TAX LANDS AND FORESTRY. 35 



timber who are treating their holdings in accordance with the principles 

 of scientific business forestry. It is obvious that if others can be in- 

 duced to do this in a large way it will be a great advantage to the State, 

 because it requires much expense and lapse of time to duplicate any 

 of the forest now standing. That forest serves all of the purposes of 

 public interest that any forest can serve. It is worth the effort, there- 

 fore, to make any attempt that fairly promises success to conserve the 

 present forest and to induce its owners to permanently handle it ac- 

 cording to scientific principles. 



But "it must not be overlooked that the public remember that these 

 forests now standing were not grown by the present owners, but were 

 obtained, full grown, by them or their predecessors, from the State at 

 what seems a grossly inadequate price; and it is the general belief that, 

 in the hands of the present owners, this forest property is held only as 

 merchantable material for exploitation and sale at such time as will 

 best suit the convenience of the holder. Hence there is no reason for 

 special favors to the owner, nor to expect that the State will be benefited 

 by a lowering of taxes on property so held. Unless the State, by modify- 

 ing the taxation on standing forests, can assure itself that it will secure 

 the conversion of such standing forest into permanent forest property, 

 to be held and administered conservatively and in such way that the 

 amount cut therefrom in any period shall not exceed the amount of 

 growth therein, it would not be wise for the State to consent to lessen 

 the taxes on this class of property. 



Any change operating' to lighten the burden of taxes upon the owners 

 of standing timber, however just in itself, and however wise as a mat- 

 ter of State policy, will arouse opposition; for public opinion does not 

 hold the lumberman or the owner of standing timber as a benefactor. 

 The belief is general that a great natural resource, the original forest, 

 has brought to the State very little and to those who have destroyed 

 it very much. Any change in taxation will require constitution amend- 

 ment; and therefore in our judgment, it will be unwise to hitch up a 

 proposal for lower taxation upon standing timber with a proposal such 

 as we recommend for the regulation of taxes upon cut-over lands in 

 process of reforestation, or upon farmers' woodlots. Reforestation and 

 conservation of forests now standing are two distinct propositions i>e- 

 quiring separate handling ; and those engaged in reforestation are clearly 

 entitled to the betterment of tax conditions which we have recommended, 

 even though it be thought unwise to change taxation as it effects com- 

 mercial tracts of mature timber now standing. 



It is our belief that the conserving of the standing forests requires 

 change in taxation so as to secure, in the assessment, equality of treat- 

 ment between timber properties and other kinds of property, through 

 a more direct and effective check upon over-valuation in the assessment ; 

 and by the imposition of a reasonable limitation upon the tax rate in 

 rural districts. The latter is confiscatory in many counties, and can- 

 not but operate to drive the owners of standing timber to lumber it 

 even when they would otherwise wish to hold it. The report of the 

 State Tax Commission shows, for instance, that in 1901 the average tax 

 rate was |63 on the thousand in one county and $40 to |49 in five coun- 

 ties and from |30 to $39 in thirteen counties. That is, in nineteen 



