FORESTRY. 381 



Middle States, the trees produced would not pay the taxes at the 

 rate now imposed on timber lands in the pine regions of Michigan, 

 Wisconsin and Minnesota. There is not a grove in the three states 

 today, which, at present or prospective value, a business man 

 would think of holding and paying taxes on for a quarter of a cen- 

 tury. The squatters on the pine sections of these states, with the 

 power of taxation vested in them by the state, render such preser- 

 vation of forests out of the question and preclude the possibility of 

 any general system of forestry, such as is practiced in Europe. 



Undoubtedly, anj^ reduction of taxation would be difficult, if not 

 impossible, to obtain. The new and popular fad of levying all taxes 

 on land is much inore likely to obtain than that there will be any 

 movement made to induce land owners to husband their timber for 

 future use. The present system is simply a premium on timber 

 destruction which is offered by the state. Nothing could be farther 

 from the true interests of the people, especially the agricultural 

 classes, than the taxation of timber lands, and to them it owes its 

 existence, and they seem to favor every move to increase the bur- 

 den. 



These lands will soon be denuded and fire swept as the legitmate 

 fruits of their system. There is no comfort in the reflection that 

 they will soon reap the reward of their folly, because it will fall 

 upon all classes. Better far that the state should provide not only 

 exemption from taxation, but pay a premium to those who -would 

 preserve for future use the timber we now have, than to inaugurate 

 a new and expensive system of bounties for tree planting. The in- 

 terest on the investments will more than keep pace with the en- 

 hancement of value by growth of timber. The circutnstance that 

 these lands, for most part, are worthless for agriculture or grazing 

 and will soon have no value whatever to state or owner, is a matter 

 of serious import. Under present conditions they are worthless as 

 a permanent investment. 



These truths may subject the writer to the silly charge that they 

 are written in the interest of the pine land owner. To suppose this 

 were true does not alter the facts, for it is plain that, while it is to 

 the interest of the public to have forests preserved, it is equally 

 true that it is not to the interest of the owner of pine land to hold it 

 and carry the burden of taxation imposed b}' the public. 



Taxation on lands should be proportioned to the income derived 

 from them, and measured by this rule, no pine land would pay taxes; 

 ita growth hardly pays the interest on its cost. The fact that the 

 government sold these lands so cheap that many purchasers realized 

 fortunes by investing in them, is a matter hardly worth mentioning 

 in this connection, as it cuts no figure in solving the problem of 

 how to secure a supply of timber for future use and conserve the 

 public interests in the health and wealth-producing influences of 

 forests. 



To their influence, it is claimed, we owe a heavy percentage of our 

 rainfall. What the result is to be when thej' are hewn down and 

 their place occupied by an arid sandj^ plain, remains to be seen; but 

 it cannot be too severe as a reward for the folly of this generation. 



