FOREST TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES 291 
that if a new unit of government is to be constructed, an attempt 
should be made to make it a vital unit. In speaking before the 
American Country Life Conference at Cornell University (165, pp. 
66-57), he said: 
Mere consolidation will not insure the creation of balanced, conscious, vital 
political units. ... Any recasting of political boundaries in North Carolina, 
or any other State, should be preceded by a state-wide survey covering the dis- 
tribution of population and wealth, population trends, topography, highways, 
trade areas, and particularly the character and vitality of the trade centers. 
In some instances, he says, the consolidation of two or more con- 
tiguous counties would produce such a unit. In other instances, some 
territory would need to be shifted from one county to another. 
After analyzing the possible savings through the consolidation of 
Burnett, Washburn, and Sawyer Counties i in Wisconsin, Wehrwein 
and Allin (168, p. 13) state: 
The combined operation and maintenance cost of the three counties might be 
reduced by approximately $20,000 if they should consolidate. This represents 
about 5.6 percent of their 1929 tax levies. Of the total possible saving Washburn 
County would benefit to the extend of about $9,000, or a little more than 7 percent 
of its 1929 county tax levy. 
These savings could better be realized, however, by county enlargement rather 
than by county consolidation. The merging of these three counties with their 
existing boundaries would not be as desirable as would be the obliteration of present 
boundaries and the creation of a new county based upon the natural conditions 
and the trade areas of the region. ... It would seem that the ideal way to 
enlarge counties is largely to ignore existing boundaries. Almost any consolida- 
tion of existing counties will aggravate some already absurd situations. Many 
present boundaries have little relation to trade areas. 
There are some who think that counties could be abolished alto- 
gether, and their functions transferred to the State in rural territory, 
and divided between the State and the cities in urban territory. It 
has also been suggested (142) that villages and the territcry within 
their respective trade areas be incorporated into “rural municipali- 
ties’’, and that in this way rural territory which desired services in 
addition to those provided by the State could obtain them. It is 
questionable, however, if anything would be gained by such an arrange- 
ment. It would complicate rather than simplify the structure of 
government in rural territory, and it would tend to multiply rather 
than reduce the number of units. Moreover it would leave many rural 
residents outside any local unit of government, a condition which 
would hardly be conducive to the perpetuation of democratic insti- 
tutions. There will continue to be need for a unit of local govern- 
ment in rural territory, except possibly in the very smallest States 
or in wilderness areas. 
Quoting Reed (155) again: 
The county is the liveliest of our units of rural local government. If it can be 
reformed and enlarged, it can be saved. If it cannot, there will be an end of local 
government except for cities. . . . To accept State centralization is to con- 
demn democracy to death. The congestion of business at the State capitol is 
already alarming. . . The real remedy is to stop giving artificial respiration 
to rural units smaller than the county; to re-order county boundaries to corre- 
spond with the real communities which modern means of transportation have 
bound together; and to reform county government along the lines which have 
given some decency and efficacy to municipal government. 
The counties, enlarged and reduced in number by consolidation or 
reconstruction, would seem to be able to fill all the needs of rural local 
vovernment. It would, therefore, seem more practical to utilize them 
