30 



this whole system of forest taxation (on farm land) is so plainly 

 recognized by the farmers that repeated attempts have been made 

 to remove it from the list of taxable property. 



It is clear, however, that it would be unconstitutional to exempt 

 it from taxation wholly. It is not named by the constitution amon^ 

 the privileged classes of property, and therefore must for the present 

 remain subject to tax. That there may be no doubt upon this point, 

 we quote Article IX, Sec. I, of the State Constitution : 



"All taxes must be uniform, upon the same class of subjects, 

 within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and 

 shall be levied and collected under general laws; but the General 

 Assembly may, by general laws, exempt from taxation public prop- 

 erty used fo-r public purposes, actual places of religious worship, 

 places of burial not used or held for private or corporate profit, and 

 institutions of a purely public charity. 



"Section 2. All laws exempting property from taxation, other than 

 the property above enumerated, shall be void." 



There is, however, a most hopeful alternative. That the power ex- 

 ists to classify property for the purposes of taxation is clear from the 

 wording of Article IX, Sec. I, because the expression, "class of 

 subjects," is used therein. That this power belongs to the General 

 Assembly of the Commonwealth seems to be equally clear. See 

 discussion of this subject by J. Carroll Hayes, attorney-at-law, Re- 

 port of Department of Agriculture, 1895, Part II, p. 39, et seq. 



Such classification in real estate is already made, "as seated lands 

 and unseated lands." Paxson, J., in Wheeler vs. Philadelphia, 77 

 Pa. 349, writes: "Thus, timber lands, arable lands, mineral lands, 

 urban and rural, may be divided into distinct classes, and subject to 

 different rates." 



It would appear to be possible to place farm timber lands in a dis- 

 tinct class and then, without wholly exempting them from taxes r 

 subject them to a minimum rate. It should further be urged that 

 this measure of relief is of vastly mo-re importance to the State than 

 it is to the land owners. It is merely a question whether it is more 

 economical for the Commonwealth to grow and maintain that due 

 proportion of timber land which science, observation and history have 

 shown to be requisite for the continued prosperity of its citizens, or 

 whether it cannot (in part at least,) be done to greater advantage by 

 the land owners, if the State will make it possible for them to do so 

 without pecuniary loss to themselves. 



The fourth and last point remaining for discussion may be briefly 

 disposed of, i. e.: 



Can we afford to do without forests? It is a safe axiom of 

 political economy that no State can afford to do without anything of 

 value which it can produce almost without cost, on ground that is 



