, or by the Blair County Fish and Forestry Association, of the location of a fire. They then gather together a gang of men and extinguish the fire. At South Lakemont, a suburb, a volunteer Forest Fire Society has been formed. The fire fighters are paid 20 cents an hour by the State Forest Department, one-half of which is levied on the County Commissioners.

One paid fire warden will be in Blair County this fall. There were few fires this spring.

An analysis of the foregoing statement discloses the fact that the quantity of timber cut per annum is greater than the amount of annual growth, added to the principal stand of timber large enough to be cut. Thus, in Blair County, at present and for years in the past, the present and future generations have been robbed of an indispensably necessary source of industrial wealth and support of civic welfare.

At the present rate of cutting, the relation of the annual increase in growth of merchantable timber and the amount of cutting is such that Blair County will be without merchantable timber inside of 35 years. This is about the same limit of time for the merchantable timber supply of the whole of the United States.

However, meanwhile the present small sized timber will have grown to a size which will make it serviceable for other purposes, such as paper stock, chemical wood, cord wood, ties, mine posts, and poles. But an absolute guaranty of this conservation must be based upon an efficient system

Future Labor Loss, from Present Excess Cutting

1,650,000 cu. ft.

7,150,000 cu. ft.

35.

33

$270,300.

$320.
$85,000.

of fire prevention, discovery and control of fires. The menacing fact of the annual economic loss of $270,300.00 due to fires and over-cutting is not only of local but of national importance. Conditions being largely the same all over the United States this economic loss may safely be multiplied a thousand times and it is seen what an enormous tax this loss means to the people in the long run.

In its effects upon the industrial and social welfare it acts like a silent, insidious dry rot upon the social structure.

The other startling fact is the calculable period of the disappearance of the merchantable timber in the United States, this statement coinciding with the statement made by officers of the United States Agricultural Department at the Conservation Congress, at Washington, in 1913, where it was predicted that the available merchantable timber would be exhausted in forty years. years have past and but little improvement in the forest policy of the country has taken place since then. Permit me to give a concrete example what that means.

Six

In 1904 the Deputy Minister of Education of the then Empire of Austria visited the St. Louis World's Fair. On his return he visited the Department of Tests of the Pennsylvania Railroad at Altoona and engaging in conversation on the subject of competition between nations the gentleman asked how Austria could meet American competition with its comparatively small handicraft industries and lack of extensive resources of raw materials. And even if Austria were in possession of large mineral resources, that country would not have timber enough to support such an extensive industrial system like that of Germany or of the United States. Now, the lesson to be derived from this remark made as to the inability of a country with extensive industries of the modern type being unable to sustain those industries unless there be available a sufficient supply of timber applies exactly to the rapidly waning forest resources of the United States. If Austria could not sustain large industries because of lack of merchantable timber, the United States will likewise be unable to sustain its extensive industries when the merchantable timber is gone, there being no special providence to guard the people of this country against the effects of wasteful, careless habits, and reprehensible disregard for the rights and welfare of the coming generation. I remember when a boy, 70 years ago, when Austria tried in vain to reforest certain parts of the Tyrols Alps, which, during a previous generation had been as thoughtlessly denuded of their forest cover as is being done in this country.

Herein lies the significance of the relation of the Blair County forestry condition and the anxiety of the Deputy Minister of Education of Austria how to meet the industrial competition of the United States with Austria's lack of sufficient raw materials and forestry resources.

I told the Deputy Minister that, if the United States persisted in its wastefully destructive policy in the use of its forests and other resources the time will come when there will be no competition to be afraid of because of the then growing necessity to conserve what resources there are left for the purpose of providing food, shelter and clothing for America's increasing population. That this phase of the economic life of nations is well understood by the older nations of Europe and Asia is proven by the fact that of the thousands of foreign engineers, educators and government officers from twenty-two different countries who have visited the United States since 1885, and of whom I have met hundreds personally, the wasteful use of our resources did not escape their observation and their remarks on this point were most instructive, not a few expressing their satisfaction that this wasteful use of timber and minerals would eventually help them to meet more easily the competition from the United States.

No other country but Russia is blessed with such a wealth of resources as are the United States. Taught after a thousand years of dire necessity to be economic in the use of what resources they possessed, these foreign engineers and educators were good judges in their estimation of the effects of deforested mountains, eroded hillsides, or dried up water courses, upon the industrial life of the country in the future.

Thus, from whatever standpoint we look at this statement of forest conditions from Blair County, it being typical of the forest conditions of the county at large, it reminds us most forcibly that the conservative use and scientific management of the remaining timber supply of the United States has become a patriotic duty and paramount necessity because without a prosperous agricultural and industrial activity we cannot maintain our democratic institutions, nor Our present political, commercial and industrial standing.

Hence also the need for a vigorous, purposeful forest policy, State and national, free from the play of partisan politics and aiming at the liberal co-operation of all interests, of capital and labor and of all the people as a matter of national welfare and self-preservation.

Paul Kreuzpointner,

Secretary.

How the State Can Assist the Private Owner to Practice Forestry.

T

HE wooded area of the United States is approximately 545,000,000 acres. Of

this, 29 per cent. is in National forests or parks and about 1⁄2 per cent. owned by the states, leaving over 70 per cent. in private ownership. While the management of the national and state forests is not nearly so intensive as is desirable, the character of ownership and the technical direction of the forests insure reasonably efficient operation. It is, therefore, to the private forests, which not only comprise the great bulk of the wooded area, but an even greater percentage of the standing timber, that we must turn to develop a forest policy that will provide the timber supply of the future.

Colonel Graves, of the U. S. Forest Service, in taking up this problem of the regulated management of private forests, is undertaking a large task beset with many difficulties, but he has the assurance that practically all the foresters and those interested in forest conservation are likewise interested in extending the practice of forestry to private lands. There is no doubt that the situation is a critical one, requiring action and even the adoption of what may appear to many as revolutionary measures, if we are to avert serious consequences 20 years from

now.

In dealing with the forests we are dealing with a crop which requires many years for maturity, and if we must wait from 30 to 50 years from the time of seeding until harvest, it means a long look ahead.

In growing timber, however, the fact must not be lost sight of that we are producing a crop just as certainly as though growing corn or wheat, and that the crop of timber is just as essential to the welfare of the country as the corn crop or the wheat crop. We must get away from the common misconception that the timber business is essentially the harvesting of a crop rather than the growing of it. The main emphasis must be placed upon the growing of the crop, the harvesting being only an incident.

Pennsylvania has approximately 13,000,000 acres of woodland, of which the state, in its 53 forests, owns a little over 1,000,000 acres, or less than 8 per cent. There are no national forests, so that the remaining 12,000,000 acres, or over 92 per cent., is practically all in private ownership, and about equally divided between farm woodlands and large timber tracts. The lumber cut ten years ago was nearly 1,500,000,000 feet,

but has gradually declined to about 500,000,000 feet a year, or about one-third what it was a decade ago. Considerable progress is being made on the state forests in fire protection and forest management, but little is being done on the privately owned lands, comprising more than ninetenths of the wooded area of the State.

The great problem, is, therefore, to bring about better forest management on the privately owned lands, as representing the main source of the forest wealth of the state. Since the growing of timber under present conditions is not always a profitable undertaking, but is one nevertheless essential to the welfare of the state, the state itself is justified in offering inducements toward the practice of forestry to offset the handicaps of timber growing and the regulations it may be necessary to impose upon private owners for the public good.

There are at least four lines along which the State can offer assistance, namely: Forest fire protection, advice and expert assistance to woodland owners, a special tax for forest lands, and developing public sentiment for better forestry.

Fire Protection. The first and main emphasis should be placed on fire protection, for unless the owner can be assured of reasonable fire protection, we are not justified in asking him to make an investment in reproducing a forest that is likely to be destroyed. On large areas of mountain land good forests can be maintained indefinitely by keeping out fires alone. Fire protection is, therefore, a prerequisite to the practice of forestry.

Forest property is held by several classes of owners, some of it in large areas, but much of it in smaller holdings. It is all land which pays taxes and is entitled to its full measure of protection. A large share of it is in continuous forest, so that a fire on one property may spread to dozens of others unless proper control measures are adopted. This fact makes it distinctively the duty of the state to exercise authority and to come to the assistance of the individual owners in saving their property from threatened danger -a danger for which they are in no wise responsible. Often even where this danger of fire spreading over large areas is greatest by reason of the character of the country, there is the least interest on the part of private owners. The mountain and hilly lands under forest cover have practically all been cut over, some of them several times, and forest fires have run over them so repeatedly that there is often a feeling of helplessness; that fires are inevitable; and

even if by the expenditure of money in fire protection on their part there would be a possibility of reducing the fire damage, many look upon it as an experiment of doubtful value and are indifferent to protective measures. To others it is a question whether fires do any considerable damage, and of course until such owners can be convinced of the damage caused by fires they are not going to be enthusiastic over fire protection.

This feeling of indifference toward forest fires will give way to interest in forest protection when the state assumes its full share in the duty of providing competent legislation and an ef fective organization for fire protection. Public sentiment in its favor will grow as rapidly as its benefits can be carried to the people who own the forest land.

He who cause fires through his carelessnes or indifference should be regarded as a public nuisance. Laws of nearly all of the states make a deliberate setting of fires for destroying the forest a criminal offence. The number of convictions, however, are few in comparison to the number of offences. There is a growing tendency to extend the police powers of the state for the benefit of the whole people over matters that were formerly considered of purely local significance. This has helped to solve many problems where through local indifference or lack of authority nothing could be accomplished. The forest fire situation is a case in point. It is just as much the duty of the state to protect the forests from fires as it is the duty of the city to protect city property from fires.

Pennsylvania has taken advanced grounds in this respect and is working out a complete fire protection system. The number of fires and the amount of damage in the state, however, indicate that there is much to be accomplished before real fire protection is assured and much stress must necessarily be placed on fire prevention. This means that the forest fire protective organization must get in closer touch with the private owner in order to secure his co-operation. No forest owner should be allowed to create or maintain a fire menace on his land that may threaten other property any more than one suffering from a contagious disease should be allowed in public places. Fire protection can progress no more rapidly than such co-operation is secured. Pennsylvania has made a splendid beginning with a big problem, with much yet to be attained.

Expert Assistance to the Private Owner. The

practice of Forestry by the private owner without outside assistance is not often possible, because it is seldom that the owner knows anything of technical forestry, and he is not inclined, and seldom justified, in employing a Forester when the growing of timber is a more or less uncertain venture. Inasmuch as the state at large is benefitted by maintaining the high productivity of forest lands, it should provide the technical assistance to the private owner under the most reasonable terms. It will pay the state to do so from the benefits to be derived, and the owner will be benefitted in the knowledge that he is handling his woodlands along the most practical lines to maintain timber produetion. The assistance offered should consist of advice as to the best system of management with recommendations as to the proper measures to be taken to secure desired results. This is all that is needed in many cases and the advice should be furnished by the state free of charge, or at not more than the travel expenses of the Forester.

Often, however, it will be found that the plan of management involves the making of thinnings, improvement cuttings, or the removal of mature timber, which requires the help of an expert in selecting and marking trees to be cut. Unless this work is done under expert supervision, the purposes of Forestry as applied to such lands will not succeed. Since this operation generally results in a revenue to the owner and is of direct benefit to him, he should be willing to pay a nominal fee for the service. Furthermore the part payment for the service rendered constitutes an investment in Forestry on the owner's part and he is more apt to carry through the plans made by the Forester when he has something invested in them.

The plan that has been working successfully in Maryland for several years seems to work for the best interests of the state and the private owner, who is willing to invest something for a second crop. Under this plan, the Forestry Department furnishes a Forester to supervise the selecting, marking and estimating of the timber to be cut on a given tract. The amount of timber, its stumpage value and a definite plan for the sale of the timber is the result of the field work. The expense of the field work is borne about equally between the owner and the state, while the office work is done entirely by the state. The advantages in this plan are that since the selection and marking of the trees is under the direction of the Forester and only marked trees are to be offered for sale, it means