The Worthington advance., 1879-04-17
LITTER FROM 0NCOMllLSSIONER BLOOM
IN REPLY ~ Mr.. PORTER.

IN NREPLY ~ Mr. PORTER.
EDITOR ADVANCE: IT you will allow
me little space in the columns OF the
ADVANCE, 1 would like to make few
statements in reply to Friend Porter's
letter on Tree Bounty" which appear
ed in the ADVANCE April 10, 1870. Mr..
Porter says that in NOV. planted $500
box-alier trees covering 13 acres' and
that he filled in between rows with ash
seeds, making trees and seeds from 8
to feet apart in rows. Planted $500
cottonwood cuttings covering 20 acres.
Planted every other row of cuttings
with ash seeds. In the year 1876 about
Ais Of box-al,ters grew, not more than
! of cuttings grew. Grasshoppers killed
boc-alders in '78 and ~ they also took
every ash tree ,chen about four inches
high and most Of cottonCootls that qre,c."
Now if we were looking for corrobor-
sti"g testimony to sulstantiate our re-
port concerning said Bounty Claim,
We could not do better than to take
Mr.. Porter's own statement AZ such
proof. 1 will quote from our report:
I'VE have arrived at the following con-
clusions viz: that nearly all of the trees
growing upon said timber claims have
been planted thereon within the last
two years. That the trees alleged to
have been planted thereon in Nov. 1875,
were not successfully groom and cult;-
uatetl. That the said trees planted in
Nov. 1875 were at the time of said ap-
plication a:,d claim for county bounty
was made, more than one rod apart on
port agrees with Mr.. Porter's state
ther says: ''Spring Of ~. l set II 600 Of
one year old cottonwood trees. Nov.
'77Planted q acres to box-aItle' 8. Spring
and planted n acres additional. lie
says Ills statement is correct, and 50 do
/. l believe every word Of it to be
true.
1t will be seen that Mr.. Porter has
planted about 81 .O97 trees according to
his own statement within the last two
act is concern I'll MIR. Porter has done
remarkably well. He has certainly
shown i disposition to overcome all Oh
stacles III the way Of tree culture. But
Mr.. Porter. rs well rs many others, has
!abored under i greet misapprehension
in regard to bounty.
governing the payment Of bounty are
entirely different. Under the former,
seeds, cuttings or trees may be planted; !;
may be destroyed by grassi,oppers or
other cause, and if replanted will not
work a forfeiture Of a tree claim. Not
80 in regard to County bounty. I have
not copy of the session laws of 1871,
containing the bounty act, at hand.
Think CAN give the substance of it
however, viz: Any person who shall
plant and successfully gro,o and cult
cate for three years one acre of Forest
Trees etc, etc, shalt be entitled to 4
bounty OF 81 tor every one 50 planted.
Said trees shall be so planted that at
the end of three years they will stand
not more than one rod apart. Provld-
ed that sucl, trees shall be planted with
in Eve years from the passage Of said
act. and that such application for boun-
~ SnoA uc uduc WlIIlIu IDtee years al
ter planting said tree. Said act was
passed March 6, 1871. Consequently
trees that were planted after March s,
1876. whether replanting former plant.
ings or original, would not entitle the
planter to any county bounty. In act
ing upon Mr.. P0rter's CLAIM we simply
doue our duty according to law, and
the same rule will be observed in acting
| upon all the similar cases that may
| come before us. Mr.. Porter claims we
done him an injustice because he was
not present when we viewed his tree
claim. We did not get his letter ask.
ing to be present until too late. We
certainly would have preferred to have
had him present. Had the day not
been too stormy would have gone to see
him. But our action could not have
been otherwise had hs been present.
F. BLOOM.