© 4 * \PFICIAL PUBLICATIONS. F CORNELL ‘UNIVERSITY | NUMBER 19 | VOLUME V a PRE oa “hy. I iy eS GO : a PROCEEDINGS AT THE OPENING OF THE FORESTRY BUILDING MAY 15, 1914 OPEN MEETING OF THE SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS MAY 16, 1914 ) ! SEN Bo OS 2 aS - DECEMBER 1, 191 PUBLISHED BY CORNELL UNIVERSITY ITHACA, NEW YORK Monograph FORESTRY BUILDING PART | PROCEEDINGS AT THE OPENING OF THE FORESTRY BUILDING NEW YORK STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AT CORNELL UNIVERSITY MAY 15, 1914 PROGRAM OPENING OF THE FORESTRY BUILDING Fripay, May 15, 1914 MORNING SESSION Chairman—W. A. STOCKING, Jr., Acting Director, New York State College of Agriculture. National Forestry— W. B. GREELEY, Washington, D. C.; Assistant Forester, United States Forest Service. Forestry on the Farm— W. H. Vary, Watertown, New York; Master, New York State Grange. Forestry as an Investment— CHARLES M. Dow, Jamestown, New York; Director, Letchworth Park and Arboretum. The Work of the New York State Conservation Commission— C.R. Pettis, Albany, New York; Superintendent of Forests, New York State Conservation Commission. AFTERNOON SESSION Chairman—W. H. Vary, Master, New York State Grange. Principal Lines of Effort in American Forestry for the Next Decade In Training Foresters— James W. Toumey, New Haven, Connecticut; Director, Yale Forest School. In Lumbering— F. L. Moore, Watertown, New York; President, Empire State Forest Pro- ducts Association. In Making Public Opinion Effective— H. S. DRINKER, South Bethlehem, Pennsylvania; President, American Fores- try Association; President, Lehigh University. In New York State— J. S. WurerLe, Salamanca, New York; President, New York State Forestry Association. EVENING SESSION Chairman—T. F, CRANE, Former Dean, College of Arts and Sciences, Cornell University. The Forest— L. H. Battey, Ithaca, New York; Former Director, New York State College of Agriculture. The National Movement for Conservation— GiFForD Pincuor, Milford, Pennsylvania; President, National Conservation Association. FEE +E = 5 oi 7 oe 4 che ee eheener es (SIR Sees UF eZ MOE ST PAE A YG fe ep Sty! ; hati e-FFe VY wert Ge Seite! et Va reves yt Ww noe atet is ; ; ' ie (hehe Gt ashy ety Be aa oy — ae F oe Hkh BI pytt Ps cs wD Sy . % .¥ ata heupbites in WO ee oa > Rena . - uae BS Ray i Bae Vee Te § hie. Siw ; 4/85 4 woh QpineTet, quate A ‘ Rs i, . > ck” | ish t aFy : (iti seb pad A wos wee 3 Areata tee eT eae phir pret cit eer eeer. a “tig F , NATIONAL FORESTRY BY W. B. GREELEY, WASHINGTON, D. C. Assistant Forester, United States Forest Service In the nature of things a forester must be a man of vision. _ His effectiveness is measured largely by his faith in the scientific and economic order for which he stands and toward the accomplishment of which his energies are bent, a faith comparable in certainty to the natural processes which he studies and through which he works. - The men who established the Cornell School of Forestry sixteen years ago were men of vision. They proposed to train men for a profession that did not exist in the United States, and for the accomplishment of a public task that was but dimly grasped by a small number of persons. Difficulties have not been lacking to test the faith that led to the establishment of this institution. The occasion that brings us here to-day in recognition of a significant step in its development and usefulness goes far to justify that faith, and, viewed as part of the nation-wide development in forestry since 1898, to make the vision of the earlier years a thing of reality. And it is significant of the spirit which has establishect and developed forestry instruction at Cornell, that the keynote at this meeting should be the work which lies ahead of us. In outlining the principal efforts in national forestry that mark the forward road for another ten years, the term cannot be used in any narrow technical sense. Present-day problems call for special emphasis on its economic phases. National forestry is the business of keeping the country supplied with wood, of utilizing its timber with thrift, and of conserving other resources, particularly water, the permanence of which is interlocked with that of the forests. First among the problems confronting the federal Forest Service stands the business administration and usefulness of the national forests. It is no slight task to transform one hundred and sixty-five millions of acres of virgin wilderness in the most rugged and inaccessible sections of a new country into developed forest properties, yielding a cut of timber equivalent to current production, not only self-supporting but paying revenues commensurate with their physical value, and with all their latent resources made useful to the public. This is a task for much more than ten years, but ten years should witness a tremendous advance toward its accomplishment. The problem is primarily one of business-like administration of a two-million-dollar property. By concentrating on the scientific development and administration of its own forests, the Federal Government not only will be putting forth its best efforts to solve the general economic problem of national timber supply, but also may, by practical demonstration, point out the road that the private owner will take when the conditions in his business warrant it. Ten years will witness notable changes in the development of the national forests. This period should see the fundamental problem of fire protection largely reduced, by a perfected organization of men and equipment, to terms of everyday insurance. It should see the cut of timber brought up from a small fraction of the possible yield of these areas to an amount approximating the current production 6 CORNELL UNIVERSITY of the forests; from less than one per cent of the annual cut of forest products in the United States to a fraction which, while still minor, will be an important factor in the timber supply of the country, and an invaluable instrument for the main- tenance of healthy competition in the lumber trade. Another decade should witness a large increase both in the physical value of the public forests and in their productivity. This will be accomplished by the reforestation of many denuded areas, in part by the natural extension of tree growth under protection from fire and in part by planting areas that cannot be restored to their original forest without assistance. While our work on the national forests is concerned primarily with practical features of administration, much is still to be done in the investigation of technical problems involved in efficient management. The problems of. closer and more profitable utilization of raw forest products, and those of artificial reforestation, are perhaps of the greatest immediate urgency. Other questions of practical silviculture and forest management, while of less immediate importance, are com- ing to the front. It would obviously be foolish to attempt refinement of scientific method in the present handling of these vast undeveloped virgin areas, with their enormous surplus of over-mature timber. Year by year our maps and estimates are pushed out over the regions where such data are most critically needed, but at a snail’s pace im comparison with the enormous area that must ultimately be covered. Working plans will be attempted in the course of the next few years on but a very few national forests, where the demand of local industries is making rapid inroads on the timber and there is danger of early depletion. In such cases, rough plans for regulating the cut will be worked out with a view to gradually restricting it to the current production of the forest. Elsewhere, with enormous areas of mature virgin stands in need of cutting, the immediate thing is to work out and apply simple methods of silviculture which are practicable under existing methods of logging and which will accomplish the fundamental requirements of utilizing mature stumpage and leaving the stand in improved condition. The great bulk of our pine forests lend themselves readily to partial cutting, conforming with the natural grouping of the timber by age and size, under which we retain a quarter or a third of the merchantable timber with usually a fair stocking of young growth, sufficient to afford a second cut in thirty to fifty years. In the heavy, even-aged stands of Douglas fir and western white pine in the Northwest, we have found the most practicable plan to be clean cutting with the reservation of a small per- centage of the stand for reseeding, to be supplemented in some cases by artificial planting. These simple provisions, with the cleaning-out of insects and disease as far as practicable and the burning of slashings, represent about all that should be attempted for the present in the way of technical forestry. In the meantime, however, a chain of experiment stations has been established covering all the more important forest regions in the West, at which intensive studies of silvicultural methods on small areas are being conducted. together with observations on the influences of the forest on water storage and meteorological conditions. Another important function of the experiment stations is in develop- ing the technique of reforestation. This chain of stations furnishes the Service with a series of miniature forests, on which the problems of technical administra- tion as they arise can be solved on a laboratory scale, and methods developed that OPENING OF THE FORESTRY BUILDING 7 can be applied with certainty on the big forest areas surrounding them. At our experiment stations, manned with a corps of trained investigators, we are thus seeking to develop the science of Western American silviculture and meet the technical requirements of administration as they develop. From a practical standpoint, probably our greatest present concern on the investigative side is the effective utilization of the three or four billion feet of wood which by the end of the next decade will be cut annually from the national forests; and restoring to usefulness the five or six million acres of burned-off timberlands whose idleness represents an annual loss of at least half a million dollars. On these two problems our efforts in technical investigation will be largely concen- trated. The almost limitless possibilities of more effective utilization of the grown tree, particularly of the parts now wasted, lies very close to the interests of the Forest Service. Not only does it concern directly the proceeds obtained from the federal timberlands under our management, but also it is the fundamental eco- nomic basis for substantial progress toward the general realization of forestry. I cannot hold out much encouragement to the owner of forest land to manage his property for future returns on the ground of any great enhancement in the near future in the market value of the staple products now manufactured from wood. I do believe, however, that he may anticipate substantial increases in the returns from his timber by utilizing much more of it than he does now, and parts of it for more valuable products than he does now. And I am convinced that progress toward the fundamental economic basis of forestry, which must be gradually approached as the supply of mature-grown timber is exhausted—that the value of a grown tree must equal the cost of growing it—will depend during the next ten years largely on better ways of utilizing the raw products of the forest. The value of a long-leaf pine tree when cut into the grades of lumber commonly salable may be trebled if its turpentine and resin are extracted, its top and limb wood manu- factured into kraft paper, and the parts of the trunk that would make but low- grade lumber put into paper or fiber-board. This sort of thing, to my thinking, will largely measure the progress in forestry within the period immediately con- fronting us. That is why better utilization—through pulp and paper manutfac- ture, the manufacture of ethyl alcohol from wood (which chemists tell us is the future industrial fuel of the United States), and the production of other distillates and by-products—is one of the foremost lines of investigation conducted by the Forest Service. Reforestation on the national forests in the past has consisted chiefly of experi- ments applicable to an enormous range of climate and soil conditions. Many serious difficulties and failures have been encountered in this preliminary work of developing a new science under untried conditions, often of an extremely adverse character. It has required a deal of bulldog tenacity and of steadfast refusal to admit defeat to carry this work through to the point that has now practically been reached, of understanding the possibilities and limitations of this work in each locality. The reforestation work of the Service at Halsey, Nebraska, is, I hope and believe, indicative of this effort, of such direct and practical bearing on Amert- can forestry, in all the national forest regions. After many failures and partial successes in the western Nebraska sand hills, methods have finally been developed , 8 CORNELL UNIVERSITY under which plantations are successful practically every year and by which we are now extending the work if that region at the rate of eight hundred or one thousand acresannually. Forest conditions have actually been established on a small patch of sand hills, with a canopy overhead, humus underfoot, and small quantities of seed have been borne which is being used in our nurseries. On the national forests as a whole, the reforestation work has reached the point where it can now be extended on a much larger scale with reasonable certainty of the results. We have developed an equipment of seventeen good-sized nurseries and twenty-one small nurseries, having an annual capacity all told of around twenty million seedlings. With this nursery stock and with a limited amount of direct seeding in a few localities such as the Black Hills, where this method has proved successful, the next ten years should witness very definite progress in reforesting our denuded lands at the rate of not less than twenty thousand acres annually, increasing to that extent the permanent resources and value of the national forests. The increasing cut of national forest timber will make it more and more of a factor in supplying the national lumber pile. The chief significance of this fact is its bearing on the general economic situation as regards lumber supply and lumber prices. We have on these public lands six hundred billion feet of timber, probably a fifth of the country’s supply, which the people own and which is to be used as the people direct. It might be thrown on the market rapidly at very low prices in an effort to reduce the cost of Jumber to consumers. As far as such a policy succeeded, it would throw the lumber trade into a brief period of broken prices, liquidation of the weaker operators, and the most wasteful kind of exploitation. The margin of return on low-grade logs is always slight. In periods of over-production and low prices, more and more of them will not repay the cost of manufacture and must be left in the woods. Not infrequently depressed market conditions have resulted in the waste of forty to fifty per cent of the material which under normal conditions is utilized. In so far as extreme competitive selling of government timber would be able to force down lumber prices, therefore, it would throw the industry into a frenzied period of wasteful exploitation from which the country would emerge a few years hence with its public reserve gone, a large part of its private supply wasted, and the remainder in the hands of a few of the strongest survivors, exceedingly well placed to hold it at monopoly prices. As a matter of fact, even the temporary boon of lower prices would not be secured by the public. As long as the great bulk of the timber supply is in private hands and the industry is conducted on such a highly competitive footing as at the present time, no amount of government timber that it would be possible to throw on the market could affect prices materially. They are too well fixed by broad lines of competition from many producing regions; and the only result of sacrifice sales of public timber would be to increase disproportionately the returns of the fortunate operators who handled it. On the other hand, the selling of national forest timber might be closely restricted, making these areas simply big reservoirs of wood held in cold storage until private supplies are exhausted. By keeping government timber off the market, this policy would, sooner or later as competitive conditions in the indus- try become less marked, enable the private operator both to utilize his timber OPENING OF THE FORESTRY BUILDING 9 more completely and to get higher prices for it. As far as there may be any tendency toward monopolistic control of the lumber industry or the extraction of monopolistic prices for its product, such a policy in the handling of government lands would strengthen and support it. Closer utilization of forest-grown material in the course of time would undoubtedly be fostered, but at a correspond- ing, and not unlikely an unwarranted, increase in the prices paid by the consumer through the withdrawal of public competition. ~ Advocates in plenty have urged on the Federal Government the adoption of ‘each of these divergent policies. We conceive it to be our duty, however, to do neither. We conceive it to be the first and foremost function of the timber retained in public ownership to maintain competitive conditions in the lumber industry whenever there shall be any tendency toward closely controlled produc- tion; and to prevent as far as is possible, through the sale of public stumpage, monopolistic increases in the price of forest products or increases unwarranted by rational adjustments of the trade to changed conditions of supply and demand. That is, as far as the public reserves can influence the market, it is their business to give the country the lumber it requires, at the lowest price justified by the sup- ply available for present and future needs. The availability of large areas of public timber for purchase by any independent operator, who can thus at any time without timber holdings of his own enter the trade and compete with its vested interests, is the most effective check on monopoly that a country could possibly hold. Ultimately, when the lumber industry passes through its present highly competitive stage and the concentration of standing timber in a few hands which is now taking place tends toward monopoly in lumber production, the national forests will in just this way serve the interests of every consumer in the United States. _ At the same time we conceive it our duty to promote effective utilization of timber and to prevent serious waste of a resource the supply of which is all too limited. In other words, there is a definite point in competitive conditions below which the Government will not go in disposing of the public timber. That point is determined solely by consideration of the public welfare, but requires stable conditions in a manufacturing industry, rightly adjusted to its available supply of raw material—conditions that make for permanent operation on a reasonable margin of profit, rather than for frenzied speculation on the one hand or demorali- zation and financial crashes on the other. And it requires also close utilization of the raw materials produced in the woods. As time goes on, the public forests ought in these ways to be the governor on the engine, safeguarding the permanent interests of both the lumber manufacturer and the lumber consumer without running to temporary extremes in favor of either. All this is probabfy looking farther ahead even than the next ten years. It is, however, desirable to know whither we are heading, and to carry with us a reason- ably clear understanding of the fundamental economic bearing and purposes of the work on which we are engaged. In the meantime our chief concern is to develop the sales of national forest timber, not only by methods of sound silviculture, however simple they may be, but also by methods of sound business and sound public policy in relation to the local and general benefits that the national forests should serve. 10 CORNELL UNIVERSITY We are making, all told, some six thousand timber sales a year. The great bulk of these consist of small quantities of stumpage required by local residents and communities, and by mining and other industries near the forests. The supply of local needs is the first considération in handling timber sales. If the supply is limited and local use extensive, national forest stumpage is reserved altogether for the needs of the immediate region. It is becoming a larger factor every day in supplying the mines, the railroads, the irrigation districts, and the communities of the Western States. Where there is a surplus of stumpage over local demand, as in the great public forests of the Northern Pacific Coast and the Idaho Panhandle, sales for the general market are encouraged. The small operator is always preferred when he is able and equipped to log and market national forest timber; and several small operators are always preferred to a single large plant wherever they are able to swing the business. onal wait yah? oilers - WATE AA: cians ta a0 Iie ise “Ohen ing iv’ ily voy aah pete, Tae: roo : cnshil Hi ni Sat : ~ eek isa ie Liver j Mite ene i ies xe “-gueubirenst rarer? wane ao es THE NEXT TEN YEARS IN EASTERN FORESTRY BY ALFRED GASKILL, TRENTON, NEW JERSEY State Forester of New Jersey The natural approach to this inquiry clearly is by the way of an effort to value what has already been done in the East; especially to determine wherein the work of the past two decades has been along constructive lines, and hence permanently successful, and wherein it represents mainly enthusiasm directed by more or less intelligence. It goes without saying that the needs of the East, and therefore the particular lines of effort to be followed, are in no sense different from those of other sections, except in the important respects that the East contains the bulk of the popula- tion and has developed more fully its necessities as well as its resources. To my mind, assurance that the territory east of the Mississippi River is bound to carry the weight of the nation marks it as that in which forestry must soon get on an intensive basis. As virgin supplies, distant as well as near, are exhausted, local needs will be intensified and opportunity to develop home forests will come. Here and there, as in the North Woods, considerable areas of forest may remain intact and give opportunity for lumbering operations of magnitude; but in the main we shall have to deal with small units, intensive methods, and local markets. The forest stores of the South and the West are riot likely to give us a free field within ten years, and after the South and the West may come South America— but all those are far off. Our forests, and therefore our opportunity, are where the people are. My first suggestion is that we strive to size up the situation in each community and establish a policy that will serve its immediate and peculiar needs. If this leads to woodlot management pure and simple, let woodlot development be the aim. If it leads by way of shade tree and park interests, so much the better, for they need intelligent direction. Imitation is to be avoided unless identical conditions are offered. In respect to authority and example, one may well inquire whether we have not drawn too exclusively on middle Europe. In so far as I know them, the practices of England and France are as worthy of study as those of Germany and Austria. The reproach under which our English friends rest is, not that they have failed to suit their forestry to home conditions, but that they have done so little of it. As a second point, I venture to suggest that forestry and foresters in the United States—and this means chiefly the East—have not been so uniformly, or so completely, successful as we like to think. In the language of mechanics, our machine has raced a bit now and then through excess of power and deficient control. That this should be so is doubtless inevitable from the fact that the work was new and the workers were inexperienced. It is altogether probable that the future will measure the accomplishment of the nation up to this time as far beyond what could have been expected; nevertheless, progress in the future will be less easy. We must invite sharp criticism and severe judgments; must be prepared to prove, not merely to assert, the reasonableness of a position. The time has come, I think, to take a positive stand against making and remaking studies, catalogues, and reports. One prominent woodlot demonstration, one practical plantation, one important economy in utilization, one township freed 37 58 of fire, is worth a dozen such studies or reports. It is probably true that the Cause of Forestry can still be spelled with capitals; that is, that it has elements of the propaganda, yet can justify no departure from strict accuracy and acareful estimation of the real value of each movement. “Tf there’s a hole in a’ your coats, I rede you tent it: A chield’s amang you taking notes, and, faith, he’ll prent it.” Whatever effort is made must be carried to an effective conclusion. We all know how futile has been the result of most of the advice and recommendations that have been given. Incompleted projects strew our path. That they are not yet great enough nor many enough to bar progress is our good fortune; their multiplication will surely have that effect. It is safe to assume that for some years most of the effort in the East will be directed, if not controlled, by state officials. You will agree that the vital factor in every instance is a man. To find, install, and support a capable forester in each State is essential. The effort should not be limited to state lines, for often a forester can do no better service than yield a valued assistant who is wanted in another field. Some skill as a forester can be sacrificed, during the formative period, to ability as a popular educator, and later to executive strength. This because it is more important, as it is more difficult, to manage forest owners than it is to manage forests. Fortunately, this requirement is being met in one State after another. The difficulties that arise through politics are not to be avoided. I know of nothing but character and patience that will overcome them. Next in order is to consider the future forests rather than those that now exist. Not a few persons have reached the conclusion that one of our most serious mistakes has been in directing so much attention toward the exploitation of virgin stands. In the nature of things, it was, and is, inevitable that such stores should be rapidly utilized and of course largely wasted. The instruction that foresters have offered the lumbermen probably has done good, it certainly has been taken in good part; nevertheless, how many lumbermen have done anything for any forest beyond seeking to preserve the present stand until the loggers can get to it? I find no fault withlumbermen. In their places any of us would do the same. We should always hold them our necessary helpers. My inquiry at this point simply is, are not the landowners who may have timber to sell, the multitude of woodlot owners in many sections, the seekers after long-time investments in others, more likely to be our supporters than the lumbermen? Not in our time will the demand for ‘‘cheap logs’’ be satisfied by a promise of more trees sometime. Of course the two interests may be combined; where they are, the forester naturally has a place. This view loses no significance beside the growing disposition to regard the forester’s and the lumberman’s fields as quite distinct, though complementary. ; An important line of effort is suggested by the foregoing, and by recollections of much wasted energy. It is to clear the natural channels and give forestry a fair chance. Have we not tried hard enough and long enough to induce timber owners to work for a sustained yield in the face of the fact that even a second cut could not be shown to be profitable? Have not forests been planted in advance of the establishment of fire protection? Have we not advocated intensive 59 silviculture in regions where there are no markets and no highways? I may be wrong, but my idea is that we can work more than we have worked along lines of low resistance, that we can take a lesson from the riverman and, by a little dig- ging here, a little blasting there, harness natural forces to our will. The means to this end are security through fire control, easy transportation, the develop- ment of near-by markets. To my mind these problems must be worked out long in advance for any specific woods—tasks relatively simple. And now we touch the question of private forestry. Governments may tackle the problem and solve it in a wisely paternal way, though I doubt whether many States are ready, or able, to buy up enough forest to make a real impression. Each, therefore, must determine, definitely and soon, whether it will advocate chiefly state forestry, as New York and Pennsylvania do, or private forestry, as is done in New Jersey and Connecticut. The importance of this point lies in the fact that the two policies are in a sense antagonistic. That is, if state forestry is strongly supported it necessarily weakens the effort to induce private owners to invest money in timberlands. Has not New York, for instance, been blinded by her forest preserve to the existence of other and more valuable forests—her woodlots? I do not venture to say what policy is right, though it is not difficult to conclude that forestry is a job for the landowner, whoever he may be; nor that, for our generation at least, the owner is more likely to be an individual or a corporation, than the government. Perhaps the answer to the query will be found after both policies have been tested. We shall agree that there must be demonstration forests, and that any remnants of public lands should remain under state control. Lastly, though it might well stand first, is the importance of establishing the fact that forestry is a highly complex art. Of course we have all repudiated the common notion that tree planting is its beginning andend. My thought is that we shall advance the more surely, the better we are able to show that our aims comprehend a complete order of economic and social, as well as silvical, adjust- ment. I donot pretend to say that something must not be yielded to expediency, or to the wishes of powerful friends. I do believe that the more firmly a forester holds to his faith, the more steadfastly he insists on a true proportion and strives to build on a sure and broad foundation, the greater will be his actual accom- plishment. You may have expected me to say something about fire control, economic utilization, taxation. The first is unquestionably an absolute prerequisite to successful forestry anywhere, and the most vital question at the moment; but it is also a local problem that must be worked out by each State for itself. Fortu- nately there is a large volume of experience available to every worker. The chief thing to guard against is over-confidence. Fire protection breeds fires by increasing the brushwood area, and the first successes mark only the beginning of a task the completion of which lies far in the future. Utilization is not likely to lack adequate attention; the movement already started will gain momentum, and no forester will fail to turn it to the advantage of the community or interest that he represents. I urge only that what may be, rather than what is, have chief consideration. Manufacturers and consumers have had little encourage- ment to think of the inherent qualities of woods; fitness, not availability, is the true criterion. Taxation, which a few years ago loomed so large in the program 60 of most foresters, seems to be finding something like its natural place. It is a hopeful sign that this most complex question is being given over to the economists; that foresters and forest owners are less disposed to demand favors, but are satis- fied to make their pleas on the ground of equity. In the discovery that few forests are actually taxed beyond their value, the chief argument for special consideration has been lost. Personally I have no belief that any effort which aims to set forests apart from all other classes of property in the tax list can succeed. Some assurance of stability in the levy that will enable an owner to forecast his obliga- tion may be sought, but anything beyond this is sure to entail difficulties in administration, and particularly to arouse powerful antagonisms that cannot be overcome. Faulty, iniquitious if you like, as the general property tax is, it will not be bettered by making a set of exceptions. We can and should advocate and work for a revision of the tax laws, but it must be a general revision for the general good, not seeking my or your special advantage. At this point may I express my belief—and it may be taken as the keynote of all that I have said—that we shall not be less worthy, not less successful forest- ers, if we are also clear-headed citizens. In the heat of enthusiasm and under the inspiration of a popular and ennobling effort, it is easy to become the special advocate. I would have this lessened a little, and our activities adjusted to the common interests of the community. In the extreme East, at least, we can as- sume that forestry has come to stay, and that the chief task now is to seize every opportunity and with infinite patience make every motion commend itself to the public that we serve. STATE FORESTRY IN THE MIDDLE WEST BY FILIBERT ROTH, ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN Director, Department of Forestry, University of Michigan Since it is well and generally known that we in Michigan have no state forestry as yet, and that Wisconsin and Minnesota have at least a fair beginning, this talk on state forestry should be made by Cox or Griffith. In fact,it would seem almost like a joke to compel me to confess that eleven years of effort on my part have produced absolutely no results in this direction. And since I am always willing to obey orders, the confession is made, and I admit that we have worked for eleven years, and even longer, and nothing tangible or visible is as yet in existence which, even by a goodly stretch of the imagination, would deserve being called state forestry. Nor does it seem that there is anything of real interest to the forester in the efforts, this history of trials and failures, for it never reached a point where forestry actually entered into the situation. Nevertheless there are a few facts that may be of interest in showing the opportunities for state forestry and the attitude of the people toward this development. As early as 1870 the southern half of Michigan was well settled. In 1875 fully one fourth of the land area was ‘‘in soak’’ for taxes, and the amount of tax land from that time to 1903 never fell below six million acres, or one sixth of the land area of the State. In 1881 a regular bargain-counter sale netted for part of the lands sold only one cent per forty-acre description. Here certainly seemed an opportunity for state forests. And it did not lack for reminders. The fires of 1871, 1881, 1894, and many others sounded abundant warnings. 61 But there was no appreciation, and for that matter there is but little even to this day. In fact, there never was a governor who cared to make a message on forestry, nor a legislature in which there was even a half-dozen men who understood or cared about state forestry. How much state forestry could have done here, how easily it could have been made self-supporting and more, every one here understands. In 1903 the first forest reserves were created, a bagatelle of about 50,000 acres of poor, cut-over sand plains with a few swamps. The same year a special Forest Fire Warden was created, at the magnificent salary of five hundred dollars. In 1908 a Commission of Inquiry reported to the Legislature that the selling of lands at the usual price of about one dollar per acre meant a loss of about ten dollars per acre, by actual careful test. But this fell on deaf ears. Between 1901 and 1910 the State sold over one and one half million acres at about two million dollars. During the same time there reverted to the State, and were actually deeded to the State, 1,682,000 acres for non-payment of taxes. On the report of the Commission of Inquiry the Legislature created the Public Domain Commission, with ample powers over all state lands, and obliged this commission to keep at least 200,000 acres as state forest. But the commission kept right on selling. To-day the State has about 600,000 acres of land, claimed by about 230,000 acres of forest reserves in scattered parcels and with only about 50,000 of these with any kind of administration. The great opportunity is gone, and the whole affair looks blue. And yet this is all more seeming than real; and here lies a lesson. Looking wistfully at Wisconsin’s success, we often chafed. But com- paring the situation in both States we have about this: neither has real state forestry, neither has forest fire protection that really protects when the dry year comes. In Wisconsin they are fighting, and even good people up country are hot because they feel that something was rammed down their throats against their will. In Michigan our commission can set aside the whole 600,000 acres and do much more at any time it really wants to, and do it with little opposition. We talked and lost the land, they have the land and seemingly did business. Our talking - has put our people in a favorable frame of mind, and if our Legislature wants to go ahead it will find the people prepared and ready to support it. In Wisconsin the people are fighting, the Legislature is fighting, and whether the lands stay put is to-day an uncertain question. State forestry is our only important question in forestry in Michigan, and state forestry we shall have. But we do not want it until the people want it, and, better still, until the people know enough about this matter to know fully that they want and need it. 62 ADDRESS TO THE SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS BY B. E. FERNOW, TORONTO, CANADA President, Society of American Foresters At the outset I may be permitted to express to you the great gratification I feel at my elevation to what I consider the highest professional honor on this continent—the presidency of this society. The gratification was the greater because, living out of the country, I could hardly expect to have this honor conferred on me. Confidentially, I may also say that when to my surprise I found my name on the nomination sheet I im- mediately asked for its withdrawal, for the reason that I felt little faith in my ability to serve you acceptably because of my lack of familiarity with the member- ship. I take it that the main function of the president of such a society as this, besides suggesting activities, is to select the men on the committees who are to carry on these activities, and for that purpose he should have intimate acquaint- ance with the membership in order to be able to appoint the fittest. As it is, I can hope to justify your confidence only if every member, and especially those of the executive committee elected by the membership, will direct me in this matter. I may also—I hope without impropriety and certainly without animus— attach a special significance to my election, namely, the desire to free the society from the strong influence of officialdom which had quite naturally grown up. At least this desire has been expressed to me, after my election, by various mem- bers. I say this influence was quite natural and justifiable, for not only did the largest proportion of the membership at first belong to the official family of the Forest Service, but the leading men of the profession were also naturally found there; hence all presidents, and nearly all leadership so far, had come from the Forest Service. While I do not know of anything untoward that has resulted from this prac- tice, a change seems to have been found desirable, especially as now half, or more than half, of the membership comes from outside the Forest Service. It will interest those who have not given any attention to our growth that 56 per cent of the whole membership of 287 are outside the Forest Service, and of the active membership 49 per cent. Of these 49 per cent, 34 per cent (40 in number) are in state services, and exactly the same number are in academic life, the remainder being in private employ. I feel, therefore, that I am called to the position as a representative of the academic membership, and hence in my recommendations for activities of the society I may largely emphasize the academic interests. I should also refer to the significant fact that not only is this the first meeting of the society outside of Washington, but also it is held on the occasion of an aca- demic development in a place that knew me once as the academic head of the first forest school of this continent. This coincidence is, at least to me personally, of significance, and is fraught with some satisfaction. At my time of life, the tendency is to be reminiscent rather than prophetic, to dwell in the past rather than make plans for the future, but Mr. Mulford is responsible for the program and for the theme of my address. Like a good forester, he recognizes that forestry is ‘planning and making provision for the future,’’ and he has therefore set me to making plans for the society. With full 63 conception of modern practice, he does not call for a plan for a whole rotation, but only for the next decade, and I may perhaps still further limit the plan to an annual one—the length of a presidential year. In order to make a plan one must know the object of the management, and so I may first be allowed to enlarge on what I conceive the object and function of this society to be—a subject which has, as far as I know, not been discussed before you, but which in general terms is well set forth in the first article of our constitution. The primary object, aim, or function of any grouping of profes- sional men into a society may be formulated as the lifting of the profession out of unorganized, individual effort into an organized plane of associated effort, amalga- mating the most worthy members of the profession into a representative body, in which, by personal contact and friendship, by interchange of thought, by inspiration of example, the interests of the individual are advanced, and at the same time the interests of the profession as a whole are guarded and advanced and given solidarity. In the first place, then, by membership in the society there should be created a fellow feeling, there should be developed and fostered a freemasonship, as it were, which comes from closer acquaintanceship. The mere social features of meetings that have in view the cultivation of this better acquaintance among the members, the mere matter of getting together, should therefore by no means be underrated—indeed they should be considered of as much importance as any other feature of the meetings and of the society’s raison d’étre. The wisdom that is brought into the meetings can, for the most part, be secured from the printed page; but the spirit and inspiration that come from personal contact and intimate intercourse can be secured only in the meeting of fellow workers. Knowledge of personalities, which is gained in these meetings, will reduce jealousy and rivalry, which are the bane of the early development of a new profession; it will promote tolerance, and finally secure mutual respect and a professional brotherhood, which could never be attained by those who work in individual solitariness. Unfortunately our membership is still small and scattered over a vast area, and it is difficult to secure even for one annual meeting a considerable attendance. While the regular weekly meetings at Washington are an excellent thing, they can hardly be considered meetings of the society, for I dare say only rarely do members from outside the Washington contingent find their way to these meet- ings; they can and should be considered only group meetings. Altogether, it appears to me desirable, in order to secure the closer contact which comes from frequent meetings, that the idea of forming local branches or sections, or of divid- ing the membership into local units, should be more fully developed. In doing this, it is very necessary to see to it that the division into groups does not interfere with the character of the society at large as a truly national body. It is essential that the chapters or sections form a closely organized part of the whole, and that they remain subordinated to the present society, and that a proper influence and solidarity of the society be safeguarded. I am aware that such sections are already in existence, and that we have pro- vision for them in the constitution; but I am not sure that their relation to the parent society is such as the interests of the latter demand, that there is close enough touch and control, and a clear distinction, between the interests of the — 64 society and those of the branches. The branches should never lose sight of the fact that they are integral parts of, and especially that they should become feeders to, the parent society. At the same time there should be a certain independence of the branch to permit its freer development. In order to promote this relation, particularly one point in the article of the constitution with reference to sections could, in my opinion, be wisely changed. The clause reads: ‘Only active members of the Society should be eligible to membership in a section.’’ This is a limitation which, I think, is not in the best interest of the profession or the society, if my idea of the branches acting as feeders is accepted. As the profession is growing, there will probably develop a class of junior members who might pass through a probationary period in the local branches, where they could show their worth before acceptance into the active membership of the society. Moreover, the admission of interested outsiders to membership in the branch could be made useful in broadening their interest and increasing the influence of our work. The sections, then, should have a wider membership than the society, made up of interested persons. This is a matter which the Executive Committee might well take under advisement, with a view to changing the constitution. The next, and perhaps, the most important, use and function of the society is to set up standards; not only standards of technical usage, but also standards of professional ethics—moral standards, that is, principles of equitable conduct for its members, with regard to the special and specific problams that arise in our particular profession. The society is to be the standard bearer of professional honor. We are treading here on delicate ground, nevertheless we are bound to enter it fearlessly and directly. Now, more than ever, moral qualities, zeal, devotion to hes fidelity, reliance, loyalty, need to be accentuated as the basis of efficiency more than the require- ment of intelligence and knowledge. This is especially true in the field of labor, but is also true in the professional field. I heard only the other day of a large manufacturing concern which, in order to secure the work of 24,000 men, had last year not less than 42,000 names on its pay rolls—a lamentable exhibition of the lack of qualities that make for efficiency. Loyalty to the interest of employers rightly commands now the highest price. Those who think more of their duties than of their rewards and supposed rights find the most recognition. While professional conduct should, of course, like all intercourse between men, be regulated by the golden rule and the decalogue, there arise concrete conditions and situations, perplexing cases specifically when proper conduct is in doubt. When the formulas prove difficult of application or easy of evasion, I may only refer to the common problems in ethics as to what constitutes a lie and whether a lie is justifiable. In other older professions, gradually an unwritten code of ethics has grown up; in some, the representative societies have formulated a written code—as, for instance, those of the American Medical Association, the Boston Society of Archi- tects, the Canadian Society of Civil Engineers; or at least efforts have been made to codify standards of conduct.* And it behooves us similarly to approach the *A very useful briefed compilation of what has been done in this direction is to be found in the Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers for 1906. 65 subject deliberately, for, as our profession grows, such perplexing questions of conduct will arise more frequently, and the relations of forestry expert to client, to public, and to colleagues, or to other members of the profession, will more frequently need adjustment. The problem is, how this obligation is best met by the society. Believing, as I do, that an honest interpretation of the spirit of the golden rule and the decalogue is, in most cases, sufficient to keep a man on the straight path, and that as a matter of fact most men try to do right and fail chiefly in their decisions as to what is right only in the more delicate cases and through inexperi- ence, I shall not advocate the formulation of a written code of ethics for us. I agree, at least in part, with the Medical Society of the State of New York, which voted to abandon its formulated code of ethics at the suggestion of its president, who argued in these words: “It would mean more to the character of the medical profession and would enhance the respect in which it is held by the general public if the specific rules of ethical conduct were obliterated from the By-Laws of the State Medical Society, and if the regulation of such matters were hereafter left to the judgment of individual practitioners influenced by professional opinion and by local custom.” Yet, with our profession just starting on its career, ‘professional opinion and local custom”’ are hardly yet crystallized and the specific cases in which doubt as to proper behavior may arise are hardly known. While conception of general morals will, of course, give the general direction, all generalization in ethics, as elsewhere, can at best be only an average, and there- fore never quite true, even for a single instance. Such an average will have as many exceptions as inclusions, and prima facie no one can tell which is exception, which inclusion; in other words, no two cases are alike. Hence, conduct cannot be so fixed as to exclude thought and judgment, besides reliance on a well-culti- vated conscience, to direct its variations. Right and wrong, honorable and dis- honorable, are, after all, relative terms, which can only be fixed with reference to contingent circumstances. There are certain broad principles, to be sure, which never change, which in all ages and in all walks of life have governed the most enlightened and honorable men—the outflow of our moral sense, which warns us, ‘Do nothing that you cannot tell’’;~but there are conflicts of principles in given cases when the choice requires delicate judgment. Just to make clear the character of such cases, I may cite a number of examples that have arisen in other professions and may arise in modified form with us. On some of these, authorities of high standing differ: May an expert use the information he obtains in the employ of a client, and how far, to his own advantage or to that of another? How far must he observe secrecy? How far is he in fiduciary position? May an expert receive a commission from a manufacturer, or be in any way affiliated with him, whose machinery he recommends to a client? May he receive any compensation, “‘rake-off,’’ or rebate except from his client? May a professional man invest in a concern for which he reports? May he accept a contingent fee for his work, based on the success of the deal? May he invest in something that he knows or expects his client is bound to require in carrying on his business? 66 May an employee secure patents on what he has developed in the business and works of his employer? As a witness may he suppress information or opinion hurtful to the case of his client? May he act as a witness unless he is thoroughly convinced of the justice and truth of the case? May he undertake work that he is not specially fitted for, and play himself off as an expert where he is not, giving advice which he knows in his mind is of doubtful value? May he endorse undertakings on which he is not fully informed, and allow his name to be used for advertising purposes? What are proper charges for different kinds of work? While these questions refer to the relation of the professional man and his client, solicitude for himself and his fellows and their society also raises similar questions: How far is a member of the profession and of a society justified in withholding his active interest in both? How far is he under obligation by contribution to its proceedings to make it a success, to support and encourage it, and to contribute to its dignity; in other words, does he owe an obligation akin to patriotism to his profession and his society? Is it a justifiable interest that your profession be made important and its position before the world as commanding as possible, and what methods to that end are justifiable? How far is professional and other criticism of one member by another justified? When is it desirable to suppress it? In what animus and form may it be delivered? What, in general, does professional courtesy mean and require? How far may one use the work of others without giving credit? What shall we think about underbidding and overbidding in order to secure work or to secure employees? What does loyalty of assistants to superior officers require? What, indeed, are proper relations in official life? Where do the proprieties of competition begin and cease? What are the proprieties in using professional title and professional advertis- ing? As I stated at the outset of this discussion, I would not advocate the formula- tion of a rigid and binding code of professional ethics which the society would enforce, yet I would make the society a forum before which such questions of ethics may from time to time be brought and discussed. I would go one step farther and suggest a standing honor committee, whose business it would be to bring such matters to discussion; and, more than that, a committee to whom members may refer delicate problems for expression of opinion which might help those who cannot unaided come to right decisions. Such a committee should be composed of older, experienced members, to whom younger members can look with confidence for right guidance on holding their professional honor above suspicion. The mere existence of such a committee would exercise a wholesome influence in checking unprofessional conduct, and prevent many from falling into tempta- tions; and gradually it might collect the cases on which it has delivered opinions, and at least a suggestive code might be the result. We have, so far, only provi- 67 sions of a punitive character in the constitution, namely, the committee investi- gating charges after the fact; but nothing of a promotive character. From standardizing of moral and professional conduct we come to standardiz- ing of professional and technical work as a proper function of the society. I have had the pleasure, as my first action in the presidential chair, to appoint a committee to revise our terminology. This is not an easy task, if the results are to be such as to secure general acceptance. I believe it was a committee of the society which a few years ago first attempted a terminology, but further experience has proved the attempt laid down in Bulletin 61 of the Forest Service inadequate. Since then experience has grown and the needs of a wider terminology have also grown. This is a matter that falls properly into the hands of the teachers, and hence in the selec- tion for the committee I have largely drawn on the academic membership. Not only intimate knowledge of the subject to which the terms refer, but, also, when we have to coin new words, a linguistic sense, is needful in order to select the most adequate terms. Like all language, the use of terms is partly dictated by personal taste; and here, as in literature and in ethics, following the example of good authority should be the best way of developing good taste. It is not sufficient to have furnished the terminology, but it is necessary also to secure its acceptance, and here only the good will of the members of the society to comply can secure results. It is difficult and, indeed, annoying to have to abandon a term one has been in the habit of using, yet for uniformity’s sake sacrifices must be made. In order to insure eventually a wider acceptance of the findings of the committee, I have taken the liberty of adding, as assessors, members of the Canadian Society of Forest Engineers, of which I happen to be also the president. We hope that within the year a new terminology will be before the membership for discussion and acceptance. Terminology is a growth; there are always new terms needed, and in order to avoid frequent revisions I would suggest a standing committee on terminology, to which terms might be submitted for sanction or which might suggest new terms as needed. A number of usages in literary direction, besides the use of terms, need stand- ardization. I may mention only the decapitalization of species names, and the capitalization of everything that pertains to forestry. It is desirable that uniformity be secured in these directions, and the committee on terminology may very well add the revision of literary usage to its function. Other directions in which standardization would be useful are in the making of growth tables, in mapping, in forest description, and the like. Of course such standardization may, with propriety, be established by the Forest Service, which needs them in its practical work; yet it would be useful if the broader interests of the society had a hand in them. I believe the Forest Service could only be the gainer by referring some of the problems to the society, and that without losing any of its prestige. Believing that the standardizing of the terminology will be a sufficient problem for the present year, I shall not expand on other lines of standardization. , 68 Next to the setting up of standards,.professional development in all direc- tions, interest and advancement in its science and in its practice, is to be stimulated by contributions of members to the literature, presented in papers at the meetings or in articles for publication. Every professional man who is a member of a society has, in my opinion, a moral obligation to add to the store of professional knowledge, to make public and available to his colleagues new data and experience. This does not mean that he should rush into print without proper basis, but he should not withhold what information he can impart that would advance the profession. Sins of omission in this respect are much more frequent than sins of commission. From the individual efforts in this respect there comes the associated effort, in which problems of a more complicated nature are involved. Here teamwork, commit- tee work of an investigatory character, is called for, and a broad field of useful work in advancing professional or technical knowledge is opened up. Organized experimental work of a comparative character, in which a number of members can give their end, should eventually be formulated. This brings me to the question of the method of publication. Hitherto we have had two publications for our technical literature: the Proceedings of the Society, and the Forestry Quarterly, now published by the American Forestry Association. I think there should still be two publications, perhaps with more differentiation in the character of the material printed. The Proceedings should be reserved for the publication of weightier articles and more complete pieces of work, while the more ephemeral discussions should go to the Quarterly. I believe the time has arrived when the Quarterly should become a monthly. There is now enough material coming forward to make this possible, and a livelier interest would be secured by the more rapid and frequent publication. The only problem is the financial one. While a quarterly publication may, as the Forestry Quarterly does, rely entirely on gratuitous editorial work, a monthly publication would require the services of a paid editor, or at least assistant editor. It is not essential, and it is not suggested, that the society as such should undertake the financial burden of such a publication, but its members should at least loyally support the publication both by subscribing and by contributions of material. The Board of Editors now numbers several very active contri- butors, who deserve the thanks of the profession for their freely given services; and I have no doubt that if the change to a monthly takes place, they will still be willing to continue to serve. Negotiations are under way with the American Forestry Association, with a view to such a change. Besides the technical advancement of the profession, the society has a call to make its influence felt in educating the public. A very dangerous method has been proposed for doing so, namely, to formulate opinions and promulgate them as the official opinions of the society for public acceptance. I last year expressed myself adversely to this proposition, and I could not bring stronger arguments against it than are contained in my letter, which the Executive Committee has seen proper to print in its report. I consider the proposition thoroughly untenable. Expression of opinion, especially on scientific questions, can only be individual and personal, and the value of the opinion can only be in proportion to the opportunity that the individual has had for coming to a conclusion. 69 I believe that in this respect—namely, education of the public—sections in their meetings, but especially individual effort, can be most effective. Each member of the society should feel the obligation that is incumbent on him to have the public properly instructed and guided on all matters in which such instruc- tion can be beneficial to the interests of the profession. Here the use of the public press, general and special, suggests itself, as well as readiness in personal inter- course and in lecture halls to make the public wiser. For a time, still, every technically educated forester should be a propagandist. To eradicate foolish and misleading notions, to make clear the object and methods of forestry, to show its relation to public welfare, to explain the apparent antagonism of lumberman and forester, and especially to explain to the lumberman himself the usefulness of the forester—such themes each forester should know how to discuss convine- ingly, in order to bring his occupation into proper repute. He who does not attempt this when opportunity offers is simply shirking his duty. The sequel to this attitude—and one in which associated effort, an expression of the society as a whole, is justifiable—consists in bringing the influence of the society to bear on preventing or promoting legislation inimical or favorable to the legitimate interests of the profession, and developing proper policies. This is best done, as is all society work, by a committee, either a special legislative committee or the Executive Committee. At the present time our membership has not yet reached the three hundred mark, but it is to be anticipated that the rapid increment stage will be at hand within the next decade. Then it will perhaps become apparent that the pro- fession is overstocked; or at least that difficulties may arise in finding employ- ment for all, even for all deserving ones. When that time arrives, it may be found that the society could fulfill a useful function in acting as an employment bureau. I believe that even now there are more would-be employers than are known, who would employ men or seek advice if they knew-where to find them. Perhaps even now effort in bringing employer and employee together may be justified. The danger of overcrowding the profession, which, I consider, is at our door, should form a matter of solicitude for the society, especially if the idea of acting as an employment bureau should be accepted. The Secretary, who would prob- ably act in that capacity, should canvass the situation and publish his findings from time to time. Sooner or later, a paid secretary will be a conditio sine qua non. I believe the most important advance of the society’s interests during the next decade will be had, when an active, paid secretary can devote all his time to the work. There is no reason why our society should not grow at the same pace as, for instance, the American Institute of Mining Engineers. In 1872 that profession was somewhat in the same condition as we were, say, in 1900, when our society was organized. Mining engineers were as little recognized as foresters. I became a Life Associate of the Institute six years after its foundation, and I remember it was then a lively infant, and it has grown lustily and steadily, all because of having an attentive nurse in its Secretary, until now it numbers over four thousand. When that condition is attained, that the society can afford a paid secretary, and when the finances generally of the society are improved, many more useful activities could be suggested. And all these activities would 70 make it much more worth while to be a member of the society, so that it would be proper to suggest that the membership fee be again raised to its original amount, or even increased, in order to secure these benefits. And now, while I feel that I have hardly furnished a formulated working plan, I hope I have opened up a sufficient number of directions in which the managers of the future will be able to advance. While we are still as we are, professionally in the pioneering stage, it is of little use to predict and prescribe even for a decade; the direction in which to proceed is all that can be pointed out. And as in the practical field to-day, to my mind, silviculture should be the important aim and working plans only a secondary consideration so long as a manager with judgment is at the helm, so, I believe, increase in membership and finances should be the main aim of the society, when it will not be difficult from year to year to find managers to dispose of members on committee work and of funds to make their work tell. And I hope to be present at the end of the decade, and see the normal stock, normal increment, and normal age classes established. s FES men _ : - - +. > «eK. LIBRARY OF mn - OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS OF CORNELL Se a hee New York, Rig ee July to | sem y from December to Jun Tres Ef Senor oles: matter, AGE ae Lge . La eee 2 888 New York, under the Act of July 16, 1894.) These publications include x Catalogue Number (containing lists of officers and students), price 25 “otitis; a Book of Views, price 25 cents, SC LAN eg Directory of Faculty and Students, First Term, 1914-1915, price 10 Cehts, oe and the following informational publications, any one of which will be sent iad ; gratis and post-free on request. The date of the last edition of each publi; oe cation is given after the title. General Circular of Information for prospective students, February I, 1914. Announcement of the College of Arts and Sciences, May I, 1914. ee Announcement of see College of Mechanical Engineering ‘and the Mechanic: er Arts, January 1, Announcement of ee College of Civil Bagineering, February 15, 1914. Announcement of the College of Law, July 1, 1914. Announcement of the College of Architecture, May 15, 1914. Announcement of the New York State College of Agriculture, June 1, 1914. ae Hae Announcement of the Winter Courses in the College of Agriculture, June gages 1 aaNet Announcement of the Department of Forestry, August 1, 1914. apy. Announcement of the Summer Term in Agriculture, April 15, 1914. Announcement of the New York State Veterinary College, April 1, 1914. Announcement of the Graduate School, January 15, 1914. Announcement of the Summer Session, March 15, 1914. he Trae Annual Report of the President, October 1, 1914. RN ies Pamphlets on prizes, samples of entrance and scholarship examination papers, REC SAW ts special departmental announcements, etc. re. ee Announcement of the Medical College may be procured by writing to the Comell 7 te University Medical College, Ithaca, N. Y. Correspondence concerning the publications of the University. should be ; addressed to The Secretary of Cornell University, ae Ithaca, New York. aS