FOREST TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES 523 
that a reasonable approach to perfection of administration is hopeless, 
attention must perforce be turned either to modification of the prop- 
erty tax or to other methods of taxation. 
For example, in connection with complaint against the excessive 
burden of taxation it is frequently claimed—and in many cases 
demonstrated—that forest property (especially cut-over land) is 
assessed for more than it is worth. Now this situation is no part of 
the theory of property taxation. It is not countenanced by either 
the spirit or the letter of the tax law. It is clearly illegal. The 
taxpayer is presumed always to have legal remedy against such 
illegal taxation; the courts must reduce an assessment that can be 
shown to be in excess of the value of the property. No change in 
the law is required to meet this condition. Question may still remain, 
however, whether in actual practice the recourse to the courts is 
sufficient protection. ‘The taxpayer may be ignorant; the legal proc- 
esses may be too cumbersome or expensive; values may be hard to. 
prove. Submission to the overassessment may appear the lesser of 
evils or may follow mere inertia. This may raise the question whether 
the struggle for a correct enforcement may after all be hopeless— 
whether the only escape is in some fundamental modification of the 
property tax or the substitution of a different tax method that offers 
hope of honest administration. This question applies, not only to 
- forest property, but to all other taxable property as well. 
There is another situation more common than the foregoing and 
more difficult to correct. As a general rule, most property is assessed 
at less than its true value. Very often it is found that forest property, 
especially cut-over land, while not assessed for more than its true 
value, is nevertheless assessed at a higher ratio to true value than 
other classes of property. ‘The result is, of course, an inequitable 
burden of taxation, which is clearly due to incorrect assessment 
rather than to any inherent weakness in the theory of the property 
tax. The remedy, however, is not so obvious as where property is 
actually assessed for more than its value. All assessments at less 
than true value are contrary to law, and the taxpayer who, being 
assessed at a higher level than his neighbor, takes his own assessment 
to court, may prove in the first instance only that he is himself 
assessed at less than the law requires. To prove that he is, never- 
theless, assessed more heavily than others and hence entitled to legal 
redress is a difficult and often hopeless task. ‘There can be no doubt 
that just and equal assessment can be obtained only when assess- 
ments are at full value, as the law requires. Enforcement of such 
legal assessment would go a long way to remove the adverse effects 
of the property tax. At the same time there may be question as to 
whether full-value assessment can ever be attained and, if not, 
whether it is worth while to seek to reform the administration of the 
property tax or whether the remedy must be found through substi- 
tution of other tax methods. Again this question affects, not only 
forest property, but all other taxable property as well. 
To cite still another example: The exploitation of mature timber 
is sometimes hastened by the action of assessors seeking to get all 
possible revenue for their county or town before the timber is removed. 
Timber owners frequently complain that it is a race between them- 
selves and the assessors, and that the owner’s only salvation is to 
remove his timber as rapidly as possible. Now it should be clear 
