TAX LANDS AND FORESTRY. 7 



suitable for the growing of hardwoods, since the greater part of the 

 forfeited tax land is too light for the best results with that kind of 

 trees. Moreover, the fact, hereafter shown more fully, should be remem- 

 bered, that the entire area of such reserves as it is possible to form out 

 of the tax lands can be but a small percentage of the area of any county ; 

 and if every acre taken for reserves should be good agricultural land, 

 nevertheless, the total can never exceed the quantity necessary for a 

 reasonable balance between cultivated fields and forest areas. It is as 

 true of regions that are all good agricultural land, as it is of regions 

 in which a part of the land is non-agricultural, that the needs of society 

 require that a considerable percentage of the area occupied be devoted 

 to growing forests. Of course, forest growing should, as far as prac- 

 ticable, be directed to non-agricultural land. Confusion has perhaps 

 arisen due to a want of failure to discriminate. Forest areas are a 

 vital need in every community, and it should be the purpose of the State 

 to establish reserves and promote forestry, even where all its land is 

 excellent for agriculture. The real importance of the question (where 

 it has any importance) whether land that is to be devoted to forest 

 growing is agricultural or non-agricultural is not as bearing upon the 

 wisdom of establishing reserves or encouraging forestry, but as bearing 

 upon the question where those reserves or forests can be located most 

 profitably, to the public interest. This question has been solved for 

 this State by the automatic action of its tax law through a long period 

 of years. The forfeited tax land has already been selected as the land 

 which is, on the whole, the best land to form into State forest reserves, 

 because its history proves that it is in general of the poorer class of 

 land in each locality. 



Whether the State should establish and maintain forest reserves; 

 whether the forfeited tax land should or should not be xitilized for this 

 purpose, and if so, to what extent and in what localities — these are 

 questions which do not depend for their solution upon a determination 

 of the value, relative or absolute, of the soil of any county or town for 

 agricultural purposes. It is no part of the duty of this Commission 

 to investigate or determine whether Roscommon county or Crawford 

 county, or any other county, is largely composed of non-agricultural 

 land, or is chiefly, if not entirely, made up of land well adapted to tillage. 

 We do not propose to go into an investigation of the conflicting claims 

 (compare Appendix 2 and 3) that have been made upon that subject. 

 Whether the land is of the one class or the other does not determine 

 whether it is wise and advantageous to establish State forest reserves, 

 or to utilize the forfeited tax land for such reserves. Both questions 

 we believe are Beyond controversy, whatever the fact may be as to the 

 tillable or non-tillable nature of the soil. Public opinion every where has 

 crystallized firmly into the accepted belief that it is essential to our 

 future welfare that large areas be devoted to forest raising as State 

 forest reserves; and it needs no argument to show the wisdom of de- 

 voting to this purpose such available land as the State has, rather than 

 of purchasing land for such reserves. New York, Pennsylvania, and 

 other states have followed the latter coiirse because they did not own the 

 necessary land. Michigan now has a large area of land available for 

 reserves, and it is self-evident that it should use what it has rather than 

 buy other land. 



