FOREST TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES 333 
to approve or reduce the total budget, or any item of it; and its 
decision is final. It cannot order the insertion of any item for which 
provision has not been made by the local authorities.% 
Local expenditures in Indiana were further restricted in 1932 by 
the adoption of a constitutional amendment which limited the com- 
bined tax levy on any property to 15 mills per dollar of assessed value, 
and created county boards of adjustment in each county to consider 
the various tax levies within the county and to make revisions neces- 
sary to keep all levies under the limit. The State tax board retained 
power in emergencies to grant to petitioning localities the right to 
exceed the tax limit. Despite the failure of the old plan to attain 
fully its objective of controlling local expenditures, the new plan can 
hardly be considered an improvement. A limitation of the tax levy 
does not insure prudent spending. 
The Indiana system was the pattern for the establishment of a some- 
what similar system in Iowa, the main differences being that in the 
latter State five taxpayers may file a petition, and the power of review 
is lodged in the State director of the budget.” 
State control in Oregon ! is less direct and is limited to the political 
units of a single county. The tax-levying bodies of all the political 
units within Multnomah County (the county in which Portland is 
situated) must submit their budgets to a tax supervision and conser- 
vation commission appointed by the Governor. After due considera- 
tion, this commission may— 
approve, reject, or reduce the same or any item therein, or by unanimous vote 
of all the members of the commission increase the same . . . upon the request 
in writing of the proper tax-levying board, if the commission deems an emer- 
gency to exist. 
The most direct, positive, and inclusive type of control exercised 
by any State agency is that exercised by the State tax commission of 
New Mexico. Each political subdivision is required to prepare its 
budget in accordance with forms prescribed by the tax commission, 
very frequently with the assistance of a representative of the com- 
mission. The proposed budgets are then submitted to the commis- 
sion, which scrutinizes and alters them as it sees fit and places its 
approval upon a budget only when it has been rendered satisfactory 
to the members of the commission. After a budget is certified to the 
local authorities, it is binding upon all officials, and no claims may be 
allowed in excess thereof.’ 
The experience with State review of local budgets in the few States 
where it has been tried has not been altogether ‘satisfactory, and the 
plan as well as the principle involved is vigorously condemned by some 
authorities. It is maintained that the State agency entrusted with 
this function is not equipped to perform its work intelligently and that 
the process of review is essentially local and can be best performed by 
agencies intimately acquainted with the needs and resources of the 
locality. These critics (128, 129) hold that the function of the State 
should be limited to the prescribing of forms and rules and the semi- 
judicial review of cases of disputed fact or doubtful legality. On the 
other hand, there are those who claim that the principle is not unsound 
and that State review has had a most beneficial effect (CASO KE) 
% Indiana Laws, 1919, ch. 59, secs. 200-201, amended 1921, 1923; Burns’ Annotated Indiana Statutes, ch. 
102, secs. 200-201 
0 Iowa, Code, 1931, ch. 24. 
1 Oregon, General Laws, 1921, ch. 2 
§ New Mexico, Laws, 1921, ch. 188; 1025, ch. 138. 
