8 



FORESTRY AND IRRIGATION 



January 



ber company as rather indifferent 

 wood lots." 



Speaking of the rights of others, 

 does any one really have the right to 

 ruin for all men the mountain land- 

 scape? Is this not a moral infringe- 

 ment on the rights of others? If the 

 law allows it, then the "others" have 

 need of more legal rights to make 

 good their moral rights. 



But, on the other hand, have the 

 "others," represented by the State, the 

 moral right to confiscate, through un- 

 justly heavy taxation, the property 

 rights of the owners of standing tim- 

 ber, thus forcing them to cut their 

 woods, and cut them clean, or else 

 lose them? 



Forcing A huge obstacle to the 



Destruction preservation of privately 

 owned forests is the sys- 

 tem of taxation in vogue which, year 

 after year, taxes the full timber value 

 of the trees, whether used or not, as 

 though timber were a series of crops, 

 whereas, under present policies, it is 

 only one crop. The taxation applies 

 even before the trees are mature, hence 

 they are often cut when they should 

 be allowed to grow much longer. 



This system is found in most of the 

 States, and is often buttressed by con- 

 stitutional provisions. Amendments 

 must be made wherever necessary; for 

 it is imperative that the immense 

 amount of privately owned woodland 

 shall be saved from forced destruc- 

 tion. With citizens and States, as well 

 as the Federal Government, anxiously 

 asserting themselves to extend the for- 

 est area, it is preposterous to compel 

 the cutting of that which exists, and 

 which the owners might be glad to 

 leave standing. 



That dififiiculties attend the question 

 of forest taxation will be evident on 

 reflection. The lumberman's conten- 

 tion that he is not a sinner above all 

 others, but simply a business man, 

 seeking, like other business men, to 

 realize on his investment, is unassail- 

 able. If attacked with the weapon of 

 taxation the average business man, in 



whatever line, will seek to protect him- 

 self, though at the expense of the pub- 

 lic interest. The evidence in support 

 of this point is overwhelming. 



When, however, it is proposed ma- 

 terially to reduce the tax on timber in 

 order to prevent the cutting of the 

 forests, the objection is raised that this 

 act involves discrimination against 

 other property owners in favor of the 

 big lumber companies and the rich 

 lumbermen, and that such discrimina- 

 tion is both unfair and impolitic. 



In an article of this issue by Mr. 

 C. H. Goetz the proposal is made that 

 the tax be laid not on standing, but on 

 cut, timber. Such a tax would surely 

 operate toward saving the forests. If 

 it is argued that the tax on cut timber 

 would be evaded because the logs 

 would be quickly removed, the answer 

 is that the fresh stumps would testify 

 clearly to the cutting. 



In his recent trip through Wiscon- 

 sin and Michigan, the editor of this 

 publication heard the forest taxation 

 question discussed from various view- 

 points with energy, not to say feeling. 

 Forestry and Irrigation has no de- 

 sire to be dogmatic on the question of 

 methods. It sees clearly the end, and 

 earnestly desires to subserve it. Real- 

 izing the importance of the taxation 

 question it cordially invites the ex- 

 pression, through its columns, of indi- 

 vidual views on this question, whether 

 such expression takes the form of an 

 article, or of a mere paragraph. Let 

 us have all the light which can be 

 gotten. 



And, meanwhile, let it be remem- 

 bered that one solution of the problem 

 stands out clearly: that, namely, of 

 public ownership. National, State, or 

 municipal, as the case may be. With 

 the return, as on our National Forests, 

 of ID per cent of the proceeds to the 

 local community, the forest is saved 

 and the tax question is solved. 



The Rivers Inland waterways is an 

 and Harbors inspiring theme. The 

 Convention ^ ? ^ -^ .1 



proposals to unite the 



Potomac to the Ohio, Lake Michigan 



