FOREST TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES 365 
cooperation with the United States Forest Service and the State tax 
commission, sponsored a thorough-going field study conducted by 
Alfred K. Chittenden and Harry Irion, of the Forest Service, the 
results of which were published in a bulletin of the State forestry 
department (181). Nothing came of this effort, since shortly after- 
ward the local forestry movement became involved in a constitu- 
tional difficulty, and the State’s forestry work languished for several 
years. Prior to the adoption of the present law, the State constitution 
had to be amended. This action was instituted by the successive 
adoption of a joint resolution of both houses of the 1925 (S. L., 
Joint Res. 61 and 62, p. 725) and 1927 (S. L., Joint Res. 13, p. 972, 
certificate, pp. 1005-1006) legislatures. 'The amendment was ratified 
at the judicial election on April 5, 1927. 
Washington is another State that began early to seek the adoption 
of the yield tax, though its struggle came to a successful issue only 
after a score of years. In 1910, Gov. M. E. Hay, of Washington, at 
the suggestion of the Washington Conservation Association, appointed 
a Washington State Commission on Forest Legislation. Francis G. 
Miller, then dean of the University of Washineton Forest School, was 
chairman of the subcommittee on forest taxation which recommended 
a constitutional amendment.” In 1912 the United States Forest 
Service undertook a detailed study of forest taxation in Washington 
under the direction of Professor Miller (204). Neither one of these 
efforts progressed to the legislative stage. In 1921 the Washington 
State Forestry Conference was organized, and, among others, a com- 
mittee on taxation was named. By the time of the fourth annual 
conference in October 1924 the committee had evolved a definite 
legislative program in the shape of two bills, one for a constitutional 
amendment and the other for a law. These were introduced into the 
special session which convened in November of the following year. 
The first of these, the constitutional amendment, was passed by both 
houses (S. L. Extraord. sess., 1925-26, ch. 110, pp. 169-171) but 
failed of ratification at the succeeding general election in November 
1926. The bill for a law, having been introduced for its educational 
effect in helping the passage of the constitutional amendment, was 
withdrawn before it came to a final vote. Following this defeat, the 
conference did not again risk alienating the support of other interests 
likewise in need of constitutional tax relief by sponsoring a special 
amendment applying only to forests, but joined hands with these 
other interests and supported a general classification amendment 
(S. L. 1927, ch. 180, pp. 213 and 214). This amendment failed of 
ratification when first submitted, at the general election in 1928, but 
was finally adopted in a somewhat modified form (S. L. 1929, ch. 191, 
pp. 499 and 500) by the general election of 1930. 
Connecticut was the last of the pioneer States to investigate at 
some length the possibilities of the yield tax before enacting that 
principle He law. ‘The groundwork was laid by the act of May 2, 
1911, (S. L., ch. 45, p. 1034), which provided for the appointment of 
a commission to investigate forest taxation. Three of the six members 
of this commission were technical foresters and therefore in touch with 
13 WASHINGTON STATE COMMISSION ON FOREST LEGISLATION. REPORT . . . SUBMITTED TO THE 
GOVERNOR. November 16, 1910. Analytical index to recommendations, 43 pp. + pp. A to H (appendixes 
A and B); the report of the commission, pp. 1-8, appendixes C to G, covering the reports of five subcommit- 
tees, pp. 9-68 and appendixes H and I, pp. 69-99), pp. 7-8, and 49-87 being on forest taxation. [Mimeo- 
graphed. ] 
