TAX LANDS AND FORESTRY. 99 



intention of making his property the basis of a permanent enterprise, 

 the case would perhaps be looked at differently; but until such bona 

 fide change of attitude can be shown, I fear practical considerations will 

 favor continuance of present practice. In this connection a few ques- 

 tions may be formulated, which should be considered as pertinent from 

 the practical point of view: 



1. Does the lumberman as a rule buy land, or does he buy timber? 



2. Is any lumberman known to have bought timber for any other 

 purpose than exploitation or speculation, i. e., resale of the timber? 



3. Does not every lumberman with business capacity, in buying tim- 

 ber anticipate the tax assessment and discount it in his price? 



4. Does not the lumberman shift the tax on the consumer of his 

 goods, wholly or in part, the tax being counted as part of the cost of 

 production ? 



5. Has any lumberman actually been induced to cut his timber in 

 order to avoid the tax rate, or are not other motives than excessive taxa- 

 tion invariably the reason, or at least more potent reason, for his re- 

 moval of it? 



With regard to forest properties it has been urged that the timber i^ 

 really a crop, and should iiot be taxed any more than the farmer's 

 crop. But those advocating this theory overlook the fact that the crop 

 idea involves the idea of human effort, and that in most cases in this 

 country the mature timber is an asset secured without such effort. 



Only when an effort has been put forward to make the soil produce, 

 can we speak of a crop. Here again, the attitude of the owner and the 

 condition of the forest is of moment. 



I have myself, again and again, attempted to show that forestry is 

 a business sui generis, that, owing to the long time element mainly, 

 it is exceptional, and may, therefore, justify exceptional treatment even 

 by the tax gatherer. But, admitting all the arguments in favor of en- 

 tire or partial exemption: — Is there any reason for expecting that the 

 benefit of tax release will offset the objectionable features of the for- 

 estry business from the point of view of private enterprise. 



There have been and there are, as you know, statutes in various states 

 designed to encourage forestry by tax release, tax exemption and boun- 

 ties. If you will investigate the results of the earlier attempts at such 

 encouragement, you will find that they are practically nil. 



I wish to raise doubts as to whether this encouragement can reason- 

 ably be expected to do much good, except perhaps in the case of the 

 small farmer's woodlot. When it comes to raising a nation's and even 

 a state's log supply the matter is very different. 



On the other hand, will even promising returns from a forest-growing 

 venture induce private enterprise to engage in this business, the profits 

 of which are so long in coming, the risks of which are not only great, . 

 but the future of which is clouded somewhat in uncertainty? 



If I were to express an opinion, I would declare that forestry is the 

 business of the State, or the community, if for no other reasons than 

 because of the long time element involved. That only large capital and 

 large continuous corporations can really afford to go into this long- 



