Nobody need be reminded that the subject of forestry is not new, but those who take an interest in it, rather than a pecuniary one, have greatly increased and changed its aspect. The main question now is, not how we can best clear an area of trees and stumps, to yield sustenance to man, or how much wood and lumber can be raised; but how we can best cover it with trees when denuded, for its real or supposed influence on climate, agriculture, health, etc.? Formerly, the farmer alone was actively interested; now the scholar, scientist, aesthetic, philanthropist and statesman, all seem to be vieing with each other to show their superior patronage; and the opinions between the different ones as to what should be done, and "how to do it," are nearly as varied as the families and species of the wooded domain. Can we wonder, then, that so little is done, and that so many complaints come from them against the slow farmer and the slower Government? And is not the more prudent, reflective man - who is not carried away by vagaries and phantoms, who believes that, as to the success of many public measures, " honest doubt is the beacon of the wise " - led to think very little can be done, or should be done, at least till the so-called savans and scientists (like the late Mr. G. P. Marsh and Elizur Wright) who write upon the subject, agree, or are consistent with themselves?

A great enemy to all mankind seems to be thought by the modern foresters, to be aridity of climate, caused principally by the denuding of our forest lands - which injures, it is maintained, the fertility of the soil, dries up the crops and checks the flow of streams. They want more forest, more rain or humidity and fuller streams - the latter of which, they fancy, will come with the first. But this is not proven; for when New England was a dense wilderness there were very severe droughts, with all their evil consequences. But I shall again allude to this farther on. These gentlemen seem to forget that occasionally, if not frequently, we have so many rainy, humid and cold summers (while our woodlands are or have been decreasing) that our streams overflow their banks, corn will hardly ripen, our fine grapes blight or are taken by the frost before maturing, some of the best pears will not ripen up as they ought to, and there is blight and mildew in many farm products. All these evils would be aggravated by the increase of forests, if the humid or rain theory be true. And hence the question naturally arises, are not damp and rainy seasons as injurious as dry? Undoubtedly, in hot seasons there is much low land that would produce better crops, and the need of underdraining is less felt.

Streams would not be so full; but they are of little use to the farmer in the growth of crops, whatever they may be to the manufacturer - though he is now looking to steam as a more certain motive power. Fruits would ripen better, and there would be less mildew. Some observers have supposed that in such seasons the great evaporation from the earth brings up, for the use of future crops, the deeper mineral riches of the soil. Dry seasons are usually healthier than wet; and some physicians, thirty years ago or so, cautioned rural dwellers not to plant shady trees near their houses, but to let in the sun. I think, however, many country dwellings have hardly enough (sacrificing much to lawn, as they do), for on a hot day their shade is grateful to contemplate and to enjoy.

The forests of Massachusetts, if not of most of the New England States, are supposed to be increasing, not by systematic planting (which is not a necessity), but simply by the neglect of lands; and they are not now regarded as causes of rainfall, if they may tend to equalize the distribution of moisture - though their soil is too much shaded to give out as much vapor as an open field. But even if we had no forests, there are other large sources of evaporation and moisture. In Massachussets there are something like 90,000 acres of lake surface from areas above ten acres, besides the river surface, which is probably as much more; then come our swamps and meadows, the many ornamental trees and private plantations, and the shrubs and flowers of our gardens - all exhaling moisture on a sunny day, and absorbing much of it at night to give out again to the next hot sun. The cultivated crops, also, must exert the same influence on the atmosphere, and so with grass land, which probably condenses more vapor at night than forest soil.

The idea, to some degree extant, that brooks are fed only by springs from hills and mountains covered by forests, seems not to have a sufficient basis. We frequently find from the foot of large hills water flowing freely, if not perpetually, whether covered with wood or not. The water percolates from the great mass of earth above, where it has been collected from previous rains, and naturally forces itself out at their bases. And small streams seem in a great degree to be supplied by water from surface drainage and percolation from their contiguous banks as they meander through the low lands. The destruction of woodland may sometimes dry up brooks, but I have never known a case.

In a well-written essay on the "Forest Interests of Massachusetts," by Mr. W. C. Strong, read before the Massachusetts Horticultural Society, in the winter of 1886, in speaking of the great crops our early forefathers raised from their new soil and the influence of moisture from the surrounding wilderness,he observes: "It is true we read of their occasional failure by reason of droughts; and it is certain that droughts occurred then as well as now. But in judging of their frequency and intensity we are to bear in mind that the plowing of early days was the merest scratching of the surface, that little or no retentive manure was used, and that at the present day and under such conditions our crops would prove uniform failures." But with all due respect for the gentleman's opinion, I think he is in error in regard to their intensity (if not their frequency), and cannot shift the evil to shallow plowing. In a diary of James Blake, of Dorchester, Mass., recording events of 1749 (Annals of Dorchester), he observes: "This Summer was the Severest Drought in this Country as has ever been known in ye Memory of ye oldest Persons among us. . . . By ye latter end of May the grass was burnt up so that ye ground looked white; and it was ye 6th Day of July before any Rain (to speak of) came. . . . Many Wells, Springs, Brooks & small Rivers were dried up that were never known to fail before.

And ye Fish in some of ye Rivers died. The Pastures were so scorched that there was nothing green to be seen, and the Cattle waxed poor, and by their lowing seemed to call upon their Owners for Relief, who could not help them. Although the Grass was Eaten so close as that there was but a few thin spires to be seen, yet several Pastures took fire and burnt fiercely." On his own land, which caught accidentally, the fire "biased and flashed like Gun Powder, and run very fast along the ground. . . . Where there was lumps of Cow-dung, it would burn till ye whole lump was Consumed, & burn a hole in ye ground." On the 6th of July rain came, and afterwards there was a sufficient quantity, so that the lands looked green again, and there was a good harvest. If such a fearful and destructive drought could occur with a surrounding wilderness, where shall we look for succor to-day?

Mr. J. C. Gray, of Cambridge, Mass., more than thirty years ago, wrote a paper on the climate of New England, in which he observes: "That droughts are in truth more frequent and severe in every part of our country at the present day than a century ago, is a proposition for which we find no countenance in any statistics which have come down to us." Mr. Gray quotes from Smith's Diary (Famouth, now Portland, Me.) to the effect that "such dry spells" occurred in ten years out of the twenty from 1743 to 1763 inclusive, while four of them were in consecutive order.

In connection with this point, I would put the following query, or queries: If in an area of 400 acres (we will say) of dense forest, in the centre four acres were cleared up and devoted to farm crops, would the spot be warmer or colder in summer than the fields at a distance from the forest? And would the influence of such forest generally be favorable on the crops?

The Middlesex Fells, in which Mr. Strong takes a deep interest, is a tract of wild land of about 4000 acres.lying nearly seven miles north of Boston. It is said it could be purchased for about $ 100,000, and futile attempts have been made to secure it for the past fifteen years. "Here then," observes Mr. S., "is an enterprise in which the whole State is interested. The State should therefore assume it." This proposition was afterwards virtually sustained by the Massachusetts Horticultural Society, by appointing " a committee for the purpose of obtaining more efficient legislation for the planting and protection of forests in Massachusetts, and particularly of the tract known as the Middlesex Fells." But in a local matter like this it would be surprising if the government did anything more than to give it the protection of general laws - which have not heretofore been satisfactory to its friends. Perhaps they cannot decide upon what they really want. Mr. Elizur Wright, the father of the scheme, procured a bill a few years ago by which the adjoining towns to the Fells might make the purchase jointly by a two-thirds vote. But nothing has been done, as no one seems to have the desire or the courage to commence.

Aside from the purchase money, it would cost a fearful sum to keep it in decent order, wild as it is hoped by some to be. Pecuniary profit would be out of the question. And if not "swept and garnished" like an arboretum, the fire-fiend would be almost sure to devastate it. Besides the tract, as a unit, is too large to manage, or to be kept from more useful purposes. It now embraces several fine residences, and more may be erected without injuring it much, if any, as a woodland with all its real or supposed advantages.

The Rev. J. B. Harrison, of Franklin, N. H. also read an essay on the subject under comment, before the Massachusetts Horticultural Society, and took strong ground in favor of forest-planting and forest-schooling by the nation, so as to make forestry a profession for young men, as we teach them at the military and naval academies ! Forbearing further remarks, however, I would briefly say that the friends of forestry need not, I think, be alarmed lest the country dry up, nor, in the expression of opinions so unpopular as those we have noticed, ought they to be surprised that they have so little influence with legislatures.

West Medford, Mass.