2 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. 8. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
PLAN AND METHOD OF STUDY 
The plan of this study comprised field investigations in various 
forest regions of the United States. Since each State has a financial 
and taxation system of its own, it was necessary to make the State 
the primary unit of the study. In each forest region one or more 
key States were therefore selected for special investigation. These 
States were, in order of investigation: Minnesota, 1926-27; Wis- 
consin, 1927; Michigan, 1927; Oregon, 1928; Washington, 1928: 
New Hampshire, 1928; and North Carolina, 1930. First of all there 
was gathered material sufficient to present a clear picture of the 
financial structure and tax system of the State as a whole, including 
a general view of the finances and taxation of its counties, towns or 
townships, and other local subdivisions. Thereafter, selection was 
made of certain counties, towns, or townships for special intensive 
investigation, intended to bring to light all obtainable facts bearing 
upon the local tax situation with special reference to forest property. 
Certain specialized studies, to be discussed at a later point, were also 
made. 
In all of this, the aim was to acquire a broad foundation of facts 
relating to the whole financial system, by no means limited to those 
taxes only which were imposed upon the forests. The regions, 
States, and local jurisdictions selected for study were, of course, in 
general those where forests were or might be important. Yet study 
was not confined exclusively to such areas. Certain agricultural and 
other nonforest localities were included for purposes of « comparison. 
Having thus studied the key States, a less intensive study was 
made of certain other States, with chief reference to the operation of 
special forest-tax laws, as well as to unusual forest-tax conditions. 
These States were, Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Mas- 
sachusetts, Mississippi, Ohio, and Vermont; they were investigated 
for the most part in 1930 and 1931. 
In connection with its State and regional studies, the investigating 
staff welcomed the cooperation and assistance of all local agencies 
able and willing thus to join bands with it. Such were the public 
officials of the States and their local subdivisions, State universities 
and other institutions, associations interested in forestry or in taxa- 
tion, individuals, and associations in the forest industries. 
In the studies of selected localities, two general methods were 
employed. In States such as Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, 
where the forests are largely concentrated in distinct regions, the 
counties of a State composing such a region were compared with the 
other counties of the State as to tax rates, tax delinquency, taxes and 
assessment per capita, proportion of cut-over forest land, amount of 
agricultural development, area of public land, total assessed valua- 
tion, assessed valuations of forest and other classes of property, and 
the like. This was the ‘‘extensive method”’ of investigation, as 
illustrated by Forest Taxation Inquiry Progress Reports 3, 5, and 13.° 
5’ CHAPMAN, H. H., Hatt, R. C., and HERBERT, P. A. RESOURCES AND TAX BASE OF THE FOREST COUN- 
TIES OF MINNESOTA. U.S. Dept. Agr., Forest Serv. Prog. Rept. Taxation Inquiry [8], [87] pp. Sept. 5, 
1928. [Mimeographed.] 
THE FOREST COUNTIES OF MINNESOTA: TAX BASE CONTINUED, TAX RATES, AND TAX BURDEN ON 
ea | U. S. Dept. Agr., Forest Serv. Prog. Rept. Taxation Inquiry 5, [28] pp. 1929. [Mimeo- 
HERBERT, P. A. RESOURCES AND PUBLIC FINANCES OF MICHIGAN IN RELATION TO THF FOREST TAX PROB- 
LEM. U.S. Dept. Agr., Forest Serv. Prog. Rept. Taxation Inquiry 13, [103] pp. 1931. [Mimeographed.| 
