Our excellent New York neighbor, the American Agriculturist, has the following in its March number:

"Those who have looked into the subject most carefully, are confident that the interests of our country require that all lumber be admitted free, and such a bill has passed the Senate. Canada is the only country from which we receive lumber, and it is held that every inducement should be given to the Canadians to cut down their forests to supply our consumption, while we preserve our own and allow them to grow."

If the last line read "allow them to die," instead of " to allow them to grow," it would have about covered the case. Does our contemporary really believe that if we render a tree worthless it will be "allowed to grow?" All experience shows that it is because trees are worth nothing for the timber market, that the land is cleared and put into farm crops. Surely there is far more timber then "left to grow " when it is made profitable to grow it, than when there is "nothing in it."

And then we have heard that so much of the " forestry anxiety " is on account of the " influence of trees on the climate." We heard this from Canadians at Montreal last year. But it appears from the extract above that the Canadians are willing to risk their country becoming an " arid waste " if the Americans will only give them a big price for their logs.

It is becoming clearer every day that the "anxious foresters " who captured the Forestry Association at Cincinnati are simply free traders, and as a rule have no interest whatever in forestry in itself.

Now whether free trade or protection is a benefit to our country is none of our business here. There are plenty of channels through which it can be better discussed. But it is our duty to show that the pretended interest which so many show in forestry is only a cover for something else.