Per tear hes
JANUARY, 1916 BULLETIN 370
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION OF THE
NEW YORK STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
BEVERLY T. GALLOWAY, Director \
Department of Forestry
FOREST LEGISLATION IN
AMERICA PRIOR TO
MARCH 4, 1789
BY J. P KINNEY
PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY
ITHACA, NEW?YORK
yp
)2
re
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
“AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
EXPERIMENTING STAFF
BEVERLY T. GALLOWAY, B. Agr.Sc., LL.D., Director.
HENRY H. WING, M.S. in Agr., Animal Husbandry.
T. LYTTLETON LYON, Ph.D., Soil Technology.
JOHN L. STONE, B.Agr., Farm Practice.
TAMES E. RICE, B.S.A., Poultry Husbandry.
GEORGE W. CAVANAUGH, B.S., Agricultural Chemistry.
HERBERT H. WHETZEL, M.A., Plant Pathology.
ELMER O. FIPPIN, B.S.A., Soil Technology.
G. F. WARREN, Ph.D., Farm Management.
WILLIAM A. STOCKING, Jr., M.S.A., Dairy Industry.
WILFORD M. WILSON, M.D., Meteorology.
RALPH S. HOSMER, B.A.S., M.F., Forestry.
JAMES G. NEEDHAM, Ph.D., Entomology and Limnology.
ROLLINS A. EMERSON, D.Sc., Plant Breeding.
HARRY H. LOVE, Ph.D., Plant Breeding.
ARTHUR W. GILBERT, Ph.D., Plant Breeding.
DONALD REDDICK, Ph.D., Plant Pathology.
EDWARD G. MONTGOMERY, M.A., Farm Crops.
WILLIAM A. RILEY, Ph.D., Entomology.
MERRITT W. HARPER, M.S., Animal Husbandry.
JAMES A. BIZZELL, Ph.D., Soil Technology.
GLENN W. HERRICK, B.S.A., Economic Entomology.
HOWARD W. RILEY, M.E., Farm Mechanics.
CYRUS R. CROSBY, A.B., Entomology.
HAROLD E. ROSS, M.S.A., Dairy Industry.
KARL McK. WIEGAND, Ph.D., Botany.
EDWARD A. WHITE, B.S., Floriculture.
’ WILLIAM H. CHANDLER, Ph.D., Pomology.
ELMER S. SAVAGE, M.S.A., Ph.D., Animal Husbandry.
LEWIS KNUDSON, Ph.D., Plant Physiology.
KENNETH C. LIVERMORE, Ph.D., Farm Management.
ALVIN C. BEAL, Ph.D., Floriculture.
MORTIER F. BARRUS, Ph.D., Plant Pathology.
CLYDE H. MYERS, M.5., Ph.D., Plant Breeding.
GEORGE W. TAILBY, Jr., B.S.A., Superintendent of Livestock.
EDWARD S. GUTHRIE, M.S. in Agr., Ph.D., Dairy Industry.
JAMES C. BRADLEY, Ph.D., Entomology.
PAUL WORK, B.S., A.B., Vegetable Gardening.
JOHN BENTLEY, Jr., B.S., M.F., Forestry.
EARL W. BENJAMIN, Ph.D., Poultry Husbandry.
EMMONS W. LELAND, B.S.A., Soil Technology.
CHARLES T. GREGORY, Ph.D., Plant. Pathology.
WALTER W. FISK, M.S. in Agr., Dairy Industry.
ARTHUR L. THOMPSON, Ph.D., Farm Management.
ROBERT MATHESON, Ph.D., Entomology.
HORACE M. PICKERILL, B-S. in Agr., Dairy Industry.
MORTIMER D. LEONARD, B.S., Entomology.
FRANK BE. RICE, Ph.D., Agricultural Chemistry.
VERN B. STEWART, Ph.D., Plant Pathology.
IVAN C. JAGGER, M.S. in Agr., Plant Pathology (In cooperation with Rochester University).
CHARLES H. HADLEY, B.S., Entomology.
DANIEL S. FOX, B.S., Farm Management.
WILLIAM I. MYERS, B.S., Farm Management.
LEW E. HARVEY, B.S., Farm Management.
BRISTOW ADAMS, B.A., Editor.
LELA G. GROSS, Assistant Editor.
The regular bulletins of the Station are sent free on request to residents of New York State.
358
D. of D.
APR 6 [916
> c
~ ah Ne 4
P om
2 CONTENTS
x PAGE
OES a tein BS 2 0a Soe ee eee Rope eae iene ea) ae 361
Perici wot. tegardmmemorese fires) 6.8. a Pees a Ce oo a 363
fem pacer anreerecl) Diy Fer Jeet 2) ANSE ot 363
icseivameurhyCOlONY..:....9.50nabaass Sr ease ee eee 363
fie minccachtisetts, Bay: Colony: 22s aon. Tes Bia le. 304
The Province of Massachusetts Bay........5.0..024: ao gow
titer al ak eNO NAMM, cash o83 ws oy Aon PATS co seah dd WOM w Rue ee Re ah 365
Mel CRIA MCLTIAA ob crete 9 230 uj apis doe cea So eR ea ee AS al aa Pah ee 365
heen: iiaven setilements 1 cede an ol oe ee 365
The settlements on the Connecticut River................ 366
United Connecticut under the Charter of 1662............ 366
Vas Metal MM LEREUL MME 2! hss sc smth cacg gud SoWek spoke tA cared ie oy. 9 Seem Ate! 2 ON rant 366
CN ES CAs a AM Maa BE ease 2 08a eR a kA | ee a RE IE Doe 367
Hite MC NGESE YZ 53 vs cx) vases hel ch PRs ee Pe PEE oes AE eT 368
Thy UE SURNAM oe yes COE RLS ELT 369
WIEN ARI Pip aiigh cp orci en Ty AR Deo ee TA nee 370
MINERS EIU AR AMTEEA, & 4 505 '49.\./a8} ack Oh, Sede toate se ws We Side ee eat Gra 370
General legislation directed toward the conservation of timber and
Lie nevemeiOm Gk ULESpass.. . cate <5: oe, whe). bbe eee ey at
Rie ieee ties ae aetna. wie Saati IN ok Seg a7
Pe ieee MoMA rte ae MII. Sion ce) Sac 2 bh Meee SN Et ey
Mey aseachuceiis lay COlOny ove: . t02 sls Bie, oath seks age sees x71
Under the Provincial Charter of 1691 and the Confederation 372
RD INES Sieg a a) cic a eA in aR a ABA ea a ag 373
Rem iecuirmint Uae ais neck yee conte a eres dee te oe Aa 374
ikke Wew liavem settlements: W552" a ee eo oe ee 374
The settlements on the Connecticut River................ aa
United Connecticut under the Charter of 1662............ 295
Vr TEI EPS C221 FI rs AS A ai Ce i eR Se ty abe oe aR eteal = 376
Phe browagence. PlantaiOns. ; 2.2.10 fees bd woe se an ooh: 376
Mine Newport Settlements. owe ei ak ak: Phler ls os ees 277
aihe Portomouti settlement... deo 8 Se A ee byt)
The united settlements in Rhode Island.................. aa
LS EEA Old 2 eee ARE Sagi? Cg, Ree Seaee NO mR i SP au
Seer MIST SON Al's. 4p dah, Saw ae g! S on, cle s earte eea Se AEN 378
Pape eiaisvivatias!. os 2dr o en mele kee Ace. AMM te Sa eters 380
TEES 205s a Eee crm 2 ink Ri Tee are OU, a i RN RR 380
TG SL Ee OR Re eR Me bed! aera aCe ae mea 380
meaulation of, the limber and timber industry... .v aie... pee ee. 2 5 381
Statutory prices for lumber and timber products.............<. 381
mesmo. Ot the, Sale Ol hrewOOd 9.2 ...25. 66 2. g i oo ewe ge eee oh 381
Inspection of timber products, and export duties thereon....... 381
GA MASEL ESS Ailes set nd. ha eee pe dt te MRE Ales os 381
ithe Massachusetts bay Colony. 2050.0 se oak ces 381
VhewProsince.of Massachusetts Bay. ie. 0 e..cys 6 eas 382
Metiere he Me GUMECETA BIOs v2.) 2000 he akettre, = on ah ee tes 383
359
360 BULLETIN 370
PAGE
Regulation of the lumber and timber industry (continued):
Inspection of timber products, and export duties thereon (continued) :
in New Hampelaite 30. ile iertoises oad. s wae oe hou chee ere 383
Ta Wonnectieiten... esi Nit pec ee iia. Ree ees oe ERO 384
The settlements ‘on the ‘Connecticut /Rivermk 12 2t.\2. ae 384
United Connecticut under the Charter of 1662........ 384
In Rhode Tslend’ os 0. oc eee Aen ae ee 385
In WWew -Yorkeus. . a2 5 shone, pms Laan See 385
In New Jersey... 253. eS es ee ee ee 385
In Pennsylvania...) Ad eV was se one ee 386
Pa WVitoiniann = eo oP Pago seas aa Oe lee Oe 386
in sNorth i@arelinay: 23 ee 0) CR ee ee 386
ImsSouth (Carolina A: x ey on onc ee he 387
British legislation directed toward the control of forest industries in
ise AEOIOMARS oh tosis oso SG cores So its nate Eo 8c ee 389
Special developments in forest law during the fifty years preceding
the formation of the Union... ¢.o0 5.0.20. bee a coe ee eee 307
The control obsand dunes: 2 y.0. 5. Ss. ete ee eee 397
CoopetativeTOrestry - 2-42 ses cis nt ep t's oh te eee aa ee 398
Use of rivers as highways for logs, rafts, and other timber...... 399
SGOuUrGeS OF AMLOMMAUION 7x a oy ae oy ge Os hee ee oe 403
FOREST LEGISLATION IN AMERICA PRIOR TO
MARCH 4, 1789!
J. P KINNEY
INTRODUCTION
When the writer formed the resolution, several years ago, to write
a history of the development of forest law in America, he believed that
the whole period previous to the nineteenth century could be covered
in a dozen pages. From the time when he began the study of forestry,
in the first year of the twentieth century, the one thought that had been
dominant in American forestry literature was the novelty of the prop-
aganda for forest preservation and extension in America. A few older
men knew that the need of forest conservation had been evident for a
long time, but the younger students of forestry derived their ideas largely
from the publications emanating from the nascent Bureau of Forestry
in the national Department of Agriculture. A national conviction as
to the need of forest management was developing. The new life in the
Nation outshone the previous activities of the individual States.
Several writers on the development of forestry in America had mentioned
a few instances of early legislation in the States or the colonies, and,
either by direct statement or by implication, had suggested that these
early enactments were only sporadic manifestations of the spirit of forest
conservation. In searching for other instances, the writer soon found
that forestry and timber problems had claimed the attention of colonial
legislative bodies on many occasions during the seventeenth century,
and that hundreds of such laws had been enacted previous to the establish-
ment of the National Government. Long before the Federal Constitution
became effecttve-—on March 4, 1789 — the legislatures of most of the
colonies had realized that forest fires constituted a great menace to the
welfare of the people, and modern trespass laws and regulations of the
lumber industry have their forerunners in the legislation of the seven-
teenth and eighteenth centuries. The influence of American forests in
the development of the spirit of opposition to Great Britain that cul-
minated in the Revolution of 1776 has not been given its due importance
by political and economic writers, nor has it been known that certain
developments of forest regulation in the colonies were strikingly antici-
patory of recent movements in national forest policy.
1A part of a study presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of master in forestry.
361
LEGISLATION REGARDING FOREST FIRES
IN MASSACHUSETTS
THE PLYMOUTH COLONY
On December 21, 1620, the Pilgrims made their first landing at Plym-
outh Bay, on the east coast of Massachusetts. In the following January
they transferred their effects from the Mayflower to the rude cabins which
they had constructed, and began the task of building a colony on the
forested shores of New England.
Only meager records of their activities are left; yet it is known that
the clearing of the forest must have progressed rapidly, for on March 29,
1626, the legislative authority for the Plymouth Colony passed an ordi-
nance reciting the inconveniences that are likely to arise in any com-
munity from.a lack of timber, and declaring that no man should sell
or transport any timber whatsoever out of the colony without the approval
of the governor and council. Any violation of this ordinance was to be
punished by a forfeiture of the timber and by a fine of twice its value
for the benefit of the Plymouth Company.” The crude and limited means
of transportation available at that time made it imperative that a supply
of timber for local uses be maintained near the colony, and justified the
imposition of restrictions on the uses which the individual should be
permitted to make of timber growing on common lands.
Nor was the ax of the ambitious pioneer the only menace to the forests
surrounding the newly founded colony. As early as 1633 loss had been
occasioned through the indiscreet firing of the woods; and in that year
the setting of such fires was forbidden between the months of September
and March under penalty of the payment of all damages resulting, and
the firing of the woods during the remaining months was permitted only
on condition that due warning be given to all neighbors.
On September 4, 1638, the setting of fires was forbidden except between
February; and April ts, and a forfeit of ten shillings, or a whipping
as an alternative, was fixed for the offense of firing the woods without
just cause. This law was reenacted on October 20, 1646. The revised
laws of September 29, 1658, forbade any one to fire the woods, even though
he had just occasion therefor, without giving warning to his neighbors,
fixed the open season for firing between February 15 and “ the latter
end of April,” and kept the penalty of ten shillings or a whipping for ©
an unjustified firing. These provisions were retained in substantially
the same form in the revised laws of the colony as published in 1672.
2 The various laws referred to in this bulletin are contained in full in the works listed on pages 403-405.
363
364 BULLETIN 370
Under the new charter granted by King William and Queen Mary in 1691,
the Plymouth Colony became a part of the Province of Massachusetts
Bay.
THE MASSACHUSETTS BAY COLONY
In the records of the Massachusetts Bay Colony is found an order
against the setting of fires, of an even earlier date than the first order
at Plymouth. On July 26, 1631, the court of the colony, founded by
John Endicott and his associates in 1628, forbade the burning of any
ground prior to the 1st of March under pain of payment of full damage
and such penalty as the court should see fit to inflict.
An act of November 5, 1639, in this colony imposed a fine of forty
shillings, in addition to the satisfaction of all damages, on any one who
should set fire on another’s ground or on common ground. Whipping
or other corporal punishment was to be inflicted if the offending party,
whether man or woman, was unable to pay the fine or satisfy the dam-
ages. The act excepted from its penalties those who burned ground for
needful or fit purposes in March or April, but made persons setting fire
on their own lands liable for the damage caused others through the escape
of the fire.
An act of November 4, 1646, in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, read
as follows:
Whosoev’r shall kindle any fires in ye woods before ye 1oth day of ye first mo.,
or after ye last day of ye 2d mo., or on ye last day of ye weeke, or Lord’s day, shall
pay all damages yt any p’son shall lose thereby, or halfe so much to ye common
treasury.’
The provisions of the act of 1646, with minor modifications as reenacted
in 1652, remained the law in the Massachusetts Bay Colony until the
creation of the Province of Massachusetts Bay in 1691, and for more
than a half century thereafter. An act of May 30, 1679, made the law
against the setting of fires in the woods applicable to Indians also.
THE PROVINCE OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY
An act of January 15, 1743, in the Province of Massachusetts Bay,
specifically recognized the damage caused by fire to young tree growth
and to the soil. This act imposed a penalty of forty shillings, for the
3 Prior to January 1, 1752, the English people, in conformity with the Jewish chronology adepted in
the Julian Calendar, were accustomed to consider the civil year as beginning on March 25 instead of on
January 1, the first day of the Gregorian Calendar. During the early colonial period it was rather com-
mon, in writing any date falling between January 1 and March 24 inclusive, to include the last digit or
the last two digits of the numbers expressing both the Gregorian calendar year in which this date fell
and the preceding year. ‘Thus January 5, 1653-4, and March 24, 1709-10, would denote respectively
January 5, 1654, and March 24, 1710, according to the present system of chronology. However, this
practice was not uniform, even in the same colony, and it is sometimes impossible to determine in which
of two successive years any event took place which is recorded as occurring between January 1 and March 24.
So also, in denoting the months by ordinal numerals, some writers called January the first month while
others considered March the first month. Occasionally a thoughtful chronicler has added after the numeral
the name of the month. It is probable that the act of November 4, 1646, cited above, considered March
the first month.
Forest LEGISLATION IN AMERICA PRIOR TO MARCH 4, 1789 365
benefit of the person suing for it, in addition to a liability for all damages,
on any one who should willingly set fire in any woods or land lying in
common within any town unless he were duly licensed by a majority
vote of the town or the proprietors. The act held parents and masters
liable for such damages caused by minors or servants unless satisfactory
proof was presented that the minor or the servant was employed by some
other person to accomplish the burning, in which case that person became
liable for damages and the penalty. If towns or proprietors desired to
burn lands, they must give reasonable notice within the towns where the
lands were situated and also to the selectmen of adjacent towns. Because
of the difficulties attendant on proof of the unlicensed setting of fires,
the act provided that upon oath of the plaintiff or other creditable witness
that fire had been kindled, and the presentation of circumstances making
it appear highly probable that the defendant had set the fire or had caused
it to be set, judgment should be given unless the defendant acquitted him-
self by oath, in which case he was to have costs against the plaintiff. This
act was limited to three years, but subsequent acts continued it in sub-
stantially the same form until November 1, 1797.
Section 4 of a general trespass act of March 11, 1785, reenacting the
substance of several separate acts passed before the institution of the
Articles of Confederation, provided that if any one should willfully and
maliciously make a fire with design to communicate the same to the soil,
grass, trees, poles, or underbrush of another, or should willfully and
maliciously suffer any fire so to communicate as to cause damage to the
other to the amount of ten pounds, he should, on conviction, be fined,
imprisoned, confined to hard labor, or bound to good behavior, or all of
said punishments, according to the nature and aggravation of the offense.
IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
In 1639 the court at Exeter, New Hampshire, ordered that no one
should fire the woods after the middle of April so as to destroy the feed
of the cattle or do other hurt, under pain of paying the damages resulting.
The General Lawes and Liberties of the Province of New Hampshtre
made by the General Assembly at Portsmouth, March 16, 1680, contained
a provision that no one should fire the woods between the rst of March
and the latter end of April, under penalty of making good all damages
and paying a fine of ten shillings, or being set in the stocks.
IN CONNECTICUT
THE NEW HAVEN SETTLEMENTS
The revision of the laws of the New Haven Colony issued in 1644-45
provided for a fine of forty shillings, to be paid to the town by any one
who should kindle a fire in his garden or any part of his house lot for the
366 BULLETIN 370
burning of leaves, straw, cornstalks, or other rubbish, notwithstanding
any excuse that he might make as to his care and attendance, the standing
of the wind, or the calmness of the season.
The New Haven Code of 1656 declared that if any one should set fire
in the woods or grounds lying in common, or inclosed, so that any damage
should result to another person, in any season or manner not allowed by
the authority of the plantation, or on the last day of the week, or on
the Lord’s Day, he should pay to the plantation one and one-half times
the damage caused, or, if unable to pay, be corporally punished. In
1662 the New Haven settlements were joined to the Connecticut Colony.
THE SETTLEMENTS ON THE CONNECTICUT RIVER
The Code of Laws of Connecticut Colony, published in 1650, forbade
the setting of fires in the woods before the toth day of the first month
or after the last day of the second month, or on Saturday or Sunday,
under penalty of one and one-half times the damage caused, or twenty
stripes.
UNITED CONNECTICUT UNDER THE CHARTER OF 1662
A Connecticut act of May, 1733, repealed the former act regarding the
firing of woods, and ordained that after August 10, 1733, any one firing
the woods at any time of the year should be liable for all damages caused.
The act threw the burden of proof of innocence on the defendant, but gave
him double costs from the plaintiff if he established his innocence. The
inhabitants of towns were permitted to burn their commons under agree-
ment at town meetings, but they must pay all damages caused to others
thereby. The Acts and Laws of Connecticut published in 1750 retained
the provisions of the act of 1733.
IN RHODE ISLAND
On July 7, 1640, at Newport, Rhode Island, William Coddington,
Governor, with the other assistants, agreed with the Sachem of Narra-
gansett and the other sachems that if any Indian should build a fire at
any time of the year on the lands of the Plantations and not extinguish
the same on leaving it, and any damage should result, the damage should
be adjudged and the Indian tried by the law of the Plantations.
On October 25, 1704, the General Assembly of Rhode Island and
Providence Plantations forbade the setting of fires to burn the woods
at any time “under any pretence whatsoever” other than from March
to to May to of each year, or on Saturday or Sunday within this period.
A violation of the act subjected the offender to a fine of thirty shillings,
one-half to be paid to the complainant and one-half to the town; and
‘an action in trespass for damages by the person injured was expressly .
authorized.
Forest LEGISLATION IN AMERICA Prior TO Marcu 4, 1789 367
The penalty provided by the act of 1704 was increased to ten pounds
by an act of August, 1722, with a proviso that if the offender had no
personal estate with which to satisfy the fine he might be imprisoned
for not over three months or be given a whipping of not over thirty-nine
stripes.
An act of 1750 forbade the setting of fires ‘“‘in the woods in any Part
of this Colony, to run at large, at any Time or Times of the Year, under
any pretence whatsoever’’ under penalty of fifty pounds for the first
offence and one hundred pounds for the second, one-half to be paid to the
informer and one-half to the poor of the town. The burden of proof
of innocence was placed on the defendant and he was to be imprisoned
if the fine were not paid.
IN NEW YORK
The Duke’s Laws (published on March 1, 1665, subsequent to the capture
of New Amsterdam by the English in 1664 under the direction of James,
Duke of York) provided that if any one should kindle a fire in the
woods or grounds lying in common, or in his own grounds so that the same
should run into the lands of another, the offender should be liable for
one and one-half times the damage caused, and in default of payment
should be punished with twenty stripes or should do service to expiate
the crime. The Dutch regained control of New York in 1673, but upon
the reestablishment of the English government in the following year the
Duke’s Laws were again promulgated.
On November 25, 1710, a special act imposed a fine of forty shillings
for the offence of firing “any uplands, plains, Woods, Trees, Shrubs,
underwoods, or bushes’’ within the counties of Suffolk, Queens, Kings,
and New York. The offender might be imprisoned for not over three
months for failure to pay the fine, and he was to be liable for all damages.
A similar special act of December 17, 1743, imposed a fine of five pounds,
one-half to be paid to the informer and one-half to the poor fund, for
firing the woods within the counties of Albany, Dutchess, and Suffolk,
and in the Manor of Livingston, ‘“‘at any time whatsoever,” in addition
to liability for all damages. The penalties of the act were applicable
to one who set fire on his own land and allowed it to escape. This act
empowered any person who should discover a fire in the woods of the
counties or the manor named ‘“‘to require and command all or any of
the neighboring and adjacent inhabitants to aid & assist him” in
extinguishing the fire, and imposed a forfeit of six shillings for each refusal,
neglect, or delay of a person so commanded to help and assist. This
act was limited to expire on June 1, 1746.
On December 16, 1758, the provisions of the act of December 17, 1743,
were made the law as to the whole Colony of New York, and on the same
368 BULLETIN 370
day a special act forbade the burning of old grass on certain beaches
and islands of Suffolk County. The last-named act, which was to expire
on May 1, 1760, was continued by successive acts until January 1, 1785.
A special act of unusual character was passed on November 8, 1760.
This provided that the freeholders and inhabitants of the city of Albany,
and of each town, manor, or precinct within the counties of Albany and
Ulster, might elect at their annual town meetings such number of free-
holders as they judged necessary to act as ‘‘firemen.’”’ These firemen
' were to have power to summon any of the inhabitants within their
respective districts to assist ‘‘with all care and possible diligence” in
extinguishing any forest fire within the district or the adjacent woods.
Any person who without lawful excuse refused, neglected, or delayed
to render such assistance when commanded, as shown by the oath of
a fireman or otherwise, was to forfeit three shillings for each default,
one-half to be used for the benefit: of the fireman reporting and one-half
for those assisting at the fire. This act was to expire on January 1, 1766.
On December 19, 1766, the provisions of the act of November 8, 1760,
were reenacted and extended to include the county of Orange. An addi-
tional clause imposed a fine of two pounds for every default or neglect of a
fireman to do his duty. This act was limited to expire on January 1, 1777.
On March 12, 1788, all prior general acts regarding the firing of the
woods were repealed, and a penalty of ten pounds, in addition to damages,
was imposed for the offenses defined by the act of December 16, 1758.
This act required the justices of the peace, the supervisor, the commis-
sioners of highways, and the officers of the militia not under the rank
of captain, residing in a town where the woods were on fire, to order as
many as they should deem necessary of the inhabitants of the town liable
to work on highways, to assist in extinguishing the fire; and any person
so ordered who should refuse or neglect to comply should forfeit four
shillings for every day of neglect or refusal, with costs of recovery, and the
oath of the person who gave the order was to be sufficient evidence for
a conviction. The forfeiture recovered was to be used as a reward to
such person or persons as a major part of the officers aforesaid should
deem best entitled thereto, for superior exertions in extinguishing the
fire.
IN NEW JERSEY
In 1683 the General Assembly at Burlington, in West Jersey, forbade
any one from thenceforth to fire the woods before the 2oth day of the
twelfth month, under penalty of paying all damages and also of being
fined not to exceed forty shillings. Firing within one’s own lands was
excepted from the penalties, provided that care was taken to prevent
the fire from running outside and that no damage was done to the property
of another person.
Forest LEGISLATION IN AMERICA PRIOR TO MARCH 4, 1789 369
A New Jersey act of January 26, 1717, contained the same penalties
and provisions as the act of 1683, except that the open season for firing
was limited to the period from February 14 to April 14 of each year.
This act made it clear that a person setting fire with care on his own
land within this period was liable only for damages if the fire escaped from
his control, while every person was liable for all damages caused by a fire
set at any other time of the year.
An act of July 31, 1740, which specifically repealed the act of 1717,
provided that if a person should set fire to his own woods at any time he
should pay all damages suffered by another; and if he should set fire to
woods not belonging to himself he should pay all damages suffered by any
one, and forfeit forty shillings and costs to any one who should prose-
cute for the offense. Thus New Jersey, like other provinces and colonies,
was compelled to give up the idea of an open season for burning, make
all persons responsible at all times of the year for any damage caused by
fires that they should set, and hold a severe penalty over the heads of
those reckless ones who were accustomed to setting fires on the property
of. others.
On June 20, 1765, it was enacted that any one found guilty after February
1, 1766, of violating the provisions of the act of July 31, 1740, should be
fined twenty -pounds, or, if unable to pay the fine and costs, should be
liable to imprisonment at the discretion of the county court, and justices
and grand juries were urged to activity in the discovery of offenders.
IN PENNSYLVANIA
The first Assembly in the Province of Pennsylvania convened on March
to, 1683, and on March 20, 1683, passed a bill which provided that if
any one should set a fire before the first day of the first month yearly
he should make good all damages which should result from such act.
An act of November 27, 1700, included the additional limitation that no
fires should be set after the first day of the third month.
On March 27, 1713, the act of November 27, 1700, was amended so as
to require a twenty-four-hours notice to the owner of any fence or building
within one mile of which a fire was set, even within the seasonable limits
allowed for burning by the act of 1700.
An act passed in the eighth year of the reign of George II (on March 29,
1735) referred to the act of November 27, 1700, stated that experience
had shown ‘“‘that the setting the woods on Fire at any time hath proved
rather hurtful than beneficial to this Province, and great Losses have
happened by Occasion of such Fire,” repealed the previous act, and pro-
vided that thereafter every person should be liable for all damages caused
by a fire which he should set, or cause to be set, at any time. The last
clause of this act provided that if the offense were committed by any
370 | BULLETIN 370
servant, Negro, or slave without the direction of his, her, or their master
or mistress, and the master or mistress should refuse to pay the damages
and costs, the offender should receive not over twenty-one stripes ‘‘ on
his or her bare back”’ at the discretion of the justice, and should be com-
mitted to the county workhouse until the costs of the prosecution were
paid. "
IN DELAWARE
The provisions of the Duke’s Laws regarding the firing of the woods
as issued.at New York on March, 1, 1665, were applicable to the settle-
ments on the Delaware, which fell into the control of the English at the
same time as did New Netherland. Subsequent to 1682 these settle-
ments were under the jurisdiction of Pennsylvania, but they were given
a separate assembly in 1702.
An act of the Delaware Assembly in 1739-declared that whoever should
fire the woods to the damage of another person, before March ro or after
May 1, should forfeit five pounds and costs, one-half to be paid to the
‘poor and one-half to the informer, besides damages to the person injured;
and if the offender lacked goods to make satisfaction, he should be liable
to servitude. A Negro or a mulatto was to receive thirty-one lashes for
the offense, and there appears to have been no alternative provision.
An act of 1741 specified certain areas in which one would incur the penalties
of the act of 1739 for setting fire at any time to the damage of another.
IN NORTH CAROLINA
In chapter 25 of the Acts of 1777, State of North Carolina, it is declared
that the burning of the woods is “‘ destructive to cattle and hogs, extremely
prejudicial to Soil, and oftentimes of fatal consequences to Planters and
Farmers, by destroying their fences and other Improvements.’ Section 2
of this act made it unlawful to fire the woods except on one’s own property,
and then notice must first be given to adjacent owners at least two days
before the firing and effectual care must be taken to extinguish the fire
before it could reach any vacant or unpatented lands. Section 3 imposed
penalties for offenders, and section 4 provided that any slave, free Negro
or mulatto, or vagrant person, who should be unable to pay the fine, was
to ‘“‘receive on his bare Back thirty-nine Lashes, well laid on.’’4
Chapter 29 of the Laws of 1782 declared that the penalties in the act
of 1777 were insufficient, and amended section 3 by imposing a fine of
twenty-five pounds for each offense, to be recovered ‘‘ by Action of Debt,
Bill, Plaint, or Information to use of person who shall sue or prosecute
for the same,”’ and the’ offender was further liable to the injured party
for all damages suffered.
ims
4 Whipping of free persons was repealed by chapter 182, Laws of 1782.
GENERAL LEGISLATION DIRECTED TOWARD THE CONSERVA-
TION OF TIMBER AND THE PREVENTION OF TRESPASS
IN MASSACHUSETTS
THE PLYMOUTH COLONY
The first legislation in America having as an object the conservation
of the supply of timber appears to have been the order of the Plymouth
Court, dated March 29, 1626, to which reference has already been made
(page 363). The need of conserving the timber resources through a pre-
vention of waste and a supervision of utilization became more apparent
as the years passed.
The ordinances of the Plymouth Colony as revised and published in
October, 1636, forbade any person to sell out of the colony any boards,
plank, or timber cut from the swamps reserved for public use, without
leave from the public authorities. On June 29, 1652, the General Court
at Plymouth ordered that whosoever should saw any boards at any place
within the colony not in the bounds of any particular town should pay the
Government twenty pence for every thousand feet of timber or plank.
The General Laws of Plymouth Colony as revised and issued on September
29, 1658, retained the prohibition of the laws of 1636 against the sale of
timber from the reserved swamps, referred to the loss that the country
suffered because some persons were accustomed to fell timber on the com-
mon and allow it to waste, and enacted that any person who should fell
such timber and not square nor rive it within six months should forfeit
the same to the use of any one who should see fit to take it. This provision
was reenacted in the General Laws as revised and published in 1672.
In 1669 it was ordered that no bark nor boards should be transported
out of the colony, nor any kind of timber except that which was wrought
into vessels or casks, on penalty of the forfeiture of the same to the colony;
and an act of 1672 forbade the exportation of bark or unmanufactured tim-
ber out of Plymouth Colony during a period of seven years, under penalty
of the forfeiture of the same or its value. The penalties were not to be
imposed if the shipper proved that the timber or bark came from his own
lands.
A Plymouth order of 1670 stated that several towns of the colony were
already much straitened.for building timber, and granted such towns the
privilege of obtaining it from towns having plenty. :
THE MASSACHUSETTS BAY COLONY
Similar solicitude as to the necessity of controlling the use of the for-
ests was felt in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, established in 1628; and
on November '7, 1632, the Court at Boston, in order to preserve good
timber for the more necessary uses, ordered that no one should fell any
371
372 BULLETIN 370
wood on public grounds for paling except such as had been viewed and
allowed by the proper public official. The prohibition of the exportation
of timber from this colony, which had earlier been imposed, was repealed
in 1640. In 1660 the right of commonage in wood and timber was restricted
to those already having the right and those to whom the inhabitants of
the towns should extend it by a vote.
UNDER THE PROVINCIAL CHARTER OF 1691 AND THE CONFEDERATION
An act of March 2, 1694, in the Massachusetts Bay Province, forbade
any one to cut trees from the lands of another or from the common of a
town in which he did not have a right of commonage, without license,
under a penalty of twenty shillings for every tree above one foot in diame-
ter and ten shillings for every tree of smaller diameter. A second offense
was punished by an additional fine of twenty shillings for the benefit of
the poor of the town. These penalties were repeated in an act of June 10,
1698, with a further provision of treble damages for other wood or under-
wood.
In 1726 the penalties for cutting trees from the lands of others in the
Massachusetts Province were increased to forty shillings for every tree
one foot in diameter and for all trees of greater diameter three times their
value besides the forty shillings, to twenty shillings for every tree or pole
under one foot in diameter, and for wood and underwood treble its value.
If the oath of the complainant were supported by circumstances making
it highly probable that the defendant had committed the trespass, the
burden of proof was on the defendant to avoid judgment.
A Massachusetts trespass act of November 23, 1785, reads in part as
follows:
That if any person shall cut down, destroy or carry away any tree or trees whatever,
placed or growing for use, shade or ornament; or any timber, wood or underwood,
standing, lying or growing on land not his own; not having the consent of the owner
Rens SYR eve a cise tac Serta ae the person so offending, shall forfeit and pay
for each tree or stick of timber so cut down, destroyed or carried away................
a fine not less than Five, nor more than Forty Shillings, to the use of the Common-
Wieallukineemnre: peer arie nt. gary and shall be liable to answer in damages to the party
injured.
This act provided that if any person, being indicted and sentenced, was
unable to pay the fine, the court might order “such person to be publicly
whipped, not exceeding twenty stripes, or be imprisoned not exceeding
ninety days, and to find sureties for his good behavior for the term of one
year.”
On October 24, 1783, the General Court passed an act forbidding the
cutting or destroying of white pine trees twenty-four inches or upward
' in diameter twelve inches from the ground, from any lands of the State,
without previous license from the Legislature, under penalty of thirty
pounds; and the penalty was incurred by any one who ghould aid or as-
Forest LEGISLATION IN AMERICA Prior TO MARCH 4, 1789 373
sist in such cutting or destruction or in the drawing away of trees so cut
or felled. This act also fixed a penalty of three pounds for the unlawful
taking of any pine tree less than twenty-four inches in diameter twelve
inches from the ground. Two-thirds of the penalties recovered went to
the Commonwealth and one-third to the informer. This law was strik-
ingly similar to the one that had aroused such opposition on the part of
the colonists of New Hampshire when imposed by direction of the Crown
during the colonial period. However, it should be observed that the col-
onists stated their grievances as consisting largely in the fact that the royal
surveyor-general did not promptly select and mark the trees to be reserved
for the navy, and that thus vast quantities of timber which were not needed
for naval purposes were tied up uselessly, to the disadvantage of all.
IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the year 1640, at the newly founded town of Exeter within what later
became the State of New Hampshire, the inhabitants voted that no one
should fell any oak within a half mile of the town, except on his own plant-
ing lot or for buildings or fences, under penalty of five shillings for each
tree unlawfully felled. In 1660, at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, a fine of
five shillings was imposed for every tree cut by the inhabitants except
for their own buildings, fences, and firewood; and in the towns of Kittery
and Dover strict limitations were put on the number of trees that a person
could have, felled and unmanufactured, at one time, the limit at. Dover
being ten, with a forfeit of ten shillings for every tree in excess of this num-
ber.
In providing for a settlement of the boundaries of Exeter, New Hamp-
shire, in 1667, the General Court ordered that all pine trees fit for masts,
twenty-four inches in diameter three feet from the ground, growing more
than three miles from the Exeter meetinghouse and within the boundaries
of the town, should be reserved for the public; and the Court fixed a
‘penalty of ten pounds for each tree of this character that should be
unlawfully felled, one-half of the penalty to go to the informer and one-
half to the treasury of the county.
At Hampton on May 13, 1680, selectmen were chosen to act for the town
in general matters, but these men were prohibited from disposing of any
timber, this being a matter that rested with the freemen of the town; and
at the same town on June 12, 1680, the freemen chose three men who were
“to prosecute by way of suit or other ways, against any person or persons
that shall trespass or have trespassed upon the town’s rights, either in
timber or land, by fencing or in other ways.”
A New Hampshire act of October 8, 1697, fixed a penalty of five shil-
lings for every tree cut without leave on the land of another, the fine to be
374 BULLETIN 370
paid to the person damaged, and imposed a fine of from forty shillings
to one crown for the cutting of a marked boundary tree. A general tres-
pass act of the same year was broad enough to include injury to trees.
An act for preventing trespasses, passed on October 16, 1707, required
that any person who should without permission cut trees from the lands
of another should pay to the party injured twenty shillings for every tree
one foot or over in diameter, ten shillings for smaller trees, and treble its
value for wood and underwood. For a second offense, in addition to the
above forfeit and damages to the injured party, the offender must pay a
forfeit of twenty shillings to the poor fund or suffer one month imprison-
ment. Children or servants for whose offenses the parents or the master
refused to answer might be whipped or set in the stocks or the cage.
An act of the General Court in 1718 imposed for each tree a penalty
of twenty shillings or more, according to its value, to be paid to the party
damaged, and ordained that ‘the Owners shall be accounted those, or
such as derive a right from those to whom the Land upon which said
Trees grow, is laid out, and bounded by the Layers out of Land chosen in
each town,’”’ except where the right to the timber was in one person and that
to the land in another, in which case the damage went to the owner of the
timber. The act was not to apply to trees cut for the use of the royal
navy.
IN CONNECTICUT
THE NEW HAVEN SETTLEMENTS
The need of controlling the cutting of timber on public lands was rec-
ognized also in the settlements in Connecticut. An order issued on Novem-
ber 25, 1639, by the General Court of the New Haven Colony, founded in
1638, forbade any one to cut timber from common ground except where
assigned by the magistrate, and appointed two men to search the woods
for timber that had been cut but not crosscut nor squared, and authorized
them to seize the same, one-half for themselves and one-half for the town.
In 1640 the General Court imposed a fine of twenty shillings for each
offense of cutting a tree where spruce masts grew. In 1642 the General
Court declared that whoever should without leave cut a tree standing on
any common within two miles of any part of the town, should lose the tree
and his labor and suffer a fine of one shilling; and if he should carry away
the tree or a part of it he should pay such further damage as the Court
should judge proper. An order of February 24, 1644, was directed toward
an enforcement of the order of 1642; and one of June 16, 1645, appointed
men who should supervise the getting of bark for tanning purposes, to the
end that damage to the forests should be prevented as much as possible.
The revised New Haven laws of 1644-45 repealed the order of 1640
imposing a fine of twenty shillings for cutting a tree where spruce-masts
Forest LEGISLATION IN AMERICA Prior TO Marcu 4, 1789 375
grew; but on January 31, 1647, the General Court ordered that no man
should fell any tree within the common of the town of New Haven, without
leave from some magistrate, and that even then he should have the wood
only for his particular trade or necessary use. This order also provided
that if timber thus cut down were left unused for more than fourteen days,
it should be forfeited to the use of any one whom the magistrate might
give leave to take it.
THE SETTLEMENTS ON THE CONNECTICUT RIVER
On September 10, 1640, in the fourth year of the settlement at Hart-
ford, Connecticut, the General Court forbade the felling of timber on the
commons without a license from the particular court having jurisdiction,
and prohibited the selling of pipestaves for exportation to foreign markets
unless the same were viewed and approved by a committee to be appointed
by the court. On September 9, 1641, the previous order was modified
so as to permit the felling of timber on the commons, except within three
miles of the mouth of the Matabezeke River, provided the timber was
felled between the end of September and the beginning of April, worked
up within one month after felling, and transported out of the colony only |
in exchange for necessary provisions brought in. These requirements
were reenacted in the Code of Laws promulgated in 1650.
UNITED CONNECTICUT UNDER THE CHARTER OF 1662
A Court of Election held at Hartford, Connecticut, on May 12, 1687,
forbade the transportation of timber out of any township of the colony
without the consent of the town, under penalty of the forfeiture of the
timber, and decreed that the master of any vessel who should receive on
board any timber without the required license should forfeit forty shil-
lings for every breach of the order. This order was not to apply to saw- ¢—
mills erected with the consent of the General Court. The same order
provided a forfeit of five shillings for every tree that should be cut on the
common by a tanner for the bark, without license first obtained from the
town. On October 12, 1699, the General Assembly at Hartford enacted
a law similar in its prohibitions and penalties to the order of May 12,
1687, but requiring that a license for exportation must be “in writing
under the hands of the major part of the selectmen of the town.”’
At a general assembly begun at Hartford on May 8, 1718, it was enacted
that any one who should cut any tree “‘on the land which appears to be the
property of any other person or persons, and hath been formerly bounded
out, and the lines between corner and corner marked out or renewed within
four years next before the felling of such tree, without leave first obtained
from such owner or owners, under his or their hands,’’ should pay to the
BULLETIN 370
Ww
~I
nr
owner ‘for each tree or stadle under one foot over at the stub, five shil-
lings; for each tree which is one foot and under two foot, ten shillings; and
for each tree two foot over or more at stub, twenty shillings, over and above
the value of the trees so felled.”’ Agreements of towns were specifically
saved from the prohibition of the act.
In October, 1726, the Assembly forbade any person, after December 31,
1726, to ‘‘cut, fell, destroy or carry away, any tree or trees, timber or un-
derwood whatsoever, standing, lying or growing on the land of any other
person or persons, or off or from any sequestered land for town commons,
or any common or undivided lands in any town, without leave or license
of the owner or owners of such lands, .... . ” on
pain of a forfeit to the party injured of “‘ twenty tillines Foret every ree of
one foot over, and for all trees of greater dimensions three times the value
thereof besides twenty shillings as aforesaid, and ten shillings for every
tree or pole under the dimensions of one foot diameter.’’ The inhabi-
tants of the respective towns were entitled to the penalties if the tim-
ber was cut from lands sequestered for town commons, and the propri-
etors of the lands were entitled to those derived from cutting on “common
and undivided lands.” If the plaintiff merely made it appear to the
Court highly probable that the defendant had committed the offense,
the plaintiff should have judgment unless the defendant acquitted him-
self under oath; in the latter case, the defendant should have judgment for
double costs. The proprietors of undivided lands and the inhabitants of
towns holding sequestered commons could dispose of their timber as they
saw fit, but only reasonable restrictions could be imposed as to the getting
of firewood or fencing stuff for personal use by any inhabitant from a town
common. Under the act an offender was liable for only the just value of
the timber if he proved that he believed he was entitled to it at the time
of cutting or taking. The act was limited to substantially two years. An
act to explain a special exception in this act was passed in October, 1734.
The Acts and Laws published at New London in 1750 reduced the pen-
alties to five shillings for trees under one foot, ten shillings for those of one
foot, and treble their value plus ten shillings for those of larger diameter.
IN RHODE ISLAND
THE PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS
An order of February 28, 1638,in the Providence Plantations, which had
been founded in 1636, required that two men should view the timber on the
common and determine what was best suited for the use of each person.
This order provided for a forfeiture to the town of timber that any one should
permit to lie on the ground for more than one year after felling. Orders
of November 27, 1650, and December 11, 1666, imposed fines for the
Forest LEGISLATION IN AMERICA Prior TO MARCH 4, 1789 377
taking of timber from the commons without the consent of the town, and
one of 1651 forbade the cutting of timber on the common purposely for
goats.
THE NEWPORT SETTLEMENT
A court held at Newport, Rhode Island, in 1639, expressly forbade two
parties who were engaged in sawing lumber from exporting any timber
from the town of Newport without license from the authorities.
THE PORTSMOUTH SETTLEMENT
In 1640, at a public meeting at Portsmouth, liberty was granted for
the exportation of a shipload of pipestaves, clapboards, and other articles,
under the direction of the town.
THE UNITED SETTLEMENTS IN RHODE ISLAND
An order of May, 1647, applicable to the settlements of Providence,
Newport, Portsmouth, and Warwick, imposed treble damages and costs,
or servitude in the house of correction, for the offense of trespassing on
- timber. .
On February 6, 1710, the authorities of the Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations forbade the cutting down or carrying away of cedar, pine, or
other timber from the commons without a proper grant from the propri-
etors of the Plantations, and in 1714 a fine of five shillings was imposed for
every tree or pole cut from the land of another without the owner’s per-
mussion.
An act directed against persons who cut timber from the lands of others
without leave, was passed at a session of the General Assembly of Rhode
Island and Providence Plantations beginning on February 14, 1743. This
act imposed a fine of twenty shillings plus treble its value for every tree
one foot or over, ten shillings for every tree under one foot, and for other
wood or underwood treble its value. The second section of the act placed
the burden of proof on the defendant after the plaintiff had taken oath
that the trees were cut or destroyed as mentioned in the writ by number,
and that he suspected the defendant and the circumstances supported
this view. However, if the defendant acquitted himself the plaintiff was
to pay double costs.
IN NEW YORK
In New York an act of May 16, 1699, aimed to prevent timber tres-
pass on the commons and on private property. This act fixed penalties
for the unlawful cutting of timber, of twenty shillings for every tree one
foot or over in diameter, six shillings for every tree or pole under that
size, ‘and for other wood or underwood the value thereof,” to the party
injured. The act provided further that if an offender were convicted a
378 BULLETIN 370
second time he should, in addition to the above forfeitures and damage
to the party injured, forfeit to the town in which the offense was commutted
the sum of forty shillings, or suffer one month imprisonment. The city
and county of Albany and the county of Ulster were exempted from the
provisions of this act, but an act of December 24, 1759, extended the
limitations of the former act to Ulster County.
The first legislative recognition in America of the principle of timber
conservation through the imposition of a diameter limit for cutting, except
the acts that were enforced by the requirements of the parliamentary act
directed at the maintenance of a supply of mast timber, was by an act
passed at Albany on March 24, 1772. This act forbade any person or
persons whatsoever, cither by themselves, their servants, or their slaves,
to bring into the city of Albany or into a specified part of the Manor of
Rensselaerwyck, “‘any Wood to be used as firewood, ............ either
for sale or otherwise, under the Diameter of six Inches if such Wood be
of the Pine kind, and four Inches Diameter if of any other kind of Wood
at the Stump end on Penalty of forfeiting and paying the Sum of Six
Shillings for every Load of Wood which shall contain more than six Sticks
or Pieces of Wood under the size aforesaid,” the penalties to be used for
public purposes of the city and county of Albany.
IN NEW JERSEY
On June 23, 1666, at. Elizabeth Town, in the newly established pro-
prietary of New Jersey, it was decreed by Governor Philip Carteret and
his Council that no one should cut any timber trees useful for building,
fences, or the making of pipestaves, on any lands not their own, nor within
three miles of any home lot belonging to the town, without license from
the Governor or the owners of the land, under penalty of forfeiting five
pounds sterling for every tree so felled.
A General Assembly at Elizabethtown on October 21, 1678, imposed a
penalty of five pounds for every tree cut from unpatented lands, one-third
of the fine to go to the informer and two-thirds to the public treasury.
At the first session of the General Assembly for West Jersey, convened
on November 9, 1681, it was enacted that no one should fell or carry away
timber from any land surveyed within the province, without leave of the
owner, under pain of treble damages.
At acouncil held at Elizabethtownin East Jersey on December 1, 1683, a
resolution was adopted reciting that much timber trespass and waste was
being committed, and authorizing the Governor to issue a proclamation
and enforce the law against timber trespass.
A council held at Burlington, New Jersey, in February, 1710, considered
a bill entitled “An Act for preventing the Waste of Timber and Pine
Forest LEGISLATION IN AMERICA Prior TO MarcH 4, 1789 379
Trees, Poles and Pine Knots within this province of New Jersey.”’ This
bill did not become a law, but a similar one including cedar trees became
a law on March 11, 1714. This act recited that there had been great
waste through the cutting and carrying away of timber, the boring of trees,
and the extracting of turpentine, both on the lands of the proprietors
and of others, and expressed the belief that the exportation of pipe and
hogshead staves to neighboring provinces would both destroy the timber
and discourage trade. The act accordingly imposed penalties of twenty
shillings for each tree cut, bored, or boxed on the land of another, and
ten shillings for every pine or cedar pole cut. Cutting on the commons
was excepted from the penalties.
The penalties of the act of March 11, 1714, did not prove sufficient to
prevent timber trespass, and in 1759 it was enacted that any person who
should cut, box, bore, or destroy any tree, sapling, or pole, on lands to
which he did not have right or title, should forfeit twenty shillings in ad-
dition to the penalties inflicted by the act of 1713-14. The operation of
this additional penalty was limited to five years. There appear to have
been other temporary acts imposing additional penalties, and on De-
cember 21, 1771, not only was the additional penalty of twenty shillings
imposed, but the time within which prosecution might be brought was ex-
tended from the six months named in the act of 1713-14 to eighteen
months. The act of 1771 was limited to seven years.
On March 18, 1780, the Council and General Assembly of the newly
organized State of New Jersey passed an act which recited that the act
of 1713-14 and the acts supplementary thereto had by experience been
found beneficial to the interests of the State, but that the penalties therein
had of late proved insufficient; and, since the supplementary acts had ex-
pired by limitation, it was enacted that for each tree, sapling, or pole
cut, felled, worked up, carried away, boxed, bored, or destroyed on any land
within the State, without permission, by any person who had no right
or title thereto, a penalty of fifty pounds should be paid. Section 2
provided that judgment and execution should be given even though the
defendant claimed the land, unless he gave bond in the sum of one thousand
pounds for appearance in an action of trespass. Eighteen months were
allowed for the bringing of actions, and the act of. March 11, 1714, was
repealed. This later act appears to have overshot the mark in the
matter of penalty and bond, for on June 13, 1783, an act was passed which
fixed the penalty for the same offenses as those mentioned in the act of
1780 at three pounds for each tree, sapling, or pole, allowed eighteen months
for prosecution, and fixed the bond in cases in which the defendant claimed
the land at double the amount of the claim. Section 2 made subject to
the penalty of the act any one who should saw a log which he knew to
380 BULLETIN 370
have been stolen. The cutting of trees for the repair of a highway was
specially excepted from the prohibition of the act, and the act of 1713-14
was again repealed.
IN PENNSYLVANIA
Prior to establishing a colony in the vast proprietary domain that had
received the name Penn’s Woods because of the magnificent forests which
were known to lie within it, William Penn published in England a funda-
mental document, of which section 11 declared that all deeds should in-
clude all woods and underwoods, and section 18 provided that care must
be taken to leave one acre of trees for every five acres cleared, and especially
to preserve oak and mulberry for silk and shipping.
In the first Assembly, on March 30, 1683, a resolution forbidding any
one to fell the trees of another person was adopted, and at a session begun
-at Newcastle on October 14, 1700, a forfeit of five pounds to the owner was
prescribed for the cutting of a black walnut tree, one of fifty shillings for
any other timber tree, and double its value for firewood or underwood.
On March 17, 1780, trespassers on timber were made lable to fine and
imprisonment in addition to the payment of treble damages to the owner
of the land, whether the owner was a private party or the commonwealth.
IN DELAWARE
In Delaware an act of 1741 declared that any one cutting down any
“timber tree or trees’? on the lands of another should pay the injured
party fifty shillings and costs. For failure to pay this penalty the offender
could be required to make satisfaction by servitude for a period not ex-
ceeding four years. A timber tree was defined as a tree one foot or over
in diameter two feet from the ground. The cutting of “firewood or under-
wood”’ must be satisfied by treble damages and costs, or by servitude.
This act repealed one previously in force. It will be remembered that
Delaware had been governed by, the laws of Pennsylvania prior to 1702,
and that those laws were effective in Delaware until they were repealed.
IN MARYLAND
A Maryland act of June 2, 1692, granting certain free use of timber to
any one who should build a mill, excepted timber fit to “split or cleave
into clapboards.’’ An act of September 21, 1704, declared that grantees
of land lying within the land of the Indians should have an action of tres-
pass against any one who should cut timber therefrom under pretence of
having bought it from the Indians. An act of 1724, authorizing the free
use of timber for repair of highways, excepted trees fit for clapboards or
coopers’ timber.
REGULATION OF THE LUMBER AND TIMBER INDUSTRY
The extent to which the authorities exercised control over manufac-
ture and trade in lumber in the colonial period presents a striking contrast
- to the latssez faire policy of the nineteenth century.
STATUTORY PRICES FOR LUMBER AND TIMBER PRODUCTS
On September 27, 1631, the Court of Assistants at Boston ordered that
sawyers should not take over twelve pence a score for sawing boards if the
wood were felled and squared for them, and not over seven shillings per
hundred if they felled and squared the timber themselves.
At Newport, Rhode Island, in 1639, Ralph Earle and his copartner, Mr.
Willbore, were required to furnish the town with sawed boards at eight
shillings per hundred and with half-inch boards at seven shillings per
hundred, delivered by the pit at the waterside; and with clapboards at
twelve pence a foot.
On June 7, 1641, the General Court at Hartford, Connecticut, ordered
that sawyers should not take over four shillings and two pence for sht
work on three-inch planks, or over three shillings and six pence for
boards by the hundred; and that boards should be sold for not over five
shillings and six pence per hundred.
In 1669 the Court of Plymouth declared that no boards should be
brought into the colony or sold at a price above forty-five shillings per
thousand at the waterside where sawed, under a fine of ten shillings
per thousand.
REGULATION OF THE SALE OF FIREWOOD
The standard cord of firewood — 8 feet long, 4 feet broad, and 4 feet
high — was established by law in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1647,
in New York in 1684, in Rhode Island in 1698, in South Carolina in 1738,
in Delaware in 1741, in Georgia in 1766, and in North Carolina in 1784;
and provision for official wood-corders was made in Massachusetts in
1655, in Rhode Island in 1698, and in New Hampshire in 1714. There
was subsequent legislation on the same subject in practically all of these
colonies.
INSPECTION OF TIMBER PRODUCTS, AND EXPORT DUTIES THEREON
IN MASSACHUSETTS
THE MASSACHUSETTS BAY COLONY
An order of 1641 prescribed the length and quality of pipestaves that
were to be offered for exportation from the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
This order did not prove sufficient, and on November 4, 1646, the General
381
382 BULLETIN 370
Court, after reciting the evils to foreign trade which would result from the
exportation of pipestaves of poor quality, especially on account of worm-
holes, ordered that the selectmen of Boston, Charlestown, and all other
towns from which pipestaves were shipped, should from time to time,
as should be necessary, choose viewers who should be sworn to faithfully
inspect all pipestaves intended for exportation to Spain or Portugal, or to
the dominions of either nation. All material that did not, in the opinion
of the viewers, conform to the standards required by the trade, was to
be forfeited. Any master or officer of a ship who should receive material
in evasion of the order was liable to a forfeit of five pounds sterling for
every thousand staves so received. A supplementary act of May 109,
1669, specified more particularly the sizes and qualities required for white
oak and red oak staves.
On June 2, 1653, the General Court granted a request of Boston and
Charlestown that selectmen in those towns be permitted to appoint
persons to: measure lumber, and an act of May 23, 1655, authorized the
selectmen of Boston, Charlestown, Salem, and such other towns as
should think fit, to appoint persons who should be sworn to faithfully
and uprightly measure wood and boards, and no one was to be required
to receive such articles until measured by these officials.
THE PROVINCE OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY
A Massachusetts act of June 18, 1695, provided that any purchaser of
shingles might apply to a justice of the peace, who should thereupon
appoint some able house carpenter, who should under oath view the
shingles and seize, for the benefit of the poor of the town, bundles con-
taining shingles that did not conform to the standard sizes of 15 or 18
inches long, 33 inches wide, and 3 inch thick, or that were not well shaved.
An act of June 21, 1710, provided for the annual election, in every
town of the province where boards, plank, timber, or slit work were
imported or exported, of two or more surveyors, who were to receive
fees for inspecting timber products. Cull material was to be burned
or forfeited for the poor.
On June 23, 1727, the General Court said there had been abuses of the
former acts, provided in greater detail for inspection, and required that
the brand of the town where they were inspected should be placed on
every bundle of shingles or clapboards. No shingle was to be under
3 inches wide, and the average was to be 43 inches. The shingles were
to be either 15 or 18 inches long, “as sold for,” 5 inch thick at the butt,
and well shaved so as to be free from winding. Clapboards exposed for
sale must be of sound timber, 2 of an inch thick, 5 inches wide, 4 feet
* 6 inches long, straight, and well shaved. The surveyors were to be ap-
Forest LEGISLATION IN AMERICA Prior TO Marcu 4, 1789 383
pointed annually by the justices of the peace and were subject to a fine
for refusal to serve. The act was to be effective for a period of four
years, beginning January 1, 1728, but an act passed on January 4, 1738,
was substantially the same as that of June 23, 1727, and another of the
same day regulated the quality and sizes of pipe, barrel, and hogshead
staves. Both the latter acts were limited to five years.
An act of March 22, 1743, which declared the act of June 21, 1710,
deficient in that it did not provide for the measurement of lumber at the
place where it was received but only at the place whence it was shipped,
made provision for the election at annual town meetings of a surveyor
in every town where lumber was rafted off or bought. This law con-
tained detailed directions and specifications for the inspection of shingles,
hoops, staves, lumber, and the like. It was limited to expire on June 10,
1747, but was followed by other acts which revived and supplemented
its provisions.
UNDER THE CONFEDERATION
The successful close of the Revolution gave new life to trade, and
by an act of July 11, 1783, Massachusetts attempted to insure the building
of a substantial commerce in timber products with the outside world.
This required the election of surveyors in every town at the annual meet-
ings, prescribed specifications for various timber products, provided for
fees to surveyors and for certificates of inspection, imposed penalties
for evasion, and repealed all former inspection acts. A supplemental
act. of March 16, 1784, extended the restrictions of the act of July 11,
1783, to all ports not within the State of Massachusetts, imposed additional
penalties on the master or owner of any vessel who should attempt to evade
the law, and declared that fully seasoned boards 7 inch thick should be
considered merchantable. This was during the period of rivalry and
retaliation between the confederated States as to trade, and it is probable
that the purposes of the act of July 11, 1783, had been evaded by the ex-
portation of timber products to foreign countries through the ports of other
States.
IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
On October 4, 1683, it was ordered in New Hampshire that thence-
forth no pine boards should be accounted merchantable or delivered in
payment unless they were a full inch in thickness and square-edged;
and that if any boards were exported which did not comply with these
requirements, such allowance should be made to the buyer or receiver as
should be adjudged reasonable by a sworn surveyor appointed for that
purpose. The preamble to this enactment indicates that it was directed
largely toward the maintenance of a lumber trade with the West Indies,
384 BULLETIN 370
from which place complaint had come as to the thinness and wany edges
of New Hampshire lumber. An order of October 22, 1683, forbidding
vessels of over one hundred tons burden of the Massachusetts or Plym-
outh Colonies from loading any boards or timber at» New Hampshire
ports, except under license from the New Hampshire Governor, aimed
to protect home shipping.
On August 10, 1687, standard specifications for staves and boards were
fixed and provision was made for official cullers; and in 1704 it was enacted
that any one purchasing lumber should have the right to measure it in
the presence of a selectman, constable, or other officer, and such as did not
conform to its marks was to be forfeited. On June 21, 1785, a very
complete lumber inspection act was passed. This act, which was un-
limited as to duration, covered boards, shingles, clapboards, hoops, staves,
heading, and shooks, and repealed all previous acts.
IN CONNECTICUT
THE SETTLEMENTS ON THE CONNECTICUT RIVER
An order of September 10, 1640, passed by the General Court at Hart-
ford, Connecticut, forbade the exportation of pipestaves to foreign markets
unless they were first viewed by a committee appointed by the Court
and approved both as to quality of timber and as to size; and an order of
September 9, 1641, restricting the felling and exportation of timber, fixed
a standard size for pipestaves and provided for inspection.
UNITED CONNECTICUT UNDER THE CHARTER OF 1662
A Connecticut act of August 10, 1667, provided for inspection of timber
products in every seaport town by sworn officials who were empowered
“to cast by all such staves as they judge not to be merchantable either
in respect of wormholes or want of assize.’’ All pine, spruce, or cedar
boards offered for exportation must be either one full inch or one-half
inch thick.
An act of May 13, 1714, which declared one of its objects to be the
prevention of the destruction of timber, but which in reality appears to
have aimed chiefly at a discrimination in favor of British and Connecticut
shipping interests employed in transporting goods to the West India _
Islands, imposed a duty on all pipe, barrel, and hogshead staves shipped
from Connecticut to Massachusetts Bay, New York, the New Jerseys,
Rhode Island, or New Hampshire. On May 12, 1715, a duty was laid
on ship timber, plank, and boards exported to any of the colonies named
in the act of May 13, 1714. The main object of this law appears to have
been encouragement to Connecticut shipbuilding. A similar act passed
Forest LEGISLATION IN AMERICA PRIOR TO Marcu 4, 1789 385
in May, 1747, levied export duties on staves, heading, ship timber, plank,
boards, and bark destined to any of the colonies named in the act of 1714
except the New Jerseys. This act appears to have remained in force
until 1786, when its provisions were included in the revised laws pub-
lished in that year. The revised laws of 1786 also contained full pro-
visions for the inspection of timber products offered for export.
IN RHODE ISLAND
A Rhode Island act of 1731 provided that in each town where boards,
planks, shingles, clapboards, and slit work were usually imported or
exported, there should be two or more surveyors elected annually at
town meetings. The surveyors were required to give due consideration
to drying and shrinking, and to make reasonable allowance for rots,
splits, and wains. The sizes of shingles and the fees to be allowed were
specified.
IN NEW YORK
No legislative control of timber inspection was exercised in New York
until March 1, 1788. Under the law then enacted, the Governor and
Council were to appoint an inspector for the city and county of New
York, who was to appoint deputies for Albany, Hudson, Kinderhook,
and other places where necessary. Sizes and quality were fixed for boards
and shingles, and the inspector was required to mark his initials or his
full surname, and the quantity, on each piece or bundle inspected. The
inspection of staves was provided for in an act of March 7, 1788.
IN NEW JERSEY
A New Jersey law of October 2, 1694, required that before any timber,
planks, boards, oak bolts, staves, heading, hoops, or hop poles were loaded
in any port of that province, the master of the vessel must have a permit
from the customhouse at Perth-Amboy and must havé given a well-
secured bond, in the sum of one hundred pounds penalty, guaranteeing
that the goods would be unloaded only in the Kingdom of England, the
West Indies, or one of the Summer, or Wine, Islands. Firewood and
cedar shingles were specifically excepted from the restrictions of the
act. Chapter 12 of the laws of the same session required the Governor
to appoint an official in every town to enforce the act.
A timber trespass act of March 11, 1714, imposed duties on pipe or
hogshead staves shipped to any of the British colonies on the American
continent, but the duty on hogshead staves was removed on January 25,
1717. An act of December 2, 1743, imposed duties on all logs or timber
products, except firewood, exported from eastern New Jersey to any
-of the colonies on the American continent. The penalties for violation
386 BULLETIN 370
were very severe. “The portion of this act forbidding the exportation of
timber from Essex County was repealed on February 18, 1748, but the
export duties were retained until the Revolution. 3
On September 26, 1772, inspection of timber products of all classes was
provided for. Under this act, which became effective on January 1, 1773,
and was limited’ to seven years, lumber shipped to neighboring colonies
was not required to be inspected? nor was that shipped to foreign markets, |
if neither the buyer nor the seller required inspection.
: IN PENNSYLVANIA.
The first Assembly of Pennsylvania adopted on litera 13, 1683) 1
resolution in regard ‘to pipestaves, and section 5 of chapter 80 of the laws
of 1700 fixed specifications for barrel and hogshead staves.
On April 21, 1759, the General Assembly of Pennsylvania undertook
to prevent the expertation of unmerchantable staves, heading, boards,
and timber by establishing specifications and providing for inspection
along substantially the same lines as obtained in the New England
colonies. Supplementary and amendatory acts were passed in 1761 and
in 1767. The act of 1759 as thus amended appears to have remained the
law until September 29, 1780.
e IN VIRGINIA
In a letter of March 28, 1628, to the King, the General Assembly of
Virginia advised him that pipestaves, barrel boards, and clapboards
could be procured in great abundance, but that the freight was too a
to make it an object to export them.
Not until more than a century later was the necessity of timber in-
spection recognized by the Virginia Legislature. In 1752 the dimensions
and quality of staves, heading, and shingles intended for exportation to
Madeira or the West Indies were fixed by a law which was limited in
operation to a period of two years.
In 1786 lumber inspection was provided for the counties of Norfolk
and Princess Anne and the borough of Norfolk; and on December 13,
1787, the provisions of the act of 1786 were extended to all counties and
corporations of the commonwealth.
IN NORTH CAROLINA
An act of the Assembly, begun at Newbern, North Carolina; on Decem-
ber s, 1770, regulated in exceptional detail the exportation of flaxseed,
pork, beef, rice, flour, butter, tar, pitch, turpentine, staves, heading,
shingles, lumber, tanned leather, and deerskins. Inspectors. were to be
appointed by justices. of inferior courts in each county, to be sworn and
Forest LEGISLATION IN AMERICA Prior TO MARCH 4, 1789 387
to give bonds. Section 27 of the act read: ‘‘ Provided, nevertheless,
That no Staves, Heading, Shingles, Boards, Plank, square Timber, or
Deer-Skins shall be inspected, unless required’’; and section 28 provided
that if ‘‘ dispute arose between seller and purchaser of any Boards, Plank,
or other Lumber intended for the English market, the Inspector shail
inspect the same, agreeable to the English Act of Parliament, if called
on for this purpose.’ So important was the office considered that in-
spectors were ineligible to membership in the colonial legislature. The
operation of this act was limited to ten years. After its expiration, how-
ever, the need of such a law was felt, and chapter 26 of the laws of 1784
‘ made complete provision for the inspection of timber products offered
for exportation.
IN SOUTH CAROLINA
On March 25, 1738, the Provincial Legislature passed a general act
to prevent frauds in the selling of various staples, including shingles
and firewood. This was followed on June 17, 1746, by a very compre-
hensive act on the same subject. The latter act, which was limited to
three years, was allowed to lapse, but on March 12, 1783, its provisions
were revived and were continued without limitation as to time of operation.
BRITISH LEGISLATION DIRECTED TOWARD THE CONTROL OF
FOREST INDUSTRIES IN THE COLONIES
Within two decades after the founding of the first permanent British
colony in North America, the Crown manifested an interest in the pro-
duction of naval stores in the New World; and in a letter dated March 28,
1628, the General Assembly at Jamestown, Virginia, advised the King
that, although there were great possibilities for the production of pitch
and tar in the new country, the industry could not be profitably undertaken
at that time.
On November 15, 1644, the General Court at Hartford, Connecticut,
granted to two men the privilege of making tar in the colony under certain
restrictions. On October 21, 1653, complaint was made to the Court
of the inconveniences which had been suffered by some of the inhab-
itants of Windsor because of the burning of tar near the town. In 1663
John Griffin was granted two hundred acres of land for making it appear
that he was the first to make pitch or tar in Connecticut.
An act of June, 1661, in the Plymouth Colony, fixed an export duty
of six pence per barrel on tar made within the lands of any township,
and twe've pence per barrel for any tar gathered on the ‘‘Countryes
Comons,”’ with a penalty of four shillings a barrel for evasion of the act.
- An order of 1668 forbidding the making of tar in Plymouth Colony was
repealed on June 6, 1669; and one of 1670 providing for the granting
of a monopoly for the purchase of all tar made in the colony during a
period of two years, to any one who should agree to pay eight shillings
a barrel and twelve shillings for each half hogshead, was repealed on
June 0, 1671.
An act of June 8, 1671, in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, granted
to a company a ten-years monopoly of the right to make for sale “ pitch,
rozin, turpentine, oyle of turpentine or masticke of the pine or cedar trees
of this jurisdiction.’’ The company was required to pay six pence per
-hundredweight for pitch and rosin made from timber on the commons.
In furtherance of a policy of increasing the production of naval stores,
between 1664 and 1669 the duties on pitch and tar produced in Virginia
and Maryland and imported into England were remitted.
The several charters and grants of lands in the New World issued
to companies and individuals by James I, Charles I, and Charles II,
of England, each included a full title to all trees found growing thereon,
and a thriving foreign trade in shipbuilding materials and other timber
products ultimately developed in the Massachusetts Bay Colony (to
which Charles I granted a charter in 1629) and in the other New England
colonies.
Under. the beneficent guidance of Oliver Cromwell a new spirit of
389
390 BULLETIN 370
maritime enterprise developed in the British nation in the decade beginning
with 1650. Viewing with jealous eyes the trade expansion of the Dutch
Netherlands, the English Parliament, in 1651, passed a Navigation Act
which permitted the importation and exportation of goods into or from
England or her colonies in English ships only, except in ships of the country
from which the goods came or to which they went. This legislation
probably contributed in part to the building up of a national merchant
marine which was vigorously supported by an effective navy. However,
merchant vessels of the Dutch and other nations continued to hold a
large part of the commerce of the English colonies in North America with
the West Indies and with the Continent of Europe.
Accordingly, in the first year of the Restoration, Parliament drew the
line closer by enacting that from and after December 1, 1660, no goods
should be imported into or exported from any of the British colonies in
America except in vessels which belonged to Great Britain or to the said
British colonies and of which the master and at least three-fourths of the
mariners were English. Three years later a supplementary act required
that after March 20, 1664, all goods destined for the English colonies
in America must be laden and shipped in England, Wales, or Berwick
upon Tweed, and in English vessels. This was followed by other restrictive
acts, such as that which required the governors of colonies to report each
year the number of ships laden out of the territory under their jurisdiction,
and that of 1672 requiring that goods imported into England in colonial
vessels must pay duty and that ships loading im any of His Majesty’s
plantations after September 1, 1673, must give bond to bring the cargo
to England, Wales, or the town of Berwick upon Tweed.
With the expansion of the navy and the merchant marine of Great
Britain during the Commonwealth and the early years of the Restoration,
came a demand for shipbuilding materials which the European sources
of supply could meet only at an increased price. Furthermore, a reliance
on foreign sources for the commodities most essential to naval supremacy
was a direct invitation to disaster. The accession of William of Orange
to the British throne in 1688, after the depressive reigns of Charles II and
James II, marked the rise of a new national hope and ambition in England.
In 1684, by direction of James II, the charter of the Massachusetts Bay
Colony had been vacated on a writ of quo warranto.
On October 7, 1691, William and Mary consolidated into a ee royal
province ‘‘the territories and colonies commonly called or known by
the names of the Colony of the Massachusetts Bay and Colony of New
Plymouth, the province of Maine, the territory called Acadia or Nova
Scotia, and all that tract of land lying between the said territories of
Nova Scotia and the said province of Maine,” and issued a new charter
Forest LEGISLATION tv AMERICA PRIOR TO MaRcH 4, 1789 391
for the combined colonies under the title The Province of Massachusetts
Bay in New England.
Although the charter of 1691 granted to the new province much of
the freedom enjoyed by the Massachusetts Bay Colony under the char-
ter of 1629, it contained one important reservation. This reservation
clause declared that for the better providing and furnishing of masts for
the royal navy, the grantors reserved to themselves, their heirs, and
successors, all trees of the diameter of twenty-four inches and upward
twelve inches from the ground, growing on any land within the province
not theretofore granted to a private person. The reservation further
forbade any one to cut or destroy such trees without a royal license first
obtained, under penalty of one hundred pounds sterling. When one
reflects that this charter granted to the inhabitants of the province four-
fifths of all gold, silver, or other minerals in the lands, one begins to
realize the significance of this reservation of timber.
Notwithstanding the reservation of pine trees in the charter of 1601,
and the restrictions of the navigation acts, the cutting of pine and its
exportation continued, in response to a strong demand for timber prod-
ucts from foreign nations as well as England; and when it became
increasingly difficult to obtain shipbuilding material of first quality at the
ports of New England, the British Crown took active steps to prevent the
unnecessary destruction of trees suitable for masts.
The pressure brought to bear on the colonies by the Crown is shown
in the order of the Governor and Council of New Hampshire in 1683,
forbidding vessels of Massachusetts, evading the navigation acts, from
loading at New Hampshire ports; in the New Jersey act of 1694, requiring
the masters of vessels loading at ports of that province to give bond
for the transportation of their cargoes to England, the West Indies, or
the Summer, or Wine, Islands; and in a Massachusetts act of 1694-95,
which declared that the King had signified his desire that a trial be made
of producing naval stores in that province, and forbade any one to trans-
port any pitch, tar, rosin, plank, or ship timber out of the province without
special license from the Governor and Council
In 1696 King William III created a commission known as the Lords
of Trade, to whom was assigned the duty of improving conditions in the
British plantations in America. This commission undertook to develop
the naval store industry in the colonies, and Lord Bellomont, who was
sent to America as Governor of Massachusetts Bay, New York, and New
Hampshire, exhibited a special interest in the project from his arrival
in New York on April 2, 1698, until his death in the same city on March
5) e7OT.
The rising prices of naval stores in Europe, together with the realization
392 BULLETIN 370
of national needs which came in the conflicts of King William III with
Louis XIV of France in the last decade of the seventeenth century, were
accentuated when war between England and France began again in
1702 after a peace of only five years. This war, known as the War of the
Spanish Succession, involved all of western Europe and forced upon
British statesmen a consideration of every plausible means of increasing
the naval independence of the nation.
With a view to establishing a permanent source of naval stores within
its own dominions, the British Parliament in 1704 passed an act which
placed bounties on tar, pitch, rosin, turpentine, hemp, masts, yards,
and bowsprits imported from the American colonies into Great Britain.
For the preservation of trees fit for the production of naval stores, this
act imposed a fine of five pounds for the offense of cutting or destroying
a pitch pine tree or a tar tree, under twelve inches in diameter three
feet from the ground, not within a fence or an actual inclosure, within
the colonies of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey; and fixed a fine of ten pounds
for the offense of wittingly or willingly firing any woods or forest in which
there were trees prepared for the making of pitch or tar, without first
giving notice to the person who had prepared the trees for the making of
pitch or tar, in any of the said colonies. The act became effective on
January 1, 1705, and was limited to nine years.
In order to insure a proper execution of this act, John Bridger, who
had been engaged in the development of the naval store industry as a
government agent since 1698, was commissioned Surveyor General of
the Woods, and was required to instruct the inhabitants in the making of
pitch and tar and other products, and to mark with the broad arrow
of the British navy all trees that were to be reserved for the Crown
and to keep a register of them. Bridger encountered much opposition
from the colonists, who evidently considered the restrictions imposed by
Parliament to be inimical to their own interests. The differences
between the representative of the Crown and those who desired to
exploit the forests for private gain were especially pronounced in New
Hampshire, and an act passed in this royal province in 1708 imposed a
penalty of one hundred pounds for every white pine or mast tree twenty-
four inches or upward in diameter twelve inches from the ground,
not private property, which should be cut or destroyed without royal
license. The same penalty was prescribed for the unauthorized marking
of any tree with the broad arrow.
Section 30 of a general fiscal act of 1709 declared that the premiums
allowed by the act of 1704 for the importation of naval stores from the
plantations in America were defective, and authorized Queen Anne to
Forest LEGISLATION IN AMERICA PRIOR TO MARCH 4, 1789 393
expend ten thousand pounds for the subsistence and employment of persons
and the purchase of materials, with a view to effecting the purposes of
the earlier act.
In an act of 1710 the British Parliament referred to the vast quantities
of masts and timber available near the shore in New England, New York,
and New Jersey, and declared that after September 24, 1711, no person
within New England, New York, or New Jersey should cut or destroy
any white pine tree fit for masts that was twenty-four inches or upward
in diameter twelve inches from the ground, and was not private property,
under penalty of one hundred pounds. A penalty of five pounds was
fixed for the offense of unlawfully marking a pine tree, in any of the
colonies named, with the broad arrow of the navy. It appears from the
language of the act that unscrupulous persons had been using the arrow
in an unauthorized manner, to deter others from cutting trees on common
lands and thus gain advantage to themselves.
In 1713 the act of 1704 was continued for a period of eleven years.
The influence of the royal authority on the legislative acts of the colonies
is illustrated by a Massachusetts act passed on June 21, 1715, imposing
a penalty of twenty shillings for each tree cut, barked, or boxed for the
making of turpentine on any lands of the province, proprietors, town-
ships, or particular persons, and providing for the forfeiture of all turpen-
tine made; by a New Hampshire act of 1719, imposing a penalty of five
pounds for the cutting of more than one box in a tree for the purpose of
making turpentine, unless the trees were private property; and by an
entry in the legislative records of New Jersey for November, 1719, making
reference to the provisions of sections 16 and 17 of a parliamentary act
of 1718, which forbade the payment of premiums except when the naval
stores were of good quality, and prescribed an approved method of manu-
facture.
Section 2 of an act of 1721 sought to encourage the importation of
lumber and all manner of timber products into Great Britain directly
from the American colonies in British shipping, by removing all duties
on such products thus imported for a period of twenty-one years from
and after June 24, 1722. The act excepted masts, yards, and bowsprits,
as to which provision had been made in an earlier act. Sections 3 and 4
provided for premiums on pitch, tar, and other products along the same
lines as the act of 1704 and that of 1718; section 5 imposed new penalties
for the offense of cutting or destroying trees fit for masts, not growing
within the limits of any township, without the royal license; and section 6
repealed the part of the act of 1710 which fixed a penalty of one
hundred pounds for the cutting of a white pine mast tree twenty-four
inches or upward in diameter. The new penalties for cutting white pine
394 BULLETIN 370
mast trees or drawing them away, as established in section 5, were five
pounds for trees twelve inches and under in diameter three feet from
the ground, ten pounds for trees from twelve to eighteen inches in diameter,
twenty pounds for trees from eighteen to twenty-four inches, and fifty
pounds for trees twenty-four inches and upward. These penalties were
applicable in Nova Scotia, as well as in all the colonies of New England,
and in New York and New Jersey.
The opposition of the colonies to the navigation acts and the acts
placing restrictions on the cutting of pine was neither appeased by the
free trade provisions nor subdued by the penalties of the act of 1721,
and the matter again claimed the attention of the British Parliament.
An act of 1729 recited the prohibition against the cutting of white pine
trees not growing within any township, contained in the act of 1721,
declared that the said act had been evaded. through the laying out of
large tracts into townships since its passage, and enacted that from and
after September 29, 1729, no one should, without royal license, cut or
destroy any white pine trees that were not private property, notwithstand-
ing that the said trees grew within the limits of any township already laid
out or to be laid out. This act extended the area covered by the act
of 1721 so as to include every province or country in America which
belonged to Great Britain or should thereafter be acquired.*
Section 2 made the penalties of section 5 of the act of 1721 applicable
to the cutting of white pine trees on lands not private property in any
British territory of America, and to the cutting of white pine trees twenty-
four inches or upward in diameter on any lands in the province of Massa-
chusetts Bay that were not private property at the time of the reservation
made in the charter issued by King William and Queen Mary in 1601.
The premiums allowed by this act for naval stores imported into Great
Britain from the American colonies were considerably lower than those
allowed by the act of 1704, which had been extended in 1713 but had
expired in 1725. The requirements of the act of 1718 as to the quality
of naval stores were reenacted, and the special encouragement to the
manufacture of tar by an approved method as set out in the act of 1721
was continued. All naval stores shipped from the colonies were to be
subject to the ‘‘regulations, restrictions and limitations” of the navigation
acts requiring bond for shipment to Great Britain under penalties and
forfeitures, and the premiums were limited to a period of thirteen years.
These premiums were continued, however, by successive acts until June
2A TBE.
The provision of the act of 1721 which admitted wood, timber, and
5 For colonial views of act see New Jersey Archives, First Series, Vol. II, p. 176, 179-183. _Forenforce-
ment, see Colonial Records of Connecticut, Vol. VII (1726-1735), p. 264; Provincial Papers of New Hamp-
shire, Vol. IV, p. 563, 565; Vol. V, p. 11, 19, 97; Acts and Resolves, Province of Massachusetts Bay, Vol.
III, p. 116, 326, 984; Vol. IV, p. 530, 974; Vol. V, p. 174.
ee
Forest LEGISLATION IN AMERICA PRIOR TO MaRcH 4, 1789 305
lumber products from the colonies into Great Britain free of duty was
continued by successive acts until September 29, 1778.
Although the terms of the earlier navigation acts requiring a shipment
of all products of the colonies to Great Britain were evidently sufficiently
broad to cover all kinds of timber or lumber products, through evasion
and a loose construction of these acts the trade in such products between
the colonies and foreign nations and their dependencies continued to thrive
for a century following the Restoration. But there were frequent reports
from the royal governors in America as to the great loss to British com-
merce which resulted from such foreign trade, and strong protest in England
against the continuance of this trade. At last Parliament took action.
Section 28 of a general duty act of 1763 enacted that from and after
September 29, 1764, none of the timber products specified in the second
section of the act of 1721 which had been grown, produced, or manufactured
in any British colony of America were to be laden on any ship until bond
was given to insure their transportation to no part of Europe except
to ports of Great Britain, and section 29 required a warrant before such
goods could be shipped to any other British colony or plantation.
An act of 1765 marked the adoption of a new policy. This provided
for the payment of premiums on deals, plank, boards, and timber imported
directly from the colonies into Great Britain in British ships. These
premiums were to be paid at certain rates for a period of three years
beginning on January 1, 1766, at lower rates for a second period of three
years, and at still lower rates during a third period of three years. Section
22 of this act authorized the shipment of timber products from the colonies
‘direct to Ireland, the Madeiras, the Azores, and any part of Europe south
of Cape Finisterre.
An act-of 1771 extended the provisions of the act-of 1721 so that
mahogany and every sort of unmanufactured timber product might be im-
ported into Great Britain from any American colony, in British vessels,
free of duty, and chapter 50 of the acts of the same year provided for
bounties on white oak staves and heading imported into England
direct from the eolonies in British shipping. These two acts were doubt-
less intended as a relief to manufacturers in Great Britain, rather than as
an encouragement to the colonies.
For a full century the colonies had chafed under the commercial re-
pression of the navigation acts, and during three-fourths of that time
the law had forbidden, under heavy penalties, the natural development
of the timber industry. Smarting under the restraint of acts which
they conceived to be unjust, the colonists had turned this way and that
in search of avenues of escape from the offensive parliamentary enact-
ments, and had become practiced in the art of legal evasion. The stamp
306 BULLETIN 370
tax and the tea tax were but the last straws in a load that had weighed
heavily on the patience of the colonists for years.’ While the bounties
on naval stores beginning in 1704, and those on timber, lumber, and
other wood products subsequent to January 1, 1766, as well as the freedom
of such products from duty after June 24, 1772, may have seemed to
Englishmen to be very favorable to the colonies, the restrictions as to
cutting and the requirements that aimed at enforced shipment of all
products to Great Britain were exceedingly irksome to the dependencies,
and no inconsiderable proportion of the antipathy to British control that
developed in America was among the manufacturers and shippers of
timber products. It is doubtful whether any historian of the United States
has recognized the important influence of British legislation interfering
with the natural course of exploitation of American forests, in shaping
the forces that led to the Revolution of 1775.
The shipment of lumber from Boston was stopped by the parliamen-
tary act of 1774 closing that port until amends should be made to those
who had suffered from the destruction of tea there in December, 1773.
This act was followed by an act of 1775 placing an embargo on all com-
merce of the New England colonies until order should be restored therein.
A later act of the same year extended this embargo to New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina. A subsequent
act of 1776 prohibited all trade with any of the thirteen colonies that
joined in the Revolution. These war measures, of course, revoked the
earlier acts remitting duties and affording bounties. The success of the
Revolution ended the long struggle of the colonists against the efforts of
the British Government to control the exploitation of American forests.
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN FOREST LAW DURING THE FIFTY
YEARS PRECEDING THE FORMATION OF THE UNION
THE CONTROL OF SAND DUNES
On July 16, 1709, the Massachusetts Court, in compliance with the
request of the inhabitants of a part of the neck of land that acts as
a breakwater for Cape Cod Harbor, incorporated the town of Truro.
This settlement appears to have been established shortly before that
date, and there were only about forty families in Truro at the time of
the authorization of a town government. The ambitious hopes of the
people of Truro were doomed to speedy and bitter disappointment. The
cutting of timber and firewood, and the grazing of stock on the commons
along the shore, soon destroyed the balance of the forces of nature which
had hitherto been established at the meeting line of the land and the
sea. The dire consequences of the thoughtless acts of the settlers are
revealed in the language of an act of the General Court passed on January
10, 1739, thirty years after the act of incorporation. The preamble
to this act declared that because of the eating of the beach grass by cattle
and horses along the shore of Eastern Harbor Meadows in the town of
Truro, the sand was being driven, in storms and high winds, from the
beach upon the meadows; that a great part of the meadowland was already
buried and useless for grass, and that the whole was likely to be covered
with sand if the drifting were not prevented in time. The act prescribed
a penalty of forty shillings a head for neat cattle, horses, or mares turned
at large to feed “between said meadows and Provincetown bounds.’’
This act was limited to five years from the time of publication, but the
evil was not easily undone and a similar act was passed on April 5, 1745,
for a limited period. The later act was extended, by successive acts
of 1751, 1755, 1760, 1770, 1776, 1779, and 1785, until November 1, 1797.
Thus was the experience of the inhabitants of the western coast of France
duplicated on the eastern shore of New England, and thus did Americans
begin the attempt to control by legislation the baleful effects of drifting
sand.
The act regarding the beaches of Truro was followed by one of Decem-
ber 28, 1739, directed toward the protection from drifting sand of the
meadows of Plumb Island, in Ipswich Bay. The preamble to this act
shows that the effects of forest fires, as well as of the cutting of trees
and the feeding of animals, were recognized as a contributing cause to
the encroachments of drifting sand. This act forbade the running at
large on Plumb Island of any animals, under penalty of twenty shillings
each for cattle, horses, or mares, and five shillings each for sheep or swine;
imposed a penalty of ten pounds for firing the beach grass, bushes, or
397
398 BULLETIN 370
shrubs; and provided a forfeit of ten shillings for each bush, shrub, or tree
under six inches in diameter cut from the said beach or marsh. This
act was limited to five years, but was repeatedly extended during the
colonial and confederation period until November 1, 1797.
On January 9, 1741, a penalty of forty shillings per head was imposed
for cattle, horses, or mares not owned by an inhabitant, found feeding
on the lands of Provincetown. So serious had the drifting of sand become
even then that this act appears to have had chiefly in view the protection
of Cape Cod harbor. The waste was so complete that the exodus of
inhabitants rendered it necessary to pass a special enabling act on Novem-
ber 11, 1743, to authorize the few remaining inhabitants to conduct
local affairs as if they had sufficient population for a town, and by an
act of April 5, 1745, the Governor and Council were authorized to draw
on the public treasury of the colony for the amount necessary to maintain
a pound for animals taken up in Provincetown in the enforcement of
the law.
The act of January 9, 1741, also limited strictly the amount of stock
which the inhabitants of Provincetown might themselves keep, and
imposed penalties for the cutting of trees or bushes. This act was revived
and continued by various successive acts until November 1, 1797.
Similar acts were passed for the protection of nearly a dozen other
meadows and beaches during the colonial period, and several laws of
this character were enacted during the confederation. An act of March
7, 1797, after the establishment of the Union, made many of these acts
perpetual. |
_— COOPERATIVE FORESTRY
From the time of the very earliest settlements in New England there
existed sequestered commons which to all practical purposes were town
communal forests. The year 1744, however, marks the introduction of
an entirely new idea in the use and control of a common forest. This
was nothing less than the organization of a number of private owners
of forest land into a sort of corporation, for the purpose of managing
their contiguous lands as a single unit, with the conscious intention of
growing wood crops. On March 24, 1744, the General Court of the
Province of Massachusetts Bay authorized any five proprietors of the
lands embraced within Chebacco Woods, in the town of Ipswich, to
apply to a justice of the peace, setting forth in writing their purpose to
establish a common woods. The justice was then to make out warrants
authorizing a call for a meeting of all proprietors, and if at this meeting
two-thirds of all the proprietors, ‘“‘reckoned by interest,’’ should see
meet, they might by a vote embody themselves into a society in which
all the proprietors owning land within the proposed limits should be
Forest LEGISLATION IN AMERICA PRIOR TO MARGH 4, 1789 399
included. The proprietors were to control and manage this wood like the
proprietors of other common fields and woods. Any party thinking
himself aggrieved by the action taken at the meeting could apply for
relief, and a court of general session would hear the cause and give
a judgment that should be binding. The act was unlimited as to the time
that the society should continue.
On January 9, 1755, the Massachusetts Court authorized the pro-
prietors of woodlands lying contiguous in the towns of Ipswich and °
Wenham, commonly known as ‘‘Wenham Great Swamp,’ to form an
association like that authorized for Chebacco Woods. The object of
this act is disclosed by the title, which read: ‘‘An Act for the securing
of the growth and increase of a certain parcel of wood and timber in
the towns of Ipswich and Wenham, in the county of Essex.’’ The opera-
tion of this act was at first limited to ten years, but it was extended by
successive acts until November 1, 1797. On March 7, 1797, this act,
and another of March 6, 1793, covering other lands in the towns of Ipswich,
Wenham, Beverly, and Manchester, were made perpetual.
USE OF RIVERS AS HIGHWAYS FOR LOGS, RAFTS, AND OTHER TIMBER
At a session of the General Assembly of Connecticut begun on May 14,
1752, an act was passed “‘to prevent secret Trespasses in taking up and
disposing of Saw Mill Logs and other Timber, Shingles and Staves, floating
or floated down the Connecticut River.’”’ Any person taking up such
logs or timber “fairly marked,” or shingles and staves which were bundled,
was required, within one week, to “enter the same with the kind, bigness,
length, and marks on the logs and timber, the number of bundles and the
kind of the shingles and staves, and by whom taken up, and the place
where they. lye, with such clerk or clerks where strays and lost goods are
by law to be entered, and shall let such logs, timber, shingles, and staves
lye without disposing thereof, or any ways defacing the marks thereon,
full six months after the first entering the same; on penalty of forfeiting
Biaedaviie tO bie Gwner OF OWNETS.... 2.26.22. 2.4. s the sum of
ten shillings for every log or other stick of timber not exceeding thirty
feet in length, and double the value of such shingles or staves and ten
pounds for every log or other stick of timber which exceeds thirty feet
in length.” The person taking up the logs or timber was entitled to
a fee of one shilling and two pence for every log or stick not over thirty
feet long, and the same for a bundle of shingles or staves, and four shillings
and two pence for every log or stick over thirty feet long; three pence
of the reward for each log or stick to be given to the clerk for the recording.
An owner of timber thus taken up and entered who took it away without
paying the required fees, forfeited ten shillings for every log or stick
400 BULLETIN 370
not over thirty feet long, the value of the shingles or staves, and five
pounds for every log or stick over thirty feet long. If no owner appeared
in six months, the person taking up the timber could convert it to his
own use.
In October, 1771, a similar law was enacted to prevent the theft of
timber products from the Windsor Ferry River, and the General Assembly
of Connecticut held at New Haven in October, 1785, passed an act pro-
' viding that any one who should stop, take up, or interrupt any mast, yard,
or spar, over forty feet in length, floating down the Connecticut River,
in Connecticut and above Middletown, without authority from the owner,
should be liable for double damages to the owner.
An enactment of April 28, 1781, in Massachusetts, provided that if
timber were left by spring floods, on any improved land adjoining the
Connecticut River, the owner of the land was to cause to be recorded
in the Book of Records of the town the marks and lengths of the said timber
and the place where it was left. He was then entitled to one shilling
as reasonable damages for each stick of timber so left, two pence of which
amount was to go to the town clerk as a fee for recording. A proviso
saved to the owner of the timber the right to cause it to be removed by
the 15th day of May succeeding the time when it was left, without liability
for damages. However, if the owner of the timber failed to have it removed
Within twelve months from the date of the recording with the town clerk,
the timber was to be adjudged the property of the owner of the land.
By the terms of this act all islands within the Connecticut River were
excepted from its provisions, but an additional act of July 7, 1786, ex-
tended its provisions to ‘‘Smead’s Island”’ in the Connecticut River.
New Jersey early recognized that it was necessary for the colonies to
boldly break away from the view of the English common law, that only
tidal rivers were navigable, and the important part which the development
of her timber resources played in this movement appears in the words
of an act passed by the General Assembly on August 20, 1755, as follows:
Wuereas, The Transportation of Timber, Plank, Boards, Hay, and other Things
to Market by Water, is a great Conveniency to the Inhabitants of this Colony, and
the Preservation of those Advantages are highly worthy the Care of the Legislature,
Bena ena Cledam. eee ere rior That if any Person or Persons without first
obtaining an Act of the General Assembly for that Purpose, shall, after the Publication
of this act, erect any Dam, Bank, Sluice or other Thing which shall obstruct or pre-
vent the free and uninterrupted Navigation of any River, Creek, or Stream of Water
within this Colony, which is used for the Navigation of Boats or Flats, or for the
transporting of Hay, Plank, Boards, or Timber, or shall fall any Trees across such
Creek, or throw Brush or other Filth in any Part thereof, between the Mouth thereof
and the uppermost Place thereon, now or of late used as a Landing, he, she, or they
so offending shall severally forfeit the Sum of Five Pounds, Proclamation Money.
On March 9g, 1771, the Pennsylvania Legislature declared the Delaware
and Lehigh Rivers and certain parts of the Neshaminey and Lechawaxin
Forest LEGISLATION IN AMERICA PRIOR TO MaRcH 4, 1789 401
freeks to) be. common highways*.. ..\sc5o:... 06. a for vessels, boats,
small craft and rafts of any kind whatsoever,” and in another act of the
same date made certain parts of the Susquehanna and Juniata Rivers
and several smaller streams public highways for the same vessels. On
April 13, 1782, the Monongahela and Youghiogheny Rivers were made
highways “‘so far up as they or either of them have been or can be
made navigable for rafts, boats and canoes, and within the bounds and
limits of this State.’”’ The economic necessity that led to the overthrow
by legislation of the common-law test of navigability is strikingly dis-
closed in the language of a Pennsylvania act of March 31, 1785, which
read: :
And WHEREAS, The extensive countries which are watered by the river Susquehanna,
and the numerous branches thereof, are stocked with immense quantities of oak, pine
and other trees, suitable for staves, heading, scantling, boards, planks, timbers for
ship-building, masts, yards and bowsprits, from which great profit and advantage
might arise to the owners thereof, if the same could be conducted in rafts and other-
wise, down the said river, to the waters of Chesapeak, which trees must otherwise
perish on the lands whereon they grew: For remedy whereof,
Sec. IV. Be it enacted by the authority, aforesaid, That the river Susquehanna
shall be deemed and taken to be a public highway, in all parts thereof within this state,
from the division line of the state of Maryland and this state upwards to the town
of Northumberland, in the county of Northumberland, and thence, by and along each
of the two great branches of the same river, which meet at the said town, in and through-
out the whole length and breadth of the same river.
These acts marked the beginning of a policy which was extended to
numerous rivers in Pennsylvania, New York, and New England by acts
passed subsequent to the formation of the national Union, and eventually
adopted in Central, Western, and Southern States.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
“FOR MASSACHUSETTS
Compact, Charter, and Laws, Colony of New Plymouth, p. 28, 34, 59, 89, 113, 251;
44, 119, 275, 156, 165, 164; 156; 134, 153, 163.
Plymouth Colony Records, Vol. II (1623-1682), p. 28, 54; 59.
Records of Massachusetts Bay Colony:
_ Vol. I (1628-1641), p. 90, 281; 101, 292; of.
Vol. II (1642-1649), p. 180 (cf. Vol. III, p. 102); 169.
Vol. III (1644-1657), p. 375.
Vol. IV, Part 1 (1650-1660), p. 417; 222, 146, 222.
Vol. IV, Part 2 (1661-1674), p. 421; 499.
Vol. V (1674-1686), p. 23.
General Laws and Liberties of Massachusetts Colony, 1672, reprinted in Colonial
Laws of Massachusetts, p. 51; p. 160 sec. I, p. 165 sec. 2.
Acts and Resolves, Province of Massachusetts Bay:
Vol. I, p. 42, 324; 213, 655; 20, 181; 642.
Vol. II, p. 423, 916, 917; 6; 967, 993, 1042:
Vol. III, p. 40, 264, 647, 682; 128, 362, 533; 209, 516, 869, 181, 574, 755, II7, 210,
326, 984, 338, 339, 361, 429, 446, 485, 486, 546, 739, 808, 868, 132, 799.
Vol. IV, p. 617; 573, 766; 370, 530, 973,(22, 23, 370, 434, 530, 617, 973, 974, 731,
974.
Vol. V, p. 86, 459, 1122; 39, 259, 904; 86, 458, 1121, 174, 457, 174, 457, 1120, 39,
86, 174, 259, 457, 903, 1120, 175, 459, IT12.
Acts and Resolves, Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
(1784-1785), p. 469, 157; 463, 462, 463, 463, 469.
(1782-1783), p. 107, 532, 635; 106.
(1780-1781), p. 480.
Vol. II (Boston, 1807), p. 765.
Laws of Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1780-1807):
Vol. I (Boston 1807), p. 228; 258, 108; 103, 164; 53, 335.
Vol. I (Boston 1823), p. 204.
Vol. II, p. 997 (cf. Acts and Resolves, Prov. Mass. Bay, Vol. I, p. 181); 765.
Vol. I (Boston 1801), p. 224, 238.
Colonial Laws of Massachusetts, p. 146 sec. 6; p. 17 sec. I, p. 122 sec. I, p. 169 sec. 32.
Charter and General Laws of Massachusetts Colony and Province, chap. 150, p. 444.
General Laws of Massachusetts, Vol. I, chap. 22 p. 92; chap. 15 p. 88, chap. 54 p. 136;
chap. 31 p. 44, chap. 31 p. 44, chap. 26 p. 268, chap. 31 p. 87.
Private and Special Statutes of Massachusetts:
Vol. I, p. 16, 438. ;
Vol. ITI, p. 4.
FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE
Provincial Papers of New Hampshire (Concord 1867):
Vol. I (1623-1686), p. 139, 392; 138, 303.
Vol. III, p. 334.
Vol. III, part 2 (1692-1722), p. 115, 120, 334.
Laws of New Hampshire (Manchester 1904), Vol. I (1679-1702), p. 739, 21; 739,
592, 684; 82, 83, 208; 83.
History of the Lumber Industry of America, by J. E. Defebaugh, Vol. II, p. ro.
Collection, New Hampshire Historical Society, Vol. VIII (1680-1692), p. 40, 42, 53.
Acts and Laws, Province of New Hampshire:
(Portsmouth 1726), p. 27, 41; 41, 27; 143.
(Portsmouth 1771), chap. 18 p. 30, chap. 32 p. 45; chap. 32 p. 45, chap. — p. 28;
chap. 20 p. 32, chap. 94 p. 147, chap. — p. 225 (cf. Acts and Laws, Prov. N. H.,
Portsmouth 1761, p. 142).
(Portsmouth 1761), p. 190; 123, 144.
Laws of State of New Hampshire (Exeter 1815), p. 418.
FOR CONNECTICUT
New Haven Colonial Records:
Vol. I (1638-1649), p. 155; 25, 48, 83, 155, 165, 213, 358.
Vol. II (1653-1665), p. 589.
403
404 BULLETIN 370
sy cgee of Spagee
ol. 1636-1665), p. 526; 60, 6, 558; 65, 60, 67, ; 114, 248, 410.
Vol. II (1665-1678), p. —. ea 3 thet beats
Vol. III (1678-1689), p. 235.
Vol. IV (1689-1706), p. 316.
Vol. V (1706-1716), p. 434, 514, 499.
Vol. VI (1717-1725), p. 60.
Vol. VII (1726-1735), p. 456; 80, 519.
Vol. IX (1744-1750), p. 286.
Vol. X (1751-1757), p. 101.
Vol. XIII (1768-1772), p. 514.
Acts and Laws, Colony of Connécticut (New London 1750), p. 247; 246; 238.
Acts and Laws, State of Connecticut (Hartford 1786), p. 254; 253; 245, 312; 334.
FOR RHODE ISLAND
Records of the Colony of Rhode Island, Vol. I (1636-1663), p. 107; 15, 97, 74, 175; 97.
Acts and Laws, Colony of Rhode Island and Dioedeace Se aed Pe ea
(Newport 1745), p. 36, 90; 285, 286; 27, 27; 162.
(Newport 1752), p. 97.
Early Records, Town of Providence, Record of the Commissioners of the City of
Providence:
Vole lip: 3:
Vol. II, p. 54, 61, 141 (cf. p. 116).
Vol. III, p. 90.
History of the Lumber Industry of America, by J. E. Defebaugh, Vol. II, p. 298.
FOR NEW YORK
Colonial Laws of New York (Albany 1894):
Vol. I, p. 36, 716; 401; 164.
Vol. III, p. 318.
Vol. TV, Pp. 304, 315, 395; 687, 898, IIl2, 508, 937; 371.
Vol. V, p. 769; 390.
Laws of New York (Greenleaf, 2d ed., 1798), Vol. II, p. 187; 122, 128.
Documents Relative to the Colonial History of New York, Vol. IV, p. 225, 262, 266,
298, 302, 313, 501, 552, 587, 620, 632, 668, 672, 675, 720, 784, 823, 850.
FOR NEW JERSEY
Grants, Concessions, Constitutions, and Acts, Province of New Jersey (Ed. by Leaming
and Spicer, Philadelphia 1752), p. 476; 129, 433; 343, 349 (cf. N. J. Archives, 1st
ser., Vol. XIII, p. 207, 208, 212, 215, 220; also East Jersey Rec., Vol. III, p. 172,
173; 343-
en tees Archives, First Series:
Vol. XIII, p. 113, 461-463.
Vol. XIV, p. 43, 44, 46, 69; 64 (cf. p. 26, 36, 38); 130-134.
Vol. XV, p. 293, 294, 302, 305, 311, 643 (cf. p. 347, 355, 359, 388, 584, 618, 628).
Vol. X XI, p. 29.
Laws of New Jersey:
(1717), P- 72.
(1732), p. 71.
(1800), p. 49. |
Acts of General Assembly, Province of New Jersey:
(1752), chap. 67 p. 260; chap. 9 p. 15; chap. 9 p. 15, chap. 78 p. 285.
(Burlington 1776), chap. 167 p. 114 (cf. N. J. Archives, 1st ser., Vol. XV, p. 139,
140, 150, 151), chap. 405 p. 272; chap. 38 p. 17 (cf. N. J. Archives, Ist ser.,
Vol. XIII, p. 534, 535, 537, 541; also Vol. II, p. 37), chap. 545 p. 354; chap. 38
p. 17, chap. 84 p. 42, chap. 188 p. 134, chap. 569 p. 381; chap. 271 p. 205.
(Woodbridge 1761), chap. 140 p. 263; chap. 123 p. 64.
Acts of State of New Jersey from Declaration of Independence to December 24, 1783
(Trenton 1784), chap. 194 p. 123, chap. 361 p. 331.
FOR PENNSYLVANIA
Votes and Proceedings, House of Representatives, Province of Pennsylvania (1752),
Vol. Di par2: 25;/26;. 19,010.
EE
te Mes ete le alii
Forest LEGISLATION IN AMERICA PRIOR TO MARCH 4, 1789 405
Laws of Province of Pennsylvania (1742), chap. 59 p. 24, chap. 335 p. 468; chap. 81 p.
32; chap. 80 p. 30.
Minutes of the Provincial Council, Pennsylvania (Colonial Records), Vol. II, p. 565.
Laws of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
(1700-1810), chap
Pole pO.
Vol. I, chap. 469 p. —, chap. 562 p. 277; chap. 626 p. 322, chap. 627 p. 324.
Vol. II, p. 528; chap. 966 p. 43, chap. 1144 p. 311.
Acts of General Assembly, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1782), chap. 161 p. 331.
FOR DELAWARE
Laws of State of Delaware (1797), Vol. I, p. 100, 226; 100; 227.
FOR NORTH CAROLINA
Laws of State of North Carolina (1791), p. 345, 441; 507; 494, 521.
Revised Acts of North
Archives of Maryland,
Carolina (1773), p. 457.
FOR MARYLAND
Proceedings of Assembly:
(1684-1692), p. 535.
(1704-1706), Vol.
XXVI, p. 304.
Laws of Maryland, 1724, chap. 14.
FOR SOUTH CAROLINA
Statutes at Large of South Carolina (1838):
Vol. III, p. 497 Act no. 648; p. 497 Act no. 648, p. 686 Act no. 744.
Vol. IV, p. 541 Act no. 1161.
FOR GEORGIA
Laws of State of Georgia, Prince’s Digest 1822, Vol. I, p. 245.
FOR VIRGINIA
Laws of Virginia (1823):
Vol. I, p. 135; 135.
Vol wil p23 3:
Vol. XII, p. 388, 499.
Economic History of Virginia, Bruce, Vol. I, p. 392.
P
FOR COLONIES IN GENERAL
Acts and Ordinances, Commonwealth of England (London 1658), p. 176.
Statutes at Large:
Ruffhead Series (London 1763):
Mol, flle-p: §82.267 (ch. Vol. FV; p.:179), 374; 381.
Vol. IV, p. 181 (cf. N. J. Archives, rst ser., Vol. II, p. 24), 408, 467, 603.
Vol. V, p. 197, 367, 663, 714.
Vol. VI, p. 406, 507.
Vol. VII, p. 402, 437, 409.
Vol. VIII, p. 360,
288.
Vole = 1435157.
Vol. X, p. 253, 10
9.
Vol. XI, p. 535, 232, 287.
Pickering Series (Cambridge 1765):
Vol. XIV, p. 384,
Volk XSexX? pa 33
387.
6.
Voll XEXOGT, pre560), 45 373 135-
Economic and Social History of New England (1620-1789), Weeden (New York 1891),
p. 156, 168, 243, 27
Industrial Experiment
p. 69, 92, 93, 100.
5, 356, 362, 394, 503, 578, 582, 586, 685, 687, 765, 783.
s in British Colonies of North America, Lord (Baltimore 1898),
H126 75 504
. $a