The first director of this school, _Bernard Lorentz_, having become acquainted with and befriended by G. L. Hartig, and his assistant, afterward his son-in-law and successor, _Adolphe Parade_, having studied under Cotta (1817-1818) in Tharandt, this school introduced the science of forestry as it had then been developed in Germany; but later generations under _Nanquette_, _Bagneris_, _Broillard_, _Boppe_ and _Puton_, imbued with patriotism, attempted in a manner to strike out on original lines. As a consequence of the “unpatriotic” German tendencies of its first directors the continuance of the school at Nancy was several times threatened, there being friction between the administration of the school and the service, which in 1844 came to a climax, agents in the service being employed without preparation in the school, a condition which lasted until 1856. Even to date an active service of 15 years is considered equivalent to the education in the school for advancement in the service. In 1839, Lorentz was disgracefully displaced, in spite of his great merits, because he advocated too warmly the application of the superior system of regeneration under shelterwood to replace the coppice and selection forest, an incident almost precisely repeated in the State of New York in abandoning its State College at Cornell University; and in other respects the two cases appear parallel.[8] Parade, the successor of Lorentz being imbued with the same heretical doctrines was constantly in trouble, and in 1847, a most savage attack in the legislature was launched which threatened the collapse of the school. This condition lasted until Parade’s death, in 1864, when _Nanquette_ assumed guidance of the school and steered in more peaceful waters by avoiding all ideas at reforms and innovations, but otherwise improving the character of the school and introducing the third year study. But he, too, was much criticized and in difficulties until 1880; nor was _Puton_, his successor, free from troubles, until in 1889 a new regime and new regulations were enacted. [8] According to others (a reviewer of this volume), the difficulties which befell the institution were financial ones, “the too rapid conversion into timberforest reducing receipts, which the Minister of Finance resented.” Guyot’s history of the school, however, leaves little doubt of the above interpretation being correct. In the case of the State College at Cornell University, a later historian might similarly claim financial difficulties, the school having actually been closed for lack of appropriation; nevertheless political trickery was the real cause of this lack.