k highest
production and safety from fire.

6. Demonstrable justice to all concerned, rather than subsidy which,
while doubtless warrantable to secure the public good, affords
less precise basis of legislation at the present time.

7. Simplicity in adoption and operation.

A SUGGESTED SOLUTION

These requirements can be met by legislation, following constitutional
amendment where necessary, providing that where the owner of cut or
burned-over land will contract with the State to insure reforestation
and protection for a specified term of years, the State shall notify
the county assessor that the land is separated for taxation purposes
from any forest growth thereon. The land may continue to pay a fair
dependable tax, but the crop shall not be taxed until harvested.
To the end that cutting of standing timber shall be conducted so
as to place the land in the best condition for reforesting, uncut
forest land should be subject to examination and similar contract,
and the separate classification for taxation should take effect
within a year after the timber is removed in compliance with the
contract.

This would mean that when the owner of deforested land chiefly
valuable to the community for forest production agrees to make it
produce, he shall be taxed not on his effort but upon the results
of his effort, and then exactly as other producers are taxed upon
their results. He may pay tax upon his land, as other land owners
do, upon its actual value, but without this value being enhanced
for taxation purposes by reason of any crop thereon.

COMPARISON WITH PRESENT SYSTEM IN RESULTS

The community would get no less tax revenue, but presumably more,
than it does under the present system. In either case the owner
will really pay annually only upon the land value, not upon the
growth; the only difference being that under the proposed system
he would not be asked to, while under the present system _either
there will be no growth to tax, or, if there is, he cannot afford
to pay and the land will revert_. It must be borne in mind that
while cut-over land is actually being held under the present system,
it has seldom grown anything yet. No expense has been incurred to
establish a crop, accidental growth is almost always destroyed
by fire because it does not pay to protect it, and if it is not so
destroyed it has not yet been accorded the expectation value which
the assessor will be obliged to recognize in the early future if