182 



FORESTRY AND IRRIGATION 



April 



If putting a tax on timber when sold 

 shall not be thought advisable, then 

 when the trees shall arrive at an age 

 when some can be profitably removed 

 for sale, say at the age of forty-five 

 vears from time of planting or elect- 

 ing to care for growing trees for lum- 

 ber that may be growing on the land 

 at such time, a certain portion of said 

 land may become taxable as timber 

 land now is. If, on arriving at the age 

 of forty-five years, one-twentieth shall- 

 be set apart for such taxation, and a 

 twentieth each 3 r ear thereafter until 

 all shall become taxable, an age of 

 sixty-five years will be reached. Some 

 of our timber trees will have then ar- 

 rived at a suitable age for the manu- 

 facture of lumber ; but if the owner 

 shall not then elect to cut the timber 

 he will be paying tax on his land same 

 as now. In this system there should 

 be no tax levied when the timber is 

 cut, for the tax began before that was 

 fit and suitable for lumber. 



But it may be said that in both these 

 proposed systems the timber has all 

 the time been growing in value, but 

 has paid no tax. True, but it has all 

 the time been costing its owner money 

 the use of money invested in the 

 land' and in the planting of trees and 

 caring for them, and he has received 

 no revenue nothing to pay taxes with. 

 The same can be said of buildings or 

 constructions for any purpose which 

 may be going on for the improvement 

 of property. But who claims the right 

 to tax such improvements until com- 

 pleted, providing they are pushed for- 

 ward to completion as rapidly as pos- 

 sible? 



To suppose that our National and 

 State governments will be able, from 

 their limited holdings, to supply this 

 country with the requisite amount of 

 timber that our civilization demands 

 is to suppose what cannot occur. In- 

 dividuals, municipalities, corporations, 

 companies and trustees of estates must 

 engage in tree-growing, and that 

 speedily, or there will be so disastrous 

 a timber famine that the car of prog- 



;s in this country will not only ad- 

 vance, but will go backward. Some 



relief and protection to tree-growing 

 must be given or it will cease. Who- 

 ever may engage in it will suffer 

 enough in waiting for it to mature 

 and in tieing up money invested in the 

 enterprise, and should be exempt from 

 taxation in any form. Full relief can 

 not be given under our Constitution, 

 and it should be amended. It should 

 conform to the changed condition of 

 things. With us tree-growing is new. 

 It is unlike any other enterprise, be- 

 cause of the long period of time taken 

 to bring returns. At present only such 

 relief as has been here suggested, or in 

 some other form which will prevent 

 confiscation, can be given by our State. 

 But the government of the United 

 States can and should aid in the mat- 

 ter. A bounty on tree-growing would 

 be of far more benefit to the country 

 at large than a bounty on beet sugar, 

 and a tree distribution of tree seeds 

 and young trees of equal, if not great- 

 er, benefit than free garden seeds. 



Note.- Since writing the foregoing, 

 I have discovered that Dr. J. T. Roth- 

 rock, former Commissioner of Fores- 

 try of Pennsylvania, now of the For- 

 estry Commission, held substantially 

 the same views of the injustice of tax- 

 ing growing timber that I have set 

 forth. This he did in an article en- 

 titled "Vanishing Industries," pub- 

 lished in the Report of the State Board 

 of Agriculture for 1894, page 223, a 

 part of which is here given. I make 

 this reference with great pleasure, as 

 he thus saw, in the early days of the 

 forestry movement, what must sooner 

 or later be met. I was not aware of 

 this declaration by him when I sent 

 you the article, or I most certainly 

 would have given credit to this worthy 

 pioneer, whose clear vision saw what 

 and must be done. 



S. B. Elliott. 



"As for the taxation of standing 

 timber, one may as well come out on a 

 distinct platform at once ; it is a wrong, 

 both to the owner and to the Com- 

 monwealth, but chiefly to the latter. 

 It is false in principle, for it taxes a 



