97 



ner in which the taxes rest on the timber land in fee simple south of the international 

 boundary line. 



If a legislature wants to dig the grave of conservative forestry, it can do so by 

 charging it with heavy taxation (or ground rent), or by refusing it protection from 

 unjust assessment, emanating from a short-sighted political attitude. 



In the lake states the forest has been killed, in many a case not by the lumber- 

 man, but by high taxation. 



The United States have propagated their industries during the last 25 years, more 

 or less artificially, by paternal taxation. I refer to the indirect taxation, consisting 

 of high customs duties on importations competing with home production. 



Undesirable industries for instance, the liquor industry may be restricted, on 

 the other hand,- by high taxation. Similarly, we can down conservative forestry for 

 ever by imposing on the forest a rate of taxation (or ground rents, the result being 

 the same) which the forestry business cannot endure. 



It can be readily proven that the final gross revenue obtainable from conservative 

 forestry is offset by the counter action of heavy annual fees (taxes or ground rents), 

 accumulating at a compound rate of interest, like the premium in a life insurance. 



It seems to me that the Canadian Forestry Association cannot avoid for any 

 length of time to touch the sore spot of ground rente, one of the most vital interests 

 of forestry being involved in the problem. Not knowing whether it is wise, front 

 the political standpoint, to force the problem to the front to-day it might be as well to 

 delay further discussion until our next meeting. 



The CHAIRMAN. I will be quite ready to discuss the question at the proper time, 

 and in the proper place. This resolution is of so controversial a character that we 

 could not possibly pass it without a very long discussion. If we are to dispose of this 

 resolution now, the chances are that we will have to abandon the excursion which has 

 been planned for us. 



Mr. RECORDER WEIR. It is not so serious as that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chown is 

 prepared to accept your suggestion that the controversy involved in dealing with the 

 resolution be postponed till next meeting. He simply gives notice of motion that the 

 matter will be brought up then. It is clearly a matter of vital importance, and it is 

 evident that there are two sides to it. It seems to me that Mr. Chown is simply exer- 

 cising his constitutional rights in offering it as a notice of motion, to come up at the 

 next annual meeting for discussion and disposal. If this is accepted we need not 

 spend any more time over it. 



The CHAIRMAN. That is just what I thought. If there was any necessity for 

 giving a notice of motion in order to have it before the next meeting, there would be 

 absolutely no doubt of his right to make it as a notice of motion. 



Mr. CHOWX. Well, I would ask to be allowed to let the matter drop, and have 

 the motion withdrawn. 

 113987 



