266 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
circumstances the most advantageous course would be to cut even 
though forests were entirely exempt from taxation. 
In short, the disposition of merchantable timber is governed in the 
long run by the judgment of its owners as to what will be for them 
the most profitable course. The principal factors that determine 
such judgment are the present and expected future realizable values 
of forest properties and the charges which must be incurred in the 
holding of timber for future disposition. Taxes are one of the im- 
portant carrying charges, though generally of considerably less 1m- 
portance than interest. In certain border-line situations and in cer- 
tain cases where individual owners are peculiarly situated, taxation 
might be the predominant factor in causing the cutting of old-growth 
timber. By and large, however, it is clear, on the basis of the evi- 
dence and the general economic principles involved, that taxation has 
not, up to the present time, been generally a controlling influence 
upon the time and rate of cutting of the American forests or upon 
the overproduction of lumber. 
It is now (1933) contemplated that, pursuant to the National 
Industrial Recovery Act, overproduction will be prevented under 
the lumber and timber products codes by restrictions having the 
force of law. To the extent that this policy is continued, taxation 
will of course have no power to cause overproduction of lumber and 
other timber products. 
EFFECT ON THE GROWING OF TIMBER 
THE TESTIMONY OF THE OWNERS 
The 1909 investigation, to which reference has already been made, 
yields some important evidence regarding the effect of taxes on forest 
growing (101, pp. 608-610). An inquiry was addressed to forest 
owners containing three questions bearing on this subject. The first 
was: ‘“‘ Would a reduced tax lead you to adopt different methods so as to 
preserve young growth or to leave seed trees wn order to provide for a 
future crop, and for the protection of cut-over land from fire?”’ The 
answers received were as follows: 
Number’ of letters Tecel vea 2.2 x5 ac we 484 
INO mt OR TI's CLOT OT CII GGUS GO Ta eet ge ee tee 100 
Noor dowbtiulsceics Ga eG NS Ee ee Maria Drie anil neue ame apa 166 
Ves Jor probably, OFM SOMME Cases ae we xe ee aig eet ae a gee te ee 218 
The second question was: ‘‘ Would it lead you to plant such of your 
holdings as have been cut over when planting is necessary?”? The 
answers to this question follow: 
Numberoflettersineceivied 22 22 A Ss Ch a ae eee 484 
Notinformation on this question 22 722 wae sie ep ep ee ee ee 173 
IN OssOrsCOulb GE eo se a a 5 Ll 182 
Yess or possibly, or would Comsid en ita 5 eee Sse apy epee eee eee we 129 
The third question was: ‘‘ Would it influence you not to abandon 
cut-over lands?”’ ‘The answers are as follows: 
INumbersof letters received 0G HOw AT, DS A LO een 484 
Nomunformation on this (questions a2 22090 ha eee ee ene ee 184 
Co Rainey ie, Trea See Rete a eae On aS Rie A RGIS TONG ONE OLN Neer A gh 123 
NV i 8 ee aa eee a ee aR Be SUN AE aA A le a LOS 
The answers to the questionnaire sent by the Timber Conservation 
Board in 1931 contain additional evidence. One of the questions was: 
