1 ( 9 )
2 alle that these subordinates should be paid accordingly. As mentioned in para.
3 29 of this Report, this subject has been under consideration some time.
4 43, Prome Division. During the year under review, 49 cases of violation
5 ofthe Forest Rules were discovered in the Prome Division, and referred
6 for trial to the Civil Authorities. In 29 of these, fincs were imposed, varying
7 from lis, 30 to 60, in the Prome Court, and from Its. 2 to G6 in the Thayetmyo
8 Court, except in one instance, in which the amount was Rs. 10.
9 Mr. Elsner draws attention to this great disparity in the sentences, and can
10 only attribute it to the varied estimation in which Forest legislation is held.
11 41. Sittang Division, YExtensive Breaches of the Forest Rules of unpre-
12 cedented magnitude, and a state of things most discreditable to the Divisional
13 Mflicer, were brought to light in this Division towards the close of the year, on
14 the occasion of the Couscrvator’s inspection.
15 Notwithstanding tho discovery of illicit felling of Teak recorded in Adimi-
16 nistration Reports for 1867-68 and 1868-69, and the arrival at the Toungoo
17 Revenue Station of large quantities of half-scasoned timber, the felling of green
18 trees and illicit girdling on the part of the Permit Holders have been allowed
19 to exist unchecked to such an extent as to alter the entire character of large
20 #orest Tracts, and engender a wide-spread disregard for the Forest Rules among
21 the l’orest population.
22 Mr. Graham was immediately removed from the charge of the Division,
23 nnd subsequently suspended by ordcr of the Chief Commissioner.
24 45. The numerous disclosures reflecting alike on the administration of
25 the Divisional Officer and character of most of his subordinates, suggest the
26 adoption of a most rigid system of check in the sale of timber to Permit Holders
27 aud important altcrations in the working of the Forests.
28 46. It has not been possible yet to ascertain the exact amount of injury
29 done to the Forests. From a personal examination of the Myolha District, and
30 inquiries by the Conservator, there is reason to believe that nearly 2,000 trees
31 were girdled in 1870, without authority in this district, of which number se-
32 veral hundred have been also fc lled.
33 Similar if not more extensive Breaches of the Forest Rules have been
34 brought to light in the Thoukyaghat District by Mr. Adamson, the present
35 Divisional Officer, whose exertions, have also led to the discovery of violations of
36 the Rules in thé Koonoung, Khaboung, and Upyoo Districts.
37 There is some reason for believing that similar practices have becn in-
38 dulged in by the cmployds of the Permit Molders of othcr Forest Districts
39 including the Gwaythay and Bimbyay.
40 47. Proceedings held by Mr. Adamson on the 3rd April 1872 and con-
41 firmed by the District Magistrate, resulted in the Myolha Forest Permit, held
42 by the Burma Company Limited of Rangoon, being cancelled by the Chief
43 Commissioncr in P. W. D. No. 1475 of the 18th June 1872.
44 The Permit for the Thoukyaghat Forest was also cancelled by the Chief
45 Commissioncr in P. W. D. No. 1253, of the 20th May 1872, for Breach of
46 Forest Rule VI proved against Teen Cowrio Maistry, the Permit Holder, in
47 Conservator’s Proceeding dated 25th April 1372.