HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 279 



the following table, showing the total contributions for the road and 

 school fund since 1908 — the year when this contribution was raised 

 from 10 to 25 per cent : 



1908 $ 447,063 



1909 441,552 



1910 510,907 



1911 515,073 



1912 554,380 



Much of the reasoning regarding this loss in taxing power has been 

 superficial, or worse. In figuring what revenues would have been 

 enjoyed if the reserves had been subject to taxation, the assumption 

 has usually been made that the standing timber would be taxed, 

 according to the unscientific system common in the United States. A 

 rational tax should of course be levied mainly on the annual cut, 

 rather than on the standing timber ; and, if it is true, as even govern- 

 ment officials are now inclined to admit, that lumbermen have not gen- 

 erally made any profits during the past decade (previous to the out- 

 break of the world war), it appears that the tax on the annual cut 

 should in justice be a fairly light tax. This was recently pointed 

 out in Congress by Representative McLaughlin of Michigan, when 

 Humphrey and Johnson were bewailing the fact that many sawmills 

 in the West were being run at a loss, and that private individuals could 

 hardly afford to own timber lands. McLaughlin pertinently sug- 

 gested that if private individuals could not afford to own lands, they 

 could hardly afford to pay taxes on the lands.^^ Even if it had been 

 possible to levy a heavy yield tax on timber lands, it would have 

 yielded little revenue in some sections, for much of the government 

 timber is inaccessible at present prices. 



Much of the reasoning on the subject takes only a short-time view 

 of the matter. If the government timber were turned over to private 

 exploitation, there can be no doubt that most of it would be exploited 

 more rapidly than it is now, and that some of the communities 

 involved would enjoy an era of what Americans commonly regard as 

 "prosperity" ; but if such a policy resulted in the speedy and wasteful 

 destruction of this timber, such a "prosperity" would be short-lived. 



37 Cong. Rec, Apr. 19, 1916, 6458. 



