264 AMERICAN FORESTRY 



the objection to this is the usual one that it might disturb the fiscal affairs of 

 the community. 



It will be seen that the recommended legislation for these two states 

 while showing slight differences in api)lication is on the same general principle, 

 and this, it may be added, is the only method that has yet been proposed that 

 seems to be adapted to present American conditions. 



In conclusion, the report does not hold out any great hope that private 

 forestry on a large scale would be exteusively promoted even with such an 

 adjustment of the tax law^s. The authors believe that for a future permanent 

 timber supply the main dependence must be upon state ownership and it is 

 recommended that the state secure by purchase in the open market such lands 

 as it is desirable for it to own for this purpose. 



These two reports will be found an interesting study by all those who are 

 interested in this important public question of the taxation of forest lands. It 

 will be seen even from this somewhat cursory review that the conditions and 

 conclusions are not materially different from those which have been found by 

 other students of the subject in various eastern states. The final result of all 

 such studies seems to be the necessity of adequate fire protection by the state 

 in order that property in forest lands may have in a measure the same security 

 that other property enjoys ; equitable taxation, so that owners of such property 

 will not feel obliged to cut over their lands and dispose of a crop which is 

 unprofitable to them, although it may be needed by the state; and finally that 

 we must come ultimately to the same end as the most progressive European 

 states and include as state property lands which are valuable only for the pur- 

 pose of growing forests and which, therefore, have a greater value to the com- 

 munity than to any individual. When the main object was to clear the land 

 of the forests, such a condition as this did not exist, it was unnecessary for 

 the state to intervene, although it might well have done so at an earlier date ; 

 but now that the necessity of husbanding our forests for a future timber supply 

 and protecting our water sheds for the permanence of a water supply and the 

 equable flow of our streams is generally recognized, our attitude toward forest 

 lands and the question of state ownership of such lands, must be radically 

 changed. Such lands can be handled to the best advantage by a well organized 

 department directed by experts and doing its work on a large scale. In most 

 cases, especially in our populous states, the state is the only agent through 

 which this work can satisfactorily and economically be done. 



