On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
ARTICLE 2. MESSRS. EDITORS—Bertholdi, the authority I have mentioned in my former communication, gives more glaring illustrations as to the high importance to every civilized nation of a systematic cultivation of trees. Holland, he remarks, is a country naturally poor in the growth of timber, therefore it has to be supplied with wood for building houses and ships by the neighboring countries, namely, Wur-temberg, Baden, and Bavaria, from whence an enormous quantity is annually imported at an almost fabulous cost. Were it not that Holland possesses rich fields of peat, it would be a poor country, notwithstanding its highly productive foreign colonies and its great commerce. This is the case with the peasantry on the shores of the Rhine, where a most fertile soil for the cultivation of vines and grain of every description exists, and yet comparative poverty is produced on account of the large amount of money required to be annually expended on wood. France is next taken lip, and it is said that its geographical position and its climate are extremely favorable for a rich production of timber, but the government of la grande nation keeps employed ignorant, arrogant and utterly corrupt foresters, and instead of a rich revenue from this large natural source, the government has a great surplus in the expenditures every year. Although stringent laws are in existence, and severe punishment is inflicted on every poor peasant who violates them, to prevent any illegal destruction, the yield in general throughout France is not one quarter of what it would be from a rational management. The contrast between Germany and France is most remarkable. It is shown by the relative states of two forests, the one on the boundary of Germany, and the other on the adjoining boundary of France, where there is no difference of climate and soil. One is in the Department de Bas Rhin, the other in Bavaria. The French forest is five times as large as that of Bavaria, and while the latter government draws a net revenue of 46,000 francs annually, the former has a surplus expenditure of 10,000 francs in the same period. Such facts are sufficient, I believe, to convince the most sceptical on the doctrine of a systematic cultivation of trees. L. R. BREISACH.
