TAX LANDS AND FORESTRY. 97 



found to be so profitable. The conclusions from sucb a study are two: 

 (1) That the systems of taxation are so radically different from ours 

 that only general principles can be applied here; and (2) that the as- 

 sessments are always based on the actual value of the forest, or on the 

 earning power of the land, that is, its yield. 



The first principle in all these laws is that the forest shall be con- 

 sidered and rated apart from the land upon which it stands. This 

 principle finds universal acceptance in theory at least, though the prac- 

 tice differs in the various countries, and is based upon the fact that a 

 forest is a crop of many years' growth. Trees thrive and make a 

 growth, but at the end of the season they are not convertible into money 

 as a corn crop is. So it is for many years. The tree crop is made each 

 season, but must be left on the stump until enough wood is accumulated 

 to make it salable. 



Here comes in a second principle that it is unjust to require the 

 owner'to pay (a tax on forest growth) so long as the forest yields him 

 nothing. There is no equity in making a man's other property carry 

 his immature forest. In practice this works out in various ways. 

 Most of the German states have not yet made the principle effective, 

 but Baden exempts newly established forests from tax for twenty years 

 (law of 1886). In Austria they are exempt for twenty-five years (law 

 of 1869). In France three-fourths of the land tax is remitted for thirty 

 years. In connection with these laws it should be remembered that 

 forests in Europe begin to yield saleable material when they are from 

 twenty to thirty years old. In most parts of the United States the 

 productive period begins later, because there is no market for small 

 wood. 



This principle of exemption or rebate is familiar enough in this 

 country, where undeveloped property of all kinds is taxed at a nominal 

 rate. Farm land not cleared bears little. A comparison can not be 

 made, however, with other forms of unproductive property — city lots, 

 for instance. The owner of the latter produces nothing from his land; 

 he hopes to gain by what others do. The forest owner, on the other 

 hand, does produce something of value and will eventually pay a proper 

 tax on it. 



This is the equity of forest taxation; but communities have another 

 interest than that of revenue, namely, to maintain the forests in the 

 greatest possible extent and effectiveness for the sake of lumbering 

 and its many dependent industries, and for the influence that they have 

 upon stream flow and the modification of climatic extremes. These 

 subjects are beginning to be well understood, and need not be dwelt 

 upon. 



The points that, in the writer's opinion, should be considered m any 

 equitable scheme of forest taxation are the following : 



(1) Forests are necessary to the public welfare, and consequently 

 each commonwealth should bear a part of the cost of maintaining them. 

 This means that the State should, as far as is proper, relieve the coun- 

 ties, and that cities and towns should contribute to the maintenance of 

 conditions that are as important to them as they are to the people who 

 live close to the forest borders. Exemptions and rebates, as usually 

 allowed, do not meet this requirement, because the county bears the 

 13 



