142 REPORT OF THE FORESTRY COMMITTEE 



countries and urged here without a single exception by all foresters and econ- 

 omists familiar with forest conditions. 



The single tax, applied to forests, forces cutting regardless of demand. This 

 means the utter waste of all but the choicest part of the tree ; the export to for- 

 eign countries, hence the loss to us, of the surplus above our present wants ; and 

 the early destruction of a source of tax revenue which should be stable and 

 enduring. It also means the wrecking of the great-majority class of lumberman — 

 the small independent men who have no great financial backing — and placing the 

 control of lumber prices with those who are in position to take advantage of the 

 situation without the slighest benefit to the consumer or any desirable effect of 

 distributing forests among small hands, such as is argued by single-taxers in the 

 case of farm lands. It means only over-cutting and, to accomplish this as eco- 

 nomically as possible, only by the largest and perfectly organized operations such 

 as require great capital. With respect to the growing of new forests, to supply 

 the future consumer, continue a tax revenue, and preserve streamflow, the result 

 would be even more suicidal, for destruction of the project would be attended 

 with no salvage whatever. The forests simply would not be grown. 



The only alternative to these evils, under single tax, would be to separate 

 forests from land absolutely, regarding the former as improvements, a distinction 

 impossible to arrive at justly and practically under conditions grading from vir- 

 gin forest to purely man-grown reproduction with even the former existant to 

 a certain but unmeasurable degree because of fire protection afforded by the 

 owner. It is wholly unlikely that the public would seriously consider exempting 

 all speculatively owned forests from taxation. To continue regarding them as 

 land, under single tax, would have the destructive effect described. To exempt 

 them but compensate by increasing the tax on the land which bears them would 

 require over-taxing identical land, now denuded but which should be reforested, 

 so that reforestation would be impossible. Consequently, should single tax ever 

 be considered seriously in any forest community, it will be highly necessary to 

 exempt forest lands wholly from its application, either by continuing them under 

 the old general property tax or preferably placing them under a yield tax system 

 which, in effect, applies the income-tax principle to this class of property. 



In the foregoing paragraphs single tax has been treated at some length 

 merely as an example of the danger of social propaganda which, because forest 

 economics have as yet been given little general study in America, may easily be 

 supported by well-meaning people who consider only general application and fail 

 to recognize the peculiar situation of the forest crop. Every new tax measure 

 should be studied from the same viewpoint. 



The above action by the forestry section of the Congress was corroborated by 

 the resolutions committee of the main Conservation Congress itself, which em- 

 phatically rejected a resolution implying approval of single tax. 



DISCUSSION ON THE EEPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREST TAXATION 



Mr. G. N Ostrander, of New York: The subject of taxation of our wood- 

 lands in New York State is becoming a very serious one with us. The expense 



