FOREST TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES 231 
value of 2 percent given above will be taken as the standard of com- 
parison for the normal tax burden on forests. 
In the case of Maine, data are not available for an estimate of other 
rural real estate value in the wild-lands territory nor for estimates of 
forest and of other rural real estate value in the organized territory. 
But the great difference between the tax rate on assessed value of 
forest property in the wild-lands territory (1.9 percent) and that in 
the organized territory (4.9 percent) gives some indication of the 
beneficial results to the taxpayers of an unorganized status. For 
further discussion of this matter see part 8. The ratio of taxes to 
estimated value of forests in the wild-lands territory (1.3 percent) is 
one of the lowest ratios for forests encountered in this study. 
NEw HAMPSHIRE 
In New Hampshire the data show the ratio of taxes to estimated 
value of forests to be distinctly high in Loudon, 3.8 percent, quite 
high in Richmond, 2.2 percent, and moderate in Fremont, 1.7 percent, 
as compared with the average for the areas studied of 2 percent. 
The ratio of taxes to estimated value of other rural real estate is the 
same as for forests in Fremont and Richmond, indicating the same 
level of assessment, but it is considerably lower in Loudon (2.2 as 
compared with 3.8 percent), indicating a higher level of assessment for 
forests. There is little or no difference in tax rates (ratio of taxes to 
assessed value) as between forests and other rural real estate. 
Norta CAROLINA 
The data for North Carolina show moderate to low ratios of forest 
taxes to estimated forest value. They are highest in Macon (1.7 
percent), slightly lower in Beaufort (1.6 percent), and lowest in 
Chatham (1.2 percent). There is practically no evidence in these 
counties ef inequality in the level of assessment as between forests 
and other rural real estate. Forests in Beaufort County are subject 
to a lower tax rate than is other rural real estate, 1.7 percent in con- 
trast to 2.1 percent. In the other two counties the tax rates are 
about the same for forests as for other rural real estate. 
MINNESOTA 
The last 4 Minnesota townships listed in table 87 consist almost 
entirely of forests; therefore, a comparison of forests with other rural 
real estate would be either impossible, as in the case of the last 2 
townships, where there is no other rural real estate; or the comparison 
would be unreliable, as in the case of the other two, where the amount 
of other rural real estate is so small that the ratios would not be 
significant. 
In the other townships the ratios of taxes to estimated value of 
forests range from 3.4 percent in Lake Emma Township to 6.9 percent 
in Schoolcraft—extremely high ratios as compared with the average 
for the other areas studied. The ratios of taxes to estimated value 
of other rural real estate are much more moderate, ranging from 0.9 
percent in Lake Emma to 1.4 percent in Schoolcraft. This is due to 
the much higher assessment of forests than of other rural real estate. 
In six townships (Clay, Eckles, Frohn, Lake Emma, Schoolcraft, and 
