FOREST TAXATION 655 



as well as more recently, attempts were made by them and timberland 

 owners to correct the evils of the system by passing legislation post- 

 poning the date of payment of taxes. These early attempts were 

 based on the fallacy that a harvest tax which took a part of the final 

 yield in lieu of a regular tax against the soil was just in theory and 

 easy of application. Much has been written on the subject of forest 

 taxation from the standpoint of the harvest tax, and much of that 

 which has been written must be discounted, for, in many cases, at 

 least, a special interest of some sort was the urge which fathered the 

 thought. Or, lacking that interest, the author's judgment was biased 

 by the mass of literature emanating from such sources. Under the 

 influence of one line of reasoning or another measures religiously 

 dedicated to the theory of the harvest tax have been enacted, and just 

 as religiously these laws have failed to accomplish their purpose. 

 Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont have had such laws on their 

 statute books for a period of time sufficiently long to prove that these 

 laws are not popular, and to strengthen the conviction long held in my 

 mind that the harvest tax is wrong in theory. Also, there are others 

 among us who, upon sober second thought, have come to doubt that 

 the harvest tax theory of taxtion is correct. Stated simply, and with 

 no attempt at a full analysis, the harvest tax theory is wrong because 

 it assumes that the owner of land is bearing his just share of govern- 

 ment if he divides his income with the State, be his income large or 

 small. If the final crop is poor, the tax is small ; if it is heavv, tlie 

 tax is large. Therefore, the system penalizes thrift and good hus- 

 bandry and rewards sloth. In my judgment it is unfair and unjust 

 to both the land owner and to the State, for the crop produced is no 

 criterion of the owner's ability to pay. The system violates nearly 

 every tenet of taxation and its failure was therefore inevitable. 



Perhaps the framers of the measures which have been tried and 

 failed saw the difficulties and shortcomings in the harvest tax theory 

 and attempted to correct the evils by levying a small harvest tax in 

 order that the wrongs might be mitigated, and also a small yearly soil 

 tax as well, to even matters up a bit. This soil tax was a flat tax of a 

 few cents per acre per year based on a fixed assessed value of say 

 $2.50 per acre. But here again the system fell down because it failed 

 to measure up to the ability-to-pay axiom. The system is wrong 

 because it is based on the assumption that there will be a steady 



