FOREST TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES 373 
time of its adoption, was hailed by many as the crowning feature 
necessary to make forest-tax legislation effective. 
Optional classification was adopted as a means of putting the yield 
tax into effect selectively. Its purpose was to exclude from the 
benefits of forest-tax legislation the great bulk of forest land whose 
owners had no interest in forestry, and to keep within bounds the 
loss in property-tax revenue which otherwise would have been large 
enough to require a readjustment burdensome to other taxpayers. 
Revenue considerations likewise played an important part in 
gaining acceptance for the expedient of imposing limitations on the 
size and value of the properties eligible for classification. This ex- 
pedient also had the advantage of excluding lands having a high 
value because of other prospective uses than forestry. 
Authority was given to the State forestry departments to administer 
certain vital features of the laws, such as those concerning eligibility 
for classification and the making and enforcing of rules and regulations 
designed to insure a degree of forestry practice. One State, Min- 
nesota, went so far as to authorize the carrying on of the required 
operations at State expense where the owner failed to perform them 
himself, all such expense to be assessed to the owner and either paid 
with current taxes or added, with interest, to the yield tax on timber 
subsequently marketed. 
A degree of certainty as to taxation of classified forest lands was 
sought in some States through fixed or limited assessments or tax 
rates, and in others through fixing directly the specific amount of 
annual tax per acre. ‘These devices were intended to offer the forest 
owner a stabilized annual tax substantial y lower than the full property 
tax but sufficient to give some support to loca revenues. 
The payment by the State to local communities of stipu’ated sums 
annually to replace, in whole or in part, their loss in tax revenue 
through the transfer of forest property from the property-tax to the 
yield-tax rolls was another fiscal device intended to make easier the 
more widespread adoption and application of forest-tax laws. The 
State was usually to be reimbursed for this outlay by a larger share of 
the revenue from the yield tax than it would otherwise receive. This 
device was expected to overcome the opposition of the local communi- 
ties where the loss of forest property from the tax base might other- 
wise resu t in increased taxes on all other classes of rural property. 
The setting up of a contract between State and owner defining the 
method of taxation was an expedient intended to protect the forest 
owner who would undertake the practice of forestry under the favor- 
able tax provisions offered by the special forest-tax law from any 
subsequent change in the terms of the law or from its repeal. The 
contract feature was expected to insure that such an owner would 
retain unchanged the tax advantage offered by the law until his for- 
estry investment had matured. 
The failure of the above expedients in connection with optional 
classification to effect any widespread substantial results in promoting 
the practice of forestry led to the idea of segregating, by decision of an 
appropriate State authority, a general class of forest property which 
would be given the benefit of appropriate taxation regardless of the 
action of the owner. It was believed that those owners who were 
prepared to practice forestry if the tax obstacle were removed but who 
