FOREST TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES 369 
reverted to the exemption methods of the old regime and enacted 
the act of March 26, 1923 (S. L. 19, p. 29). These three Vermont 
laws, being still extant, are described elsewhere (pp. 400-401). 
Connecticut was the fourth State to adopt a forest-tax law based 
on the yield-tax principle. This is contained in the act of May 7, 
1913 (S. L., ch. 58, p. 1666). The act recognized and provided some- 
what different treatment for young forests (those not over 10 years 
old) and for older forests, as already indicated for Vermont. The 
act was amended by the act of March 31,1915 (S. L., ch. 90, p. 1953), 
which chiefly amplified the assessment procedure of lands offered 
for classification. As amended, the act has remained on the statute 
books to date, its details and effectiveness being described elsewhere. 
Connecticut recently amplified its forest-tax program by an exemp- 
tion law reminiscent of the old regime, namely, the act of June 3, 
1929 (S. L., ch. 179, p. 4610), which is elsewhere described (pp. 391 
and 396). 
The Pennsylvania forest-tax program was the fifth to be adopted 
and, as already noted, was embodied in three separate acts. One of 
these, the act of June 5, 1913 (S. L. 284, p. 426), set up a definite 
class of forest land to be known as “‘auxiliary forest reserves’ and at- 
tempted to endow the class with certain exclusive and distinctive 
features, in order, it was thought, to satisfy certain constitutional 
requirements relating to uniformity of taxes within a class. This act 
contained a contract feature binding owners to handle their forests 
according to the rules and regulations of the State forestry depart- 
ment. Another, the act of June 5, 1913 (S. L. 269, p. 405), estab- 
lished a special tax system for such reserves, providing for a reduced 
assessment of not over $1 an acre taxable annually under the property 
tax and a 10-percent tax on the actual stumpage value of the timber 
when andascut. The third, the act of June 5, 1913 (S. L. 270, p. 408), 
provided for the payment of certain fixed charges annually by the 
State to the local communities in which such reserves were situated to 
be devoted to road and school purposes and intended to offset in part 
at least any loss in property-tax revenue that the changed tax status 
might impose. These three laws still remain on the statute books as 
originally passed, but their validity has been rendered doubtful by a 
declaratory judgment’ holding that the second of these laws, 
‘“Horest Reserve Taxation Act” (S. L. 269, p. 405) is unconstitutional 
because the requirement relating to uniformity of taxes within a 
class had not been met. 
Massachusetts was the last State of the early group to put the 
then new yield-tax principle on its statute book. The law is the 
act of June 2, 1914 (S. L., ch. 598, p. 529). Despite the fact that this 
law was carefully drawn to make it as simple and clear as possible, 
the commutation tax feature already referred to proved complicated 
and difficult for the laymen to understand, with the result that but 
few owners availed themselves of its advantages. It was amended 
in minor respects as regards assessment procedure by the act of May 
29, 1918 (S. L., ch. 257, p. 230), and was finally repealed and super- 
seded by the act of May 2, 1922 (S. L., ch. 360, p. 379), which is the 
18 This act also amended the exemption act of 1877 (code sec. 2320), as elsewhere noted. 
18a Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, February Term, 1931, No.15[The Borough of Langhorne 
Manor et al., petitioners for a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of the Acts of June 5, 1913, P. L. 
405 and 426]. Judgment entered, May 2, 1932. The opinion is ‘“‘unreported”’ but is on file in the office 
of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania and in the State Department of Forests and Waters. 
101285 °—35—_24 
