Transcription:
2 - J. M. illegible many ways - even the lumber itself when manufactured has a strong resemblance. Again their Manager
contradicted me emphatically, and so I determined to look it up. Later on another member of the party a California lumberman
also with whom I was discussing the matter, was equally emphatic in contradicting me and even went so far as to claim that
there was no such thing as Douglas spruce in the Sierra Revada Mountains, or in California for that matter. I told him that
I was so positive of my position that I would bet him anything he wanted and leave it to any well known naturalist or botanist
to determine, and mentioned your name as a good authority. Since then I returned home and referring to my library consulted
your National Parks and find that you support my contention absolutely on a member of different pages. My contention is that
the Red Fir does not grow at a lower altitude than about 5000 ft. and from that up to 8000, whereas the spruce grows from
5000 to 8000 ft. and it happened that we were at an altitude of less than 4000 when the discussion arose, and there is a very
marked difference in both the bark and needles and in fact general appenrance of the tree closer and look something like the
fronde of the palm, whereas the branches of the Spruce stand out much as they do on the Sugar Pine and the needles are smaller
and tesselated. To me there is such a marked difference that I cannot see any room for dispute, but as it has arisen I will
greatly appreciate it if you will be the means of settling it. In conclusion I want to any that while my business requires
me to be a fallen of trees, I am nearly as much a lover of the forests as your good self and try to study them, whenever I
am in them, largely as a result of your teachings. Thanking you in advance for this information,