FOREST TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES 403 
law, as indicated by the court decisions that bear on this question. 
Aside from their doubtful legal status, such contracts are speculative 
in character because of unpredictable future events which may en- 
tirely change their effect. A line of action that is appropriate now 
might lead to grave injustice if adhered to in the face of changed 
conditions, such as a material alteration in the monetary system. 
The contract feature is therefore regarded as inadvisable. 
Some of the difficulties in connection with the optional feature that 
characterizes most of the forest-tax laws have been discussed in ex- 
planation of the relatively small areas classified under these laws. 
It has also been indicated that, if any such law were widely applied, 
there would be reason to suspect that special favors were being granted 
of sufficient weight to overcome the hesitation of the owner to classify 
his property for taxation by an unusual method. As a general 
principle, it would seem that if a certain tax reform is worthy of 
adoption at all, it should apply to all owners of the kind of property 
involved, not only to those who choose to take advantage of a certain 
option. 
The plan of compensating local units of government out of State 
funds for loss of tax revenue from classified forest lands is a feature of 
some of the yield-tax laws which is subject to certain dangers. From 
the viewpoint of tax equity, such payments should be sufficiently 
moderate so that the State may be reasonably certain of eventual 
reimbursement from the yield tax. Also, the local government 
organization thus assisted should be adapted to the real needs of the 
communities which it serves. The dangers are that the payments 
may be fixed in a haphazard manner so as to constitute a drain on 
the resources of the State beyond possibility of reimbursement from 
yield taxes, and that they may prevent or delay the reorganization 
on a more economical scale of overdeveloped local government. 
CONCLUSION 
It is evident that the special forest-tax laws now in effect are to be 
regarded as experimental in character, rather than as furnishing any 
model for adequate legislation on this subject. The laws of the 
optional type, whether they include the yieid-tax feature or not, 
appear to be inherently destined to a narrow application. Those of 
the nonoptional type, as soon as sufficient time for classification has 
elapsed, will be more severely tested by the broader application which 
they demand. The nonoptional yield-tax laws of Oregon and 
Washington promise substantial benefit in preventing the threatened 
breakdown of private ownership of cut-over lands in those States. 
On the other hand, they are subject to the discriminations and dangers 
of the specific land tax or of the uniform fixed assessment. They 
also fail to set up any method of adjusting the yield-tax rate to public 
requirements. ‘These difficulties are not so apparent now as they will 
be in the future, as the specific tax and fixed assessment are not very 
far from the present tax and present assessment on cut-over lands of 
the grades now being considered for classification, and yield taxes 
are not yet due. Neither can the California plan be set up as a 
model, not so much because its effect under the present imperfect 
administration of the property tax is questionable as because it repre- 
sents a plan that is not justifiable except as a strictly temporary 
