92 THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY, 



been productive of great results. In order to make them more eflfective, 

 they were redrafted and re.enacted in 1905.* 



(3) Exemption for a Period of Years. 



Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hamp- 

 shire, Rhode Island and Vermont have laws which exempt young for- 

 est plantations for a period of years. Answers to our inquiries into 

 the results of these laws were received from Connecticut, Maine, New 

 Hampshire and Vermont. The Vermont law has been in force only 

 since the spring of 1905, and, of course, has not had time to show any 

 results. Although the law has been on the statute books in the other 

 states for many years — in one of them since 1878 — almost no results 

 are reported. This is accounted for by the fact that in every case the 

 law is at fault in its phraseology. A law which is restricted in its 

 operation to plantations — that is, to artificial reproduction — must neces- 

 sarily fall short of securing satisfactory results. Such laws, to give 

 ^good results, must be drawn so as to include young stands produced by 

 natural seeding and sprouting. Moreover, in several instances the speci- 

 fied number of plants per acre is unnecessarily large, and the number 

 of species of tree which may be planted is unnecessarily small, not in- 

 cluding some of the best native species. And, finally, the exemption in 

 several instances is restricted to land which has been previously culti- 

 vated in field crops. This excludes any possibility of continuity of for- 

 est crops from the same parcel of land. 



(4) Exemption of a certain proportion of the area held by an owner. 



Indiana has tried the above method. After it had been in force a 

 few years a test of its constitutionality was made, which resulted in its 

 practical annulment.! 



Why the Method of Taxing Forest Lands Should ie Modified. 



The tendency of the present law tax is towards early cutting, and 

 neglect of cultivation. A reform, therefore, that would lead to a more 

 conservative method of cutting, and careful cultivation, is of great im- 

 portance not only to land, owners but to all of our industries that con- 

 sume wood. 



The present method of taxing woodlands is an important factor in 



*But have since been held to be unconstitutional in Tubbs v. Tioga Co., 32 C. 0. 504, because in 

 Tlolation of the requirement that "all taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects." The 

 principle of the following cases seems to point that way: Bank v. Memphis, 116 Tenn. 641, Wallace 

 V. Board of Equalization, 47 Greg. 684, and Campbell Bryant, 104 Va. 509. 



tThe State Forester of Indiana in his report of 1905 makes the following comment ; 



Legislation for the exemption of land areas devoted to forest purposes exclusively was attempted 

 before the last General Assembly, but failed because such could not be done constitutionally. It 

 could not be made to come under any of the five things enumerated in the state constitution for 

 which property may be exempted. It was attempted because there was a crying demand, for the 

 same and Because the act of 1899 giving a partial exemption was impractical, and one aim in the 

 legislation attempted was to remedy the faults of that act and strengthen the problem of forestry 

 upon the cheap lands within the state. I can not say that I believe in the exemption of forest lands 

 from taxation any more than any other form of property where the owner is the chief benefactor 

 thereby. I also do not believe that in the end the Institution of forestry would be helped by tax ex- 

 emption. Such a course would remove forestry from the meritorious and place it upon a charitable 

 foundation. It would suffer at any time the charitable element was removed, and consequently 

 would be a menace instead of a beneficial factor to the cause. 



