By Prof. C. S. Sargent. This is one of the most useful contributions to American Forestry that has been issued for some time. He finds that so far as Massachusetts is concerned, his earlier recommendations of European trees, require emendation. Now he would prefer forests to be of American Oak, American Ash, Hickory, White Pine, and Pitch Pine. So far as railroad ties are concerned, the same fate seems to be following Catalpa that met Locust. As frequently stated in the Gardeners' Monthly, the first ties on the Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad were of Locust, - in that early period of railroading, it being thought that durability was of first importance. In less than one year it was discovered that elasticity was of far more importance than indestructibility, and in less than a couple of years they were all taken out and replaced by Oak. No one seems to have learned anything from those facts. Each experimenter prefers to spend his own money and find out for himself. Here we learn that the Boston and Providence Railroad Company have been over the same ground.

In 1878, they put down American Larch, White Oak, European Larch, Western Catalpa, Ailanthus, Black Spruce, Southern hard Pine (?), White Elm, Hemlock, Canoe Birch. The Elm and Birch seem to be fairly satisfactory as any, but the White Oak best of all. The necessary replacing fairly began in 1882, with the removal of two Ailanthus ties; but one remains on the track but little worn and apparently as sound as when laid down. Crushing weight is the foe to a railroad tie, and the elasticity that will ease this is of more consequence than density or mere durability in the wood itself.

Even here, as in forestry experiments, reputation of the timber may suffer from special circumstances. Any one who has watched a passing train must have noticed that some ties do not lie as solid as others. The rail bends slightly under the weight of the train, and the crush on that tie must be immensely greater than on those which quietly allow the weight to pass over. This may have been the case with the Ailanthus ties that gave out early, - the existing one may have been favored. We merely point this out as a possible element in the computation.

It is just the same in the choice of trees for forestry purposes. While we have always contended that there was more value in American species for forestry purposes, than the ardent admirers of foreign trees would admit, we are not yet prepared to go-so far in condemning foreign kinds, as Prof. Sargent seems now to do. We can hardly judge of the longevity of a tree or its freedom from insects by individual specimens on ornamental grounds. Exposed on all sides to wind and frost and without the food and shelter which thousands together afford each other, the single tree has a small chance. And again, nurserymen of experience begin to learn a little from experience in regard to the destructive effects on health and longevity of root fungus. The seedlings from the old long established nurseries of Europe, have usually root fungus attached to them, and are wholly un-suited to forest planting. With seed sown in wholly new and healthy ground, we believe European trees would make a much better showing.

And then there is the accident of soil, to which we have recently called attention. To take a tree such as the Larch, which delights in an altitude of several thousand feet, and comparatively rocky soil, and place it near the coast level and in rich farm land, is not giving the timber the fair test desirable to form a good judgment in a general way.

Professor Sargent's thoughts are all in the right direction as bearing on all these questions; and its effects on American forestry, when its drift is understood, cannot but be highly beneficial.