FOREST TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES 159 
Delinquent lands that are offered for sale by the country treasurer 
and that are not sold for want of bidders are considered forfeited to 
the State (sec. 5744). They continue to be listed for taxation in the 
name of the State (sec. 5745). 
Second Monday in December 1930: Such forfeited lands, if not 
redeemed in the meantime by the payment of all taxes and charges 
due, are required to be offered for sale by the county auditor in 
December following their forfeiture to the State. (The date of this 
sale was changed in 1931 to March, sec. 5752.) Parcels which cannot 
be sold at the first forfeited-land sale for an amount sufficient to 
cover the taxes and penalties which stand against them are offered 
again at the next regular sale. If a parcel is offered for sale at two 
succeeding sales and still remains unsold, the commissioners of the 
county in which it is situated may order its sale at the next regular 
sale of forfeited lands to the highest bidder, irrespective of the amount 
of taxes and penalties due on it. Such sale shall convey the title 
of the said tract or parcel of land, divested of all liability for any 
arrearages of taxes or penalties which remain after applying thereon 
the amount for which it was sold (sec. 5755). : 
COLLECTING PROCEDURE IN PRACTICE 
THE PRACTICE IN OHIO 
The foregoing pages of this section have undertaken to present a 
picture of the statutory provisions relating to the collection of taxes 
in the States of the United States. No one can go far in the inves- 
tigation of this subject, however, without discovering (1) that the 
procedure is often not conducive to the prompt payment of taxes, 
and (2) that the actual practice seldom, if ever, conforms perfectly 
with the statute and frequently departs widely therefrom. The 
results of the Ohio study already referred to are very illuminating, 
this being one of the few attempts to make a detailed check of the 
relation of administrative procedure to the requirements of the law, 
and to discover to what extent the provisions of the laws themselves 
appear to be responsible for a departure from them in practice. 
The Ohio investigator directed quest onnaries to the officials of 
every county in the ‘State, inquiring about the actual performance in 
respect to each step in the procedure outl ned above. The questions 
and summaries of the answers follow: 
(1) Are the delinquent lands advertis‘d each year between the twentieth day of 
December and ihe second Thursday in February as required by law? 
59 coun y auditors advertise on time. 
26 county auditors advertise later. 
3 county auditors do not advertise at all. 
The reason for the delay in advertising, in most cases, was attributed 
to the failure of the treasurer to close his books on time. Some 
justified a failure to advertise on the ground of economy. Nilsson 
concedes that— 
there can be little doubt that the present advertising practice is unnecessarily 
expensive. It seems that the same purpose of public notification would be attained 
if some discretion were left to county auditors concerning the actual content of 
the delinquent land list which was to be published. 
(2) Is the February delinquent land tax certification made each year? 
26 county auditors make it regularly. 
20 county auditors make it with irregularity. 
1 county auditor has made none since 1924. 
1 county auditor has never made it. 
