Communication.

We invite all members of the University to contribute to this column, but we are not responsible for the sentiments expressed. Every communication must be accompanied by the name of the writer.

To the Editors of the Crimson:

In your editorial of this morning you say certain things about a foresters' chances to get training at Harvard which Harvard men who are thinking of entering the profession ought to realize; but as the editorial is also in accord with the common misconception of the forester's business, may I add a word to it?

You say that "a man who intends to follow the profession of forestry will not do ill to begin his work here." This is most true if it is read with a strong accent on the "begin." He could acquire here the knowledge of surveying, of geology, of meteorology which, as you say, are essential. He could also study agriculture, chemistry, horticulture and landscape gardening, and if he became a forester would doubtless be glad of his knowledge. But these things will carry him no further than courses on chemistry, botany and biology, however useful, would carry a student of medicine. The tissue and substance of the professional training of the forester, just as in the case of the doctor, are quite distinct and peculiar. I do not believe that we have anybody here who could pretend to give this training, and even if we should secure some one to do the teaching, we should still lack proper equipment. It is misleading to speak as if the College, apart from the professional schools, could give the would-be forester more than it gives anyone else, a good foundation for his special knowledge.

How distinct and technical the training of a real forester must be very few people seem to understand. Even your editorial betrays a common misconception by speaking of the "esthetic side of the profession." A forester may have an esthetic side just as a lumberman may, but forestry itself is no more concerned with esthetic questions than is the lumber business. In fact in the east forestry is nothing but scientific lumbering. Its object is commercial. Its problems are expressed in terms of board feet, rate of reproduction, access to a market--terms which a landscape architect has nothing to do with--and the trees which park commissioners and landscape gardeners look upon with the greatest pleasure are considered by the forester as timber that is over-ripe or "forest weeds." To give proper training in this profession Harvard would have to secure no small equipment, and to set out to do this at present would seem to me to be following our pride rather than our good sense. There are still comparatively few men who are going in for forestry. These are more than provided for by the schools at Biltmore, Cornell and New Haven, and for various reasons we should find it hard to rival what Yale, helped by the Pinchot family, is doing already. I cannot see, therefore, how Harvard can profitably pretend to do more than she is really doing now--let anyone study anything which he thinks will help him when he gets to a professional school.  HENRY JAMES, 2D.

June 5