City Trees

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30054, 12 February 1963, Page 9

City Trees

Sir,—lt is good to hear the Supreme Court chestnut tree has had a reprieve. It is also interesting to hear that at the last council meeting a question was asked on the subject of preserving, rather than destroying, trees. But why no mention of this in council notes, nor of who asked the question, for the grateful thanks of all true lovers of trees are due to him or her. My own privacy and peace depend on the trees around by garden, many of which must be over 100 years old. We have them cared for year by year by an expert tree surgeon, second to none. Correct pruning, topping and removal of weight can keep a tree safe and healthy for many years. Let us hope this is the end of recent unnecessary slaughter of trees with years of health and beauty yet to go.—Yours, etc, JSC February 11, 1963. Sir, —I read in Saturday’s issue that the annual City Council inspection of trees was under way before the last council meeting, but what I would like to know is why this is only an annual event. Our city parks, reserves, and avenues justify a man with practical experience in a full-time position, as. in spite of annual inspections. trees have been left for years unattended. In the past the treatment used has followed one pattern—“ Remove the tree" —whereas judicious pruning would beautify and save the life of something that has taken perhaps a hundred years to grow.—Youra, etc, SAVE, NOT SLAY. February 11, 1963.