256 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
taxation of the advisory committee of the Timber Conservation 
Board, were as follows: 
Number of returns. :5: 1502) 90 eye RNs sae 22 Aes 2k sg 124 
This question not. answered =e eae NE Siete Ney epee oe ee eee nies ee 31 
‘Taxation not: mentioned: inians wero 2 25 es he 76 
Taxation mentronmedss 20 sce he Gee We LSE AE ES Lee AO ee a eS 17 
As only case 2 20) Be aye ee) ee PUREE eS I eee ep eEEeS 2 
First, amorig! various: causeswec #49. ia ve ee a oe 9 
Following othercauses 28 se pe hel ane AO ei eg ene ee 6 
Since those who responded to this question may be presumed to 
have answered chiefly with reference to their own operations, these 
replies may be regarded as presenting definite facts as to the influence 
of taxation upon cutting policy. 
The subcommittee on taxation cited these replies, along with the 
replies to the earlier Forest Service questionnaire, as evidence of the 
relatively minor role of taxation as a cause of overproduction of lum- 
ber and arrived at the following general conclusion: 
Since the date of the foregoing statement [from the Report of the National 
Conservation Commission quoted above], the weight of taxation in the United 
States has increased materially, upon forest lands and timber as well as upon all 
other classes of property. The blighting influence of taxation upon reforestation 
fof which mention will be made later in this section] is even more evident than 
before, whereas it is still true that the idea that up to the present taxation has 
by and large had any widespread substantial effect upon the time and rate of 
cutting of the American forests or in hastening overproduction of lumber is not 
supported by the evidence, although it may well be that in individual cases 
taxes have actually furnished the controlling motive to cutting. 
Two of the six members of this subcommittee were not in accord 
with the above statement, and a rather spirited controversy ensued, 
which resulted in the various lumber associations searching for further 
evidence to support the contention that taxation has been a cause of 
overproduction in the lumber industry. A subsequent question- 
naire, sent to various timberland owners throughout the country in 
January 1932, by the National Lumber Manufacturers Association 
for the Timber Conservation Board, contained the leading question, 
‘Do you think taxation is in any wmportant degree the cause of hasten- 
ing timber cutting undesirably from an industrial or community 
viewpoint?” This produced a definite ‘‘yes”’ in 70 out of 76 cases. 
Following are some quotations from replies to this questionnaire: 
Qur experience over a period of years taught us quite definitely that the present 
methods of taxation do cause timber owners to force their product on the market 
when they would otherwise be keeping it on the stumps. [H. P. Brady of the 
Colby Lumber Co., Colby, Wash.] 
For the past few years, we have been cutting out at the rate of 30 million feet 
of timber per year, selling off the greater portion of our cut-over lands at $1.50 
per acre to the Government, and a small part of the better located and more suit- 
able land to actual settlers at from $2.50 to $5 per acre, making but a few small 
purchases of additional timber, and still our taxes amount to as much, or more 
each year as the previous year. This enormous burden, together with the 
dangerous hazard of wind and fire damage, the deterioration of timber through 
maturity and the interest on the capital invested, makes it almost impossible 
to carry a large tract of timber over a period of years at a profit. [M. J. Fox of 
the Von Platen-Fox Co., Iron Mountain, Mich. This statement contains a 
slight correction made by Mr. Fox subsequent to his original reply to the Timber 
Conservation Board.] 
Our timber was held in towns where there was just enough settlers so that they 
wanted good roads and good schools and our taxes ran probably higher than with 
some other people but the cold hard fact is that we had to cut our timber because 
of the excessive burden in the way of taxation. In truth and in fact the tax 
gatherer confiscated our property and ruined the chance that we had to make 
