FOREST TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES 187 
important factor. It is a question of the actual imposition of the 
penalty. Certainty of imposing a moderate penalty is probably a 
more effective deterrent to delinquency than mere severity of penalty. 
The possibility of having a penalty remitted, legally or otherwise, 
makes the amount of the penalty of no great moment to the taxpayer. 
Carl H. Chatters, speaking before the National Conference on 
Government at Buffalo, N. Y., November 11, 1931, said: 
The reduction or elimination of penalties on past-due taxes has been a cause of 
concern to those who have been hoping for better things in tax administration. 
The 1931 legislature of the State of Michigan passed an act canceling all penal- 
ties on 1929 and 19380 taxes if paid before June 30, 1931. There were heavy 
collections in June 1931, of taxes for these years. Does this justify the law? 
Hardly. I have visited most parts of the State or talked with officials from the 
various communities. The story is universally heard that those who did pay on 
time were discriminated against and will hesitate to pay promptly in the future. 
Many others plan to delay paying 1931 and 1932 taxes until the legislature meets 
again in 1933 when they hope to have more tax penalties canceled or reduced. 
In 1931 Minnesota, Texas, North Carolina, and several other 
States extended the time for paying taxes or reduced or waived the 
penalties for delinquency. ‘The ultimate effects are almost certain 
to be disastrous. 
Even those States which have a creditable collection procedure 
find it difficult to get the law enforced with the necessary diligence. 
In most taxing jurisdictions the collecting of taxes is a political job, 
that is, taxes are collected by a person who holds his office by popular 
election. It is well known that political officers are constantly 
importuned to grant favors or immunities and that many, desirous 
of reelection, cannot resist the pressure. When the favor takes the 
form of granting an extension in time for paying taxes, remitting a 
penalty, or withholding the taxpayer’s name from the advertised list, 
the practice invites delinquency. There is plenty of evidence that 
these things are done repeatedly in many States. 
After a comprehensive study of tax delinquency in Ohio, one 
investigator declares ” that a significant — 
factor in the explanation of the failure of county officials to enforce the tax 
collection statutes more vigorously is the political nature of the county treasurer’s 
office. Elective officers hold their positions at the pleasure of the taxpayers. 
From the point of view of vote-getting, it is not advisable to incur the displeasure 
of the electorate by invoking the aid of the law too energetically in collecting 
taxes. 
The tax collector is not usually alone in his dereliction. Governing 
bodies often extend the collecting period, postpone the date of sale, 
or otherwise depart from the legal calendar. Likewise sheriffs and 
county attorneys fail to institute foreclosure proceedings on time and 
fail to prosecute them with vigor after they are instituted. Delay 
and irregularity in the enforcement of the delinquency laws naturally 
encourage delay and indifference on the part of the taxpayers. There 
are counties in North Carolina where it has become a tradition to 
collect the taxes with completeness and dispatch. There are other 
counties just as favorably situated economically where a large volume 
of delinquency is so usual that delinquency has lost its stigma. 
The Chamber of Commerce of the United States in one of its 
reports (63, p. 25) states: 
Promptness in the administration of delinquent taxes does much to eliminate 
them; to reduce the cost of administering them; to minimize the rate of interest 
16 Ninsson, A. E. See p. 50 of citation given in footnote 50. 
