FOREST TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES 7 
million acres of land in commercial forests are now privately owned 
(73d Cong., Ist sess., S. Doc. 12). While the publicly owned area is 
increasing in this country by reversion of tax-delinquent lands and 
by purchase, this increase is slow compared with the total area 
involved. 
The public is taking an increasing interest in the conservative man- 
agement of all forests, both public and private. Not only is the need 
for perpetuation of the domestic timber supply recognized, but also 
the need for protection against floods, erosion, the silting or drying-up 
of navigable streams, the depletion or pollution of domestic water 
supplies, and the spoliation of scenery. These are all vitally im- 
portant from the public point of view, but not so important from 
the point of view of a private owner. A private owner has no direct 
interest in protecting agricultural and urban property lying below his 
forest land from the evil effects of floods and erosion, nor does he gain 
from helping to preserve and keep pure the domestic water supply of 
some city perhaps 100 miles distant. He may occasionally receive a 
small and irregular income on account of scenery, as when he has 
suitable camp sites for rent, but such income is on the whole excep- 
tional. The owner must, perforce, be concerned with income on 
which he can depend, and such income is to be obtained chiefiy from 
the utilization of the merchantable timber. It 1s to the owner’s 
advantage to cut trees at the point of greatest financial return and to 
spend no more on cultural operations than is strictly justified by 
financial considerations. 
As a matter of fact, owners are frequently led by force of circum- 
stances to cut growing trees before they have reached the point of 
greatest financial return, even though such practice may be against 
their own best interest. The public is interested in influencing private 
owners against such short-sighted or emergency cutting, in order that 
the consequent deterioration of the forest stand may be prevented. 
The public interest is generally on the side of growing larger timber. 
In the case of forests needed for protection or for scenic purposes, the 
public interest requires not only less severe cutting, but also as a rule 
more expensive cultural operations and methods of cutting. From 
the public standpoint, even a reduction in rate of financial return may 
be more than offset by protective and aesthetic advantages. 
Questions arising from this conflict of interest have in the past 
usually been resolved in favor of the private owner, except as pre- 
vented by restrictive legislation or traditional obligations enforced by 
public sentiment. Legislative restrictions such as are in effect in 
many Kuropean countries have not generally been adopted by the 
American States except, to a limited extent, in regard to fire pro- 
tection. The traditional obligations so effective in some countries of 
Europe have not thus far established themselves in the United States. 
A precedent may perhaps be seen in the action of Louisiana and New 
Hampshire in requiring the leaving of seed trees under certain con- 
ditions. A very important step in the direction of regulating methods 
of cutting on private forest lands has recently (1933-34) been taken 
by the lumber and timber products industries under article X of the 
Lumber Code in connection with the National Recovery Adminis- 
tration. This article provides for the adoption of specific measures 
of forest practice within each regional division of the industry in order 
to assure continuous forest production. 
