6 



Agriculture, land which is now in sod, or in crops, or which has been 

 cultivated within three years, or which is about to be cultivated for 

 the first time, be regarded as cleared land. 



Second. That land not in either of the above conditions, but cov- 

 ered with a growth of shrubbery less than 15 feet high, be designated 

 as brush land, and this be divided into two classes; i. e., valuable, if it 

 promises to mature into timber; or, valueless, if it gives no promise 

 of producing timber. 



Third. That land in a woody growth which is over 15 feet high, 

 be designated as timber land, and divided (a) into evergreen, stating 

 whether pine (white or yellow), hemlock, spruce or cedar predomi- 

 nates; and (b) into hard wood, stating whether oak, hickory, chest- 

 nut, beech, birch, maple, poplar, basswood or cherry predominates; 

 adding whether this timber is best adapted to production of ties, 

 sawed timber, or of no use except as fuel. Is the timber in this 

 third division one-fourth, one-half, or three-fourths grown, or is it 

 mature? 



There appears to be nothing in this which a man of ordinary intel- 

 ligence could not readily place in proper form if a proper blank were 

 furnished him. It is confessedly superficial, but it is far in advance 

 of what we have hitherto been able to obtain. 



It is fairly a question whether or not it is wise to allow the re- 

 demption within two years of land sold for taxes. As a rule, those to 

 whom such land belongs are not straightened in circumstances. The 

 redemption clause simply, in many instances, interferes with im- 

 provement of the forest conditions of such land which can be under- 

 taken none too soon. Furthermore, if that redemption clause were* 

 repealed, it is more than likely that, very often, if not in most cases, 

 the tax would be paid, rather than allow the land to go to sale. The 

 county, at least, would then receive benefits from the change. 



The whole question of taxes in relation to timber lands is as 

 important as it is anomalous. It may be briefly stated at the outset 

 that the only class of property which existing law compels an owner 

 to destroy in self-protection is timber. There are thousands of 

 acres within the limits of this Commonwealth which might have been 

 (in the interest of the State) in timber to this day, if uncertain pro- 

 tection against fire and certain demands for taxes had not driven the 

 owners to remove the timber. If it is true, as asserted, and as the 

 experience of those nations with which we must compare ourselves 

 seems to show, that a state must in its own interest have a certain 

 (variable) proportion of its area in timber, or suffer in lack of it, 

 then our laws defeat their own purpose by driving the citizen to de- 

 spoil rather than to strengthen the State. An illustration may be 

 worth more than any abstract statement, however clear or pointed. 



In one of the interior counties of the State there was situated 



