TAX LANDS AND FORESTRY. 67 



Q. There is a demand for good agricultural land in this State every- 

 where in the Lower Peninsula, is there not? 



A. There is some pretty good agricultural land that has been on the 

 market a good many years and nobody has gotten to it yet. Almost 

 every one of the northern counties has good land. 



Q. The sales of the Michigan Park Company are in a district that 

 is not very accessible, are they not? Not close to the railroad? 



A. They are quite accessible. 



Q. About 9 or 10 miles? 



A. I think perhaps they would run from four to fifteen miles. 



Q. Well, how do you account for the fact that good agricultural land 

 has reverted for taxes, we will say in the last 15 years? 



A. One reason would be its inaccessibility. Its distance from high- 

 ways makes it difficult to get at. 



Q. That would aflfect the price? 



A. Certainly. 



Q. But not necessarily make it worthless? 



A. No; not worthless, certainly; simply affects the price, that is all. 



Q. Is it not a fair inference, speaking broadly, that reverted lands in 

 the county or town are, in general, the poorest class of lands in the 

 county or town? 



A. That is not true necessarily — it may be so. 



Q. Is there not a natural process of selection through the tax law by 

 which forfeited land (State owned land that is) has been selected as, 

 in general, the non-agricultural land in the locality where the land is 

 located ? 



A. That would be true. It would also be true of the U. S. govern- 

 ment land, many thousands of acres of which are contiguous to State 

 lands and have been for many years. 



Q. Would you not say that if the State held forfeited tax land in a 

 particular county this land is prima facie the land which the State 

 should select for its forest growing land? 



A. Yes; that would be true. Still, I am inclined to the belief that 

 the better your land, the better your prospect for forestry would be. 

 I believe the State holds thousands of acres of land that could not be 

 utilized for growing forests. 



Q. Especially for hardwood? 



A. If the State is to regrow hardwood for the future, it would have 

 to retain some portion of the better class of its holdings in land. The 

 best hardwood timber was in the better lands. 



Q. As a general proposition, the land that originally grew hardwood 

 forests does not revert to the State in any great quantity, does it? 



A. No; mostly pine lands and the lands that grew Jack pines. The 

 latter is never good land. 



Q. I have a tabulation by Frank Leverett, a geologist in the employ 

 of the United States Geological Survey, which shows his estimate of the 

 percentage of land in about 30 counties which his examination leads 

 him to classify as forest land and. farming land. He estimates the per- 

 centage of farming land and of forest land in each county mentioned, 

 which percentage of each class has reference to the nature of the soil 

 as properly either farming land or forest land. In his figures are oer- 



