268 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. 8. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
V.M. Scanlan of the Hattiesburg Lumber Co., Hattiesburg, Miss., 
stated (p. 137): 
Those who undertake to grow and preserve timber should be immune from 
this high taxation. These small trees should not be taxed in the same proportion 
as the other timber is taxed. The fact that the small trees are taxed like the 
other timber discourages husbandry, and no man can afford to undertake it. 
Rasmus Hanson, a lumber manufacturer of Grayling, Mich., believes 
(p. 4387) that even with assured adequate fire protection and an 
adjustment of the tax burden it would be impracticable for lumber- 
men to practice forestry in this country. He believes it is a job for 
the National Government. 
C. R. Johnson of the Union Lumber Co., San Francisco, Calif. 
(pp. 642-643), told the committee that he believed it to be a good 
commercial investment to reforest in the redwood region of California, 
in spite of taxes. However, he commented further: 
I think that the question of taxation, probably, deters more people from adopt- 
ing a policy of reforestation than any other thing. Taxation is something that 
a tree has to face for 50 years under the present system. It has to walk up, as 
it were, to the tax collector’s office 50 or 60 times, in some regions longer than that, 
to pay taxes. And it is not only the taxes at the present rate, but it is the un- 
known factor of what the taxes will be in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, 40 years 
from now. Our company went into reforestation and we are taking our chances 
on that. We believe that something will be done, and when it is done it will 
naturally apply to everybody. 
A. C. Dixon of the Booth-Kelly Lumber Co., Eugene, Oreg., stated 
(p. 724) that with respect to cut-over lands, ‘‘. . . the taxation and 
carrying charges would prevent any private concern from successfully 
reforesting .. .” 
L. T. Murray, West Fork Timber Co., Tacoma, Wash., stated 
(p. 831): 
... In my own particular case and in my own particular location I think I 
can see possibilities in reforestation, with an adjustment of our taxation situation. 
H. G. Miller of the Kalispell Lumber Co., Kalispell, Mont., gave 
the following testimony (p. 951): “I don’t think that m Montana, 
considering the long period required for reproduction, reforestation 
will ever be economically and commercially practicable.” 
In view of the present tax situation, the Anaconda Copper Mining 
Co. cannot afford to hold land for reforestation, but has no way of 
disposing of it, according to Roscoe Haines of Bonner, Mont., repre- 
senting that company (pp. 966-967). 
George W. Sisson of the Racquette River Paper Co., Potsdam, 
N. Y., stated, in effect, that his company is practicing forestry in 
spite of taxes, but that a change in the methods of taxation would 
help. He stated further that it is possible to practice forestry for 
pulpwood, but not for saw timber (p. 1021). 
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 
INTRODUCTORY 
In order to determine the approximate effect of taxes on the growing 
of timber it is necessary to resort to a highly theoretical analysis. 
Such procedure is necessitated by the fact that actual timber-growing 
enterprises in the United States are at present not sufficiently numer- 
ous to furnish a good sample of cost and income data; furthermore, 
detailed financial accounts of such enterprises are not available. 
