TAX LANDS AND FORESTRY. 93 



keeping their output at a low figure. We have had convincing evidence 

 of this fact. 



The most objectionable feature of our system is that it provides for 

 taxing the value of the growing crop, as well as the land upon which 

 it grows. In the case of an ordinary agricultural crop, the value of 

 the crop is not taxed. The soil is assessed at a fair, average figure; but 

 the growing wheat, grass, turnips, potatoes, or other crop which may 

 be on it, is not reckoned in the valuation, except insofar as it may in- 

 dicate the fertility of the land. But in the case of wood or timber 

 crop the land is taxed, and, in addition, the growing crop is taxed, not 

 only once or twice, but year after year, at an increasing valuation until 

 it is cut, when the valuation is reduced to that of the land without the 

 crop. The consequence is that the owner is led to cut his crop before 

 it has reached its productive maturity; that is, its greatest value to 

 himself and to the State. While the tax on the crop may not seem large 

 in any one year on a given parcel of woodland, it acts as a strong in- 

 fluence through a long series of years, and this influence is hostile 

 to the forest and its proper management. The more capable and faith- 

 ful the assessors are, under the present law, the more effective the law 

 becomes in causing premature harvesting of the forest crop. Such a 

 tax hinders the increase of wealth by cutting it off at its source. And, 

 aside from the economic question involved, it discriminates against for- 

 est crops as compared with field crops, giving a decided advantage to 

 field crops. In this respect it is not fair. 



Another objectionable feature of the present system is that it taxes 

 the property at a time when it is not bringing in any income. When 

 a crop may be from a quarter to a half century in maturing, it is a 

 hardship on the men to make payment during the intervening years. 

 This accentuates the tendency towards 'cutting immature timber. 



If the desirability of property as an income-bearing, private invest- 

 ment be taken as an indication of the proportion of the tax burden 

 which it ought to bear, woodlands ought not to be taxed proportion- 

 ately more than ordinary agricultural lands. Although a sharp buyer 

 may trade in woodlands that have manure timber on them, and make 

 on the investment, yet to buy land and to grow the crop is not a good 

 investment, except perhaps for surplus funds, for three main reasons: 

 First, because of the long period of time which must elapse before the 

 crop matures; second, because the property is not readily salable at 

 full value during that period; and third, because the crop is exposed to 

 injury from fire, storm, fungous and insect ravages. 



And, if the amount of protection which the property receives from 

 the State and community be taken as an indication of the proportionate 

 amount of the tax burden which it ought to bear, woodlands ought to 

 bear less than many other forms, instead of more, as they now do. We 

 can find no record of an insurance company which has taken a risk on 

 standing timber in the commonwealth. We have found only one com- 

 pany which quotes a rate, and that rate is |6.25 on |100 — a rate which 

 exceeds the average of growing timber, and which is, therefore, pro- 

 hibitive. Prom the point of view of protection, woodlands now bear 

 far more than a fair proportion of taxes. 



