and perhaps the same remark may be applicable to the ice of the rivers. These effects seem to result necessarily from the greater quantity of heat accumulated in the earth in summer since the ground has been cleared of wood and exposed to the rays of the sun, and to the greater depth of frost in the earth in winter by the exposure of its uncovered surface to the cold atmosphere."--Collection of Papers by Noah Webster, p. 162.] There are, in the constitution and action of the forest, many forces, organic and inorganic, which unquestionably tend powerfully to produce meteorological effects, and it may, therefore, be assumed as certain that they must and do produce such effects, UNLESS they compensate and balance each other, and herein lies the difficulty of solving the question. To some of these elements late observations give a new importance. For example, the exhalation of aqueous vapor by plants is now believed to be much greater, and the absorption of aqueous vapor by them much less, than was formerly supposed, and Tyndall's views on the relations of vapor to atmospheric heat give immense value to this factor in the problem. In like manner the low temperature of the surface of snow and the comparatively high temperature of its lower strata, and its consequent action on the soil beneath, and the great condensation of moisture by snow, are facts which seem to show that the forest, by protecting great surfaces of snow from melting, must inevitably exercise a great climatic influence. If to these influences we add the mechanical action of the woods in obstructing currents of wind, and diminishing the evaporation and refrigeration which such currents produce, we have an accumulation of forces which MUST manifest great climatic effects, unless--which is not proved and cannot be presumed--they neutralize each other. These are points hitherto little considered in the discussion, and it seems difficult to deny that as a question of ARGUMENT, the probabilities are strongly in favor of the meteorological influence of the woods. The EVIDENCE, indeed, is not satisfactory, or, to speak more accurately, it is non-existent, for there really is next to no trustworthy proof on the subject, but it appears to me a case where the burden of proof must be taken by those who maintain that, as a meteorological agent, the forest is inert.