254 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



In the continued absence of such mutual understanding, the con- 

 tingency anticipated in the editorial comment on page 831 of the No- 

 vember, 1918, JouRNAi, OF FoRFSTRY may well come to pass. 



For instance, effort was made at the Arkansas Constitutional Con- 

 vention last August to include an amendment "aimed frankly at the 

 heavy holdings of the lumber companies." This provided authority for 

 "a. graduated tax on all unimproved, uncultivated, and uninclosed land 

 in excess of 2,500 acres." 



The proposed tax rate, starting at i per cent of assessed value, reaches 

 3 per cent of assessed value in 191 5, and is in addition to the other 

 State taxes. A further item provides that "no corporation shall here- 

 after acquire either legal or equitable title to any land in Arkansas, 

 except such as may be necessary for site and railroad purposes." 



As was to be expected, little attention seems to have been given to 

 this attempt, but the last Louisiana legislature made effective a law by 

 which a license is required for all persons, firms, and corporations 

 "engaged in the business of severing natural products from the soil." 



The license fee is payable quarterly and amounts to 2^ cents per 

 thousand feet for pine, 3 cents per thousand feet for oak and ash, 4 

 cents per thousand feet for cypress, and 2 cents per thousand feet for 

 all other timber, 2 cents a barrel for turpentine also being collected. All 

 timber operators are required to file specific statements as to the loca- 

 tion and character of their business. One-fifth of the collections are 

 expendable by the Forestry Division of the Department of Conserva- 

 tion (Lumber Trade Journal, September i, 1918, page 41). 



That "strange" legislation looking toward the radical revision of 

 present conditions is rather generally apprehended among the owners 

 of cut-over lands (ten million acres of which are said to be held 

 by members of the Southern Pine Association alone) is shown by 

 the somewhat guarded but widespread comment of the lumber trade 

 journals. 



The Secretary of the Georgia Land Owners' Association, for in- 

 stance, writes rather cryptically : 



"As to the necessity for owners of land to lead off in plans for their occupancy, 

 this is absolutely essential. If not, under our policy of Government they will 

 shortly be taxed away from their owners through single tax or some other taxing 

 scheme. . . . Certain it is that the owners of the land will miss their oppor- 

 tunity to get something for non-productive land now, because ... it will 

 be taxed away from them anyway" {Cut-over Lands, January, 1919, page 16). 



Cut-over Lands for December, 1918, page 4, refers again to a dilemma 

 in which large land holders find themselves. It appears to have been 



