FOREST TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES 417 
The forest-yield tax, so called, belongs to this first type of sever- 
ance taxes and is elsewhere (part 12) discussed-in detail as to its 
advantages and disadvantages. Accordingly only the second type, 
namely, those levied in addition to the property tax, needs further 
attention here. 
Severance taxes of this type are regarded as license taxes for the 
privilege of engaging in the business of extracting or otherwise sever- 
ing of a natural resource from the ground or inland waters of the 
State levying the tax. As already noted, however, they may take 
any one of the several specific forms mentioned. They are usually 
justified on one or more of the following grounds. Any natural 
resource is a free gift of nature, not arising from human efforts, and 
is severable and removable from the tax jurisdiction of the State. 
Consequently, it is held that the State should share in the returns 
over and above what is contributed by the ordinary property tax, 
such share serving to compensate it for the permanent loss from the 
tax base which the exploitation of such resource effects. Again, 
because of the fact that the value of such property when taxable 
under the property tax is progressively depleted, such property does 
not bear its fair share of the property tax burden. This discrepancy 
the additional tax tends to offset. A further justification claimed 
for it is that, following the exploitation of certain natural resources, 
the land surface is ruined for any subsequent use or is Jeft in such 
condition that it will be a long time before it can again be rehabili- 
tated and become a productive asset to the community. This situa- 
tion, it is held, calls for the licensing of such exploitation operations, 
in the interest of conservation, as a means of controlling the damage 
so far as possible, and for the charging of a fee to be used in rehabili- 
tating the land afterward. 
On the other hand, those who oppose the supertax idea for such 
resources as minerals, oil, gas, and timber claim that the State should 
have an equal interest in the fertility of farm land and in safeguarding 
it against depletion and abuse. Furthermore, it is urged that such 
resources are no more the heritage of the State in which they happen 
to be found than they are of other States and of the Nation, and that 
users of these resources in these other States should not be required 
to pay tribute to the State where they naturally occur. In answer 
to the argument based on diminishing value and the disappearance 
from the State of its natural wealth, it is claimed that a part of the 
resource at least is converted into other taxable forms of wealth, 
which continue to be a taxable asset of the State. 
While there are several States that levy this kind of severance 
tax on their natural resources, only two include timber. These are 
Arkansas and Louisiana. The Louisiana law,” as most recently 
amended (1928), provides for 5 different classes and 2 additional sub- 
classes of timber, classified by species. The rates, per thousand feet 
cut, range from 7 cents for second-growth pine and black, tupelo, 
and sap gums to 26 cents for cypress. In addition, turpentine (crude 
gum) is taxable at the rate of 10 cents per 400 pounds. (‘Other 
forest products” than those specifically mentioned are declared also to 
be taxable (sec. 1), though no specific rate is provided for any such 
(sec. 2).) The tax is due and payable quarterly. One-fifth of the 
#% Louisiana session laws, 1922, act 140, as amended 1928. 
101285 °—35——_27 
