PROF.  E. G. CHENEY, UNIVERSITY FARM, ST. PAUL.

Several cities in the state have appointed “city foresters.”  This is a step in the right direction, if it is a precursor to the establishment of municipal forests for these men to manage; otherwise it is a misnomer and can only be misleading to the people.  The city governments, in an endeavor to create a complete park organization, have so far adopted this title from European practice without much regard to the duties of the officer.  A forester handles trees in mass formations,—­sometimes for timber production, sometimes for the protection of water-sheds, sometimes for aesthetic effect or park purposes,—­but always in the mass.

The handling of shade trees such as we have in our city streets is the work of an arborist.  The planting of large ornamental trees, the pruning of the individual for formal effect, the filling of cavities and the bracing of weak parts, are no part of a forester’s work; nor do they necessarily fall within his knowledge.  An expert should undoubtedly be in charge of the work, but an expert arborist, not a forester.  The title is, therefore, when combined with the present duties, unfortunate, because it gives the people—­still struggling with a hazy conception of forestry—­a wrong idea of the true character of the real forester’s work.

Two very obvious ways of avoiding the difficulty present themselves,—­either to change the title or to change the duties.  The former would probably be much easier of accomplishment, but the latter is without question the course which the city ought to pursue.  Since the cities have adopted the title of “city forester,” and so obtained a more complete park organization on paper, why not make the improvement real by adopting the rest of the European practice and creating city forests for these new officers to handle?  That would indeed be a real improvement, and one without which any city park system is lamentably lame.

Nearly every large city has some large park within in limits kept in a more or less natural condition as a recreation ground for its people, thus recognizing its influence for health and social betterment.  How much it would increase this influence if there were a considerable tract of forest within easy reach of the city!  How much better approach it would make to the city than the unsightly waste places so often encountered!  How much better setting it would make for the suburban residence sections!

Such a municipal forest is not a Utopian dream, but a practical thing well within the reach of almost any city.  The law passed by the last legislature makes it possible for a city to purchase land for such a purpose either within or without the city limits.  The activities of the present park boards show that money can be obtained to carry out such plans.  The establishment of the forests would be less expensive than is generally imagined.  The amount of money expended on the Gateway Park in Minneapolis would