68

28

operate in the scheme of afforestation."
But as we have seen in the case of Ger-
many, there is a great deal to be gain-
ed by working afforestation on a com-
prehensive and systematic plan that
shall be perfectly consistent and con-
tinuous over a long period of time; and
it is cearly impossible to secure
these advantages in the highest attain-
able degree, unless the work is taken
up by the State. So far as corporations
are concerned, the commercial bodies
best fitted to undertake afforestation
are raileay companies. "Railroards,"
says Mr. J. Gifford, of Cornell Univer-
sity, in an article on "The Railroads
and Forestry," "as a matter of fact
can produce timber to better advantage
than any oher proprietor"; and the
reasons he gives are that railroad com-
panies are long-lived, they mush have
timer for ties, and sleepers, and
bridges, and they can transport it at
a minimum cost. The reduction of the
future cost of maintenance is to such
corporations, as Mr. Gifford says, sim-
ply a business proposition, and he
quotes a large amount of evident to
show that in America they have made
a great success of it. In a country like
our own, where the railroads are in
the hands of the State, the arguments
in favour of afforestation by corporate
enterprise apply with equal force to the
assumption of this public duty by Gov-
ernment itself. As to action by pri-
vate individuals, a great deal has, of
course, been done by rich land owners
in England and America to repair the
ravages in the native forests, and to re-
stock their estates with timber. Even
in New Zealand, young and relatively
poor as the country is, reforestation
and afforestation have been carried out
more or less teantatively and experi-
mentally by a large number of our set-
tlers and station holders. The work
done in this respect by Mr. J. Hall, at
Parawai (chiefly experiments on the
growth of indigenous trees), by Mr.
R. Reynolds, at Cambridge, and by Mr.
T Adams at Freendale, Canterbury, de-
serves public recognition, not to say
public gratitude. Those of my read-
ers who have had occasion to refer to
our Government publications bearing
on the land, and its products must be
familiar with the reports of Mr. Adams
upon the growth of imported trees,
whcih form a permanent feature of teh
Official year Book of the Dominion.
But each experimental works, valuable
as it undoubtably has proved itself to
be, lacks the essential requisites
of comprehensiveness and continu-
ity; and apart of all other con-
siderations, the heavy expense and
the long period of waiting involved,
render it impossible that any systematic
scheme of afforestation or reforesation
could be undertaken in New Zeaand
by private enterprise alone. In this
country, where we have extended the
functions of Government with such
beneficial results to so many forms of
public work and duty, we may fairly
throw the chief responsibilty for the
replanting of our forests and the re-
plenishing of our timber supply upon
the State.

WHAT NEW ZEALAND HAS DONE.

I may say here taht I do not suppose
that many people whose attention has
not been specially called to the facts
of the case, have any idea of the
amount of work already done in this
direction in New Zealand by our vari-
ous Governments. As Mr. Kensington,
the Under-Secretary for Lands, pointed
out recently in his evidence before the
Timber Commission, reforesattion, as
the work of a State department, has
been in existence in this country only
about ten years. During this period,
the whole of the outlay--some £1,000
in all--has been drawn from the re-
ceipts from the State Forests. Not a
single penny has yet been voted by
Government for the special purpose of
reforestation. But, in spite of the in-
adequate financial basis on which our
Forestry Department is founded,
much valuable work has been done.
About 63,500,000 trees and seedling
have been planted, of which over 6,000-