4 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
subject, including contributions by such men as Fernow, Schenck, 
Gaskill, Akerman, Elliott, and others. Legislation intended to cor- 
rect the situation had been enacted by a number of States. In 1909 
the report of President Roosevelt’s Conservation Commission con- 
tained a monograph by Fairchild on forest taxation, which was influ- 
ential in directing later discussion of the question. The problem 
attracted the attention of the National Tax Association, the Society 
of American Foresters, the American Forestry Association, and others 
interested in forestry and conservation. The lumbering and logging 
associations also took the matter up, and there was steady orowth 
of interest and discussion. Experiments in legislation to solve the 
problem were undertaken with renewed interest in many States. 
While some progress had thus been made in the study of the theoreti- 
cal aspects of the subject and valuable lessons had been learned from 
legislative experience, the problem still remained essentially un- 
solved at the time of the inception of the present investigation. That 
is, the legislation thus far enacted had failed to remove the tax ob- 
stacle which stood in the way of the fullest development of private 
forestry, and knowledge of the theory and especially of the facts of 
the problem was still too meager to permit of reliable conclusions as 
to what type of legislation was best suited to meet the situation. 
THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON REFORESTATION 
In 1923 Congress took cognizance of the matter as part of the 
broader problem of reforestation. The Senate provided (67th Cong., 
4th sess., S. Res. 398) for the appointment of a committee— 
to investigate problems relating to reforestation, with a view to establishing a 
comprehensive national policy for lands chiefly suited for timber production in 
order to insure a perpetual supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens 
of the United States. 
The Select Committee on Reforestation, appointed pursuant to 
this resolution, was composed of Charles L. McNary, Oregon, chair- 
man, George H. Moses, New Hampshire, James Couzens, Michigan, 
Duncan U. Fletcher, Florida, and Pat Harrison, Mississippi. The 
committee proceeded to make a Nation-wide survey, with hearings 
covering all the important forest regions of the United States. The 
published record of its hearings (67th Cong., 4th sess., hearing pur- 
suant to S. Res. 398) contains much interesting and valuable evidence 
upon the general problem of reforestation and frequent reference to 
the question of forest taxation. 
The committee made its report to the Senate on January 10, 1924 
(68th Cong., Ist sess., S. Rept. 28). This report called attention to 
the fact that annual property taxes, unless extremely moderate, may 
debar the investment of private funds in forest-growing enterprises. 
The great diversity in tax burden on both merchantable timberland 
and on cut-over land among the different parts of the United States 
was cited, and the conclusion was reached that the uncertainties in 
respect to taxation constitute a serious handicap on reforestation. 
The complexity of the problem was recognized, particularly the 
revenue difficulties which certain solutions might involve. Bounties, 
rebates, and exemptions were rejected as unsound. According to 
the committee, forest properties should pay their fair share of the 
public revenues, and the solution of the forest-tax problem should be 
