FOREST TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES 93 
resort had been induced to locate in that particular town rather than 
in some other by the assurance of the town officials that the assess- 
ment of the resort would be held at a nominal amount only. This 
sort of agreement is, of course, entirely illegal and might easily 
subject the agreeing parties to prosecution for conspiracy. The 
difficulty about bringing any such charge is, of course, that the 
illegal agreement in question is undoubtedly supported by public 
opinion. A community is usually as much to blame for this type of 
assessment as are its officials. 
REVISION OF ASSESSMENT 
REVIEW 
The term ‘“‘review”’ is used here to denote the formal reconsidera- 
tion and adjustment of the original assessments and the correction of 
errors in assessment. This is the duty of a board of review, or board 
of relief, which is provided by law for this purpose. The corrections 
or adjustments that seem necessary are made by the board on its own 
initiative or upon the appeal of a taxpayer who may feel that his prop- 
erty has been wrongfully assessed. Maine, New Hampshire, and 
Rhode Island are the only States in which this formal review of assess- 
ments is not provided by law (41, pp. 76-77; 50). New Hampshire, 
however, permits a taxpayer to appeal informally to the State tax 
commission, which has ample authority on its own initiative to reas- 
sess any property in the State. In Maine and Rhode Island, as well 
as in other New England States, the taxpayer may obtain relief com- 
parable to a review by appealing to the town selectmen for a whole or 
partial abatement of taxes after such taxes have been levied upon an 
unjust or erroneous assessment. 
In only 10 States, (Connecticut, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New 
York, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, and 
Wisconsin), are there town or township boards of review; and in Con- 
necticut, New York, and Vermont these boards do not have the 
ower to review and correct assessments on their own motion. The 
oard of review is a county board in 35 States, i.e., those States with 
county assessment districts and, in addition, Massachusetts, New Jer- 
sey, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska. 
The board of review generally is at least partially composed of ex- 
officio members, county or township officials. In such States as 
Alabama, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, 
Oklahoma, and Oregon the assessor is also a member of the board of 
review, whose duty it is to aid in correcting his own assessments (41, 
pp. 70-77; 50). 
The one universal fact about boards of review is that they leave 
most of the errors in the original assessment uncorrected. The errors 
are so widespread that the board of review can only skim the surface 
of revision in the limited time allotted to the reviewing function. 
The members of the board are oftentimes ex officio and have other 
pressing duties, and in any event they are little animated by any 
missionary zeal to disturb the established order. 
In many States (Connecticut, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Mass- 
achusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Utah, 
and West Virginia) the failure to file a sworn statement showing all 
taxable property and its value bars the taxpayer from appeal, either 
