Taxation and forestry. 387 



again $19 in 1908, after we had sold $3,500 worth of timber from 

 a part of the whole. 



Contrast this with the assessment upon a tract of over 200 

 acres whose owners received about $30,000 for the lot in 1906. 

 Assessed at $5 in 1875, at $20 in 1900, at $75 in 1906, at $112 

 in 1907 (sale to timber company at this time helped assessors in 

 estimating its value), was then cut and returned to an assess- 

 ment of $5 in 1909- Another lot assessed at $3.50 in 1884, at 

 $9 in 1903, at $58 in 1904; timber was cut off in 1909, since which 

 tax has been $3.50 per acre- These last two tracts are 3 miles 

 from town officers. Chart these figures out, and you erect con- 

 spicuous monuments to stand-pattism. 



The country needs engineers and counsellors to direct and en- 

 courage the poor man who would go in there to seek health and 

 a wholesome competence and living. The country must be man- 

 aged so as not to kill off the golden goose, which in this case is 

 the timber, since the soil is only fit for forest. I am trying to 

 find the right sort of prescriptions for this ailment here. I be- 

 lieve this wild forest crop could be cultivated and attended to so 

 as to give a living to 50 men where one is so employed to-day, in 

 thinning, weeding, and in the right utilization of the product. 

 This would tend to repopulate the town and should help the 

 schools, etc. Our schools are expensive to a large degree on ac- 

 count of the small and scattered population, while in 1850 the 

 schooling cost $2.52 per pupil, to-day, about $50. Cannot the State 

 devise a method of State forestry in such impoverished towns? 



