278 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 



forests had been bought up and were being held undeveloped by specu- 

 lators in order to take toll of the public later, he would at least, if 

 they were in private hands, be able to make them pay their share 

 toward the expenses of local self-government."^* 



The loss in "taxing power" has generally been grossly exaggerated, 

 however. The complaints of such men as Heyburn on this as on other 

 subjects, have been biased in spirit and exaggerated in statement of 

 fact. While some communities suffer hardship, others doubtless get 

 more from the 25 per cent fund than they would from taxation, if 

 the land were in private hands, and as time goes on this will become 

 more and more generally true. Mondell once admitted that he believed 

 the 25 per cent would eventually yield just as much for the western 

 states as they would get from taxation. 



Contributions to the western states from forest reserve receipts in 

 1916 were as follows: 



School and road Road and trail 



State moneys (25 per cent) moneys (10 per cent) 



Montana $ 79,589.78 $ 31,835.91 



Idaho 75,651.15 30,260.46 



California 67,611.87 27,044.74 



Arizona 59,807.89 23,923.16 



Colorado 59,218.60 23,687.44 



Oregon 49,675.83 19,870.33 



Utah 48,675.96 19,470.38 



Wyoming 43,086.86 17,234.75 



Washington 37,445.56 14,978.23 



New Mexico 31,786.46 12,714.58 



Nevada 16,244.53 6,497.81 



South Dakota 12,988.11 5,195.25 



The states of Arizona and New Mexico received additional shares of 



national forest receipts amounting to over $40,000 for their school 



funds, on account of school lands included within national forests.'* 



The growth in the amount available for the states is indicated by 



85 Cong. Rec, 63 Cong. 1 sess., Appendix, pp. 465 et seq. 

 ^« Report, Sec. of Agr., 1916, 278. 



