IQOI.] FORESTRY. 9 



An Act for the preservation of forests and partially relieving 

 forest lands from taxation. 



Section i. Be it enacted, etc., that in consideration of the 

 public benefit to be derived from the retention of forest or 

 timber trees, the owner or owners of land in this Common- 

 wealth, having on it forest or timber trees of not less than 

 fifty trees to the acre, and each of said trees to measure at 

 least eight inches in diameter at a height of six feet above 

 the surface of the ground, with no portion of the said land 

 absolutely cleared of the said trees, shall, on making due 

 proof thereof, be entitled to receive annually from the com- 

 missioners of their respective counties during the period that 

 the said trees are maintained in sound condition upon the said 

 land, a sum equal to eighty per centum of all taxes annually 

 assessed and paid upon the said land, or so much of the said 

 eighty per centum as shall not exceed the sum of forty-five 

 cents per acre: Provided, however, that no one property- 

 owner shall be entitled to receive said sum on more than fifty 

 acres. 



Sec. 2. All acts or parts of acts inconsistent herewith are 

 hereby repealed. 



This act was approved the 25th day of May, A. D. 1887. 



Either of these laws may be considered in the light of a 

 bounty on timber culture, even though it is " not so nomi- 

 nated in the bond." 



Is such a law just? If forests are equalizers of water- 

 flow, leaving all other alleged benefits out of the question, 

 then they are clearly an advantage to the entire State. So 

 long as the owner does not cut and remove them he is re- 

 ceiving but little more advantage from them than his neigh- 

 bors. It seems hardly fair, in this view of the case, that he 

 should be asked to, pay all of the tax. The tax rebate al- 

 lowed under our laws is simply an acknowledgment which the 

 State or the community makes of the public service trees are 

 rendering. It is what the public allows as its share in the 

 taxes the owner has paid for the trees. 



You may consider this from another standpoint. 



You allege that this timber is growing into increased value 

 which the owner shares with no one, and therefore you con- 

 tend that no one should share the payment of tax with him. 

 This statement is true, considered in itself, but the fact remains 



