364 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
In 1914 J. H. Foster, then professor of forestry at New Hampshire 
State College, made a further study for the State Forestry Commis- 
sion, bringing his 1907 study down to date (187, pp 474-480). In 
1918 another convention was assembled, and a forest-tax amend- 
ment among others was again introduced. However, the convention, 
without acting on any proposals, adjourned almost immediately sub- 
ject to call after the clese of the war. Reconvened in 1920, the forest- 
tax proposal was reintroduced, but, after being debated at great 
length, was defeated in the convention. The convention was again 
reconvened in 1921, without taking any action. Finally, in 1923, the 
convention approved a general tax amendment, which simply author- 
ized the legislature to impose and levy assessments and taxes with no 
other restriction than that they be reasonable. The adoption of 
forest, income, gasoline, and other ferms of taxation, other than the 
uniform ad valorem property tax, would thus have been possible. 
This amendment likewise failed of ratification by popular vote. 
At this same time two different organizations had special commit- 
tees investigating the subject. The New Hampshire Farm Bureau 
Federation committee included forest taxation as a part of its farm 
taxation program (207a) while the New Hampshire Civic Federation 
committee gave exclusive attention to forest taxation (206a). In 
1927 the legislature provided for a recess tax commission, which latter 
reported a comprehensive tax program to the 1929 legislature (208). 
This included an optional forest-yield tax, as well as an income tax and 
certain corporation and other business taxes. Because of the doubtful 
constitutionality of the forest-yield tax and income-tax features, 
among others, the legislature referred the program to thesupreme 
court for an advisory opinion before undertaking to enact this 
program. This opinion was in the main favorable to the entire pro- 
gram, provided certain modifications suggested by the court were 
adopted. One of these was to eliminate the optional feature from the 
proposed forest-yield tax law and make it applicable to all immature 
forests instead of to only a part of them as would otherwise be the 
case. This imposed condition introduced a fiscal difficulty into the 
yield-tax situation, because of its adverse effect on current revenues 
of many local communities, to offset which the State has as yet to 
find a generally acceptable means. 
Wisconsin was another State that early investigated the possibilities 
of the yield tax as a way out of its forest-tax difficulties. The second 
annual report of the State forester (Griffith (191)), submitted Decem- 
ber 1, 1908, contained several references to the subject. Among 
these was the taxation resolution adopted at the Lake States Forestry 
Conference, called at the suggestion of Griffith, held at Saginaw, 
Mich., November 1907, as follows: 
It is the sense of this conference that lands containing forests should be taxed 
in the usual manner so far as the land is concerned, said land to be assessed as if 
it contained no timber; but the forest products should be assessed and taxed only 
when they are cut and removed, and then in an appropriate manner (191, p. 97). 
The State forester’s report also contained a detailed discussion of 
the subject, which concluded with the draft of a proposed yield-tax 
bill (191, pp. 93-95). The latter, as indicated in the report, was 
prepared as the result of a resolution cf the Wisconsin Timberland 
Owners’ Association, requesting that the » forestry department prepare 
such a bill. Subsequently, in 1910, the State forestry department, in 
