Taxation and Forestry. 



N AN EXHAUSTIVE article by Mr. J. J. Hubbell 

 of Manistee, than whom there is no better author- 

 ity in Michigan on matters of reforestation, we 

 find the following practical suggestions concerning 

 the assessment of property and taxation of timber 

 and timber lands: 



"There is no doubt that much property in Michigan has 

 escaped just taxation in the past, and that to include all at 

 a full cash value will materially reduce the rate per cent of the 

 levy, but I contend that it is not right that all properties 

 should be assessed and taxed upon their cash value and at 

 the same rate. There are properties that should be taxed 

 specially and specifically, and also those that should not be 

 taxed at all, as follows : 



"i. Properties which are maintained exclusively for the 

 public good, and are not a source of revenue to their owners. 

 "2. Properties that it is desirable the State or municipal 

 authorities should regulate and in a measure control. 



"3. Those that are not injurious to the public, but produce no 

 revenue to their owners. 



"We have an example of the first in our churches, hospitals, 

 and other religious and charitable institutions. People volun- 

 tarily tax themselves for the support of these properties, and 

 it is generally conceded that as long as they are lawfully used 



for the benefit of the public alone they ought to be exempt 

 from all further taxation. 



"The second class of properties may be said to include our 

 railroad systems, street car lines, telegraph, telephone and 

 express companies, and we may also add water-works and 

 electric lighting plants when operated by private companies. 

 The State can devise no more efficient means of protecting the 

 public from abuses, or of encouraging, controlling or sup- 

 pressing these forms of property, than the right of specific 

 taxation, and when we adopt the late amendment to our con- 

 stitution or take any measures to curtail this power, we are 

 taking a step backward in the art of taxation for the com- 

 bined purpose of benefiting the public and at the same time 

 raising the necessary moneys for public use. 



"In regard to the third class of properties, it is not so clear 

 as to what should be done ; that is, property that does not 

 produce any revenue for its owner, but which is not detri- 

 mental to the public welfare ; and yet I think the man who has 

 his means tied up in a business or property that is not paying 

 cannot afford to pay the same tax as the one whose business is 

 yielding handsome returns. Up in our part of the State, if a 

 man wants to transport pine logs by rail for fifty miles, we 

 charge him at the rate of $2.50 per thousand. If a man wants 

 to transport hemlock logs the same distance, we carry them 

 for $1.50 per thousand. Why? Because the man who has 

 the pine can afford to pay that rate, and the man who has the 

 hemlock cannot afford to pay the pine rate. It is simply a 



27 



