n a
real sense, taxing our timber to death.

Our present tax laws prevent reforestation on cut-over lands and
the perpetuation of existing forests by proper use and economic
cutting.

STATE OF MICHIGAN FORESTRY COMMISSION (extracts from report to
governor): The system of taxation should be modified so as to stimulate
timber production instead of repressing it.

There is no logical, moral or political reason why a crop of growing
trees should be included in the assessment, in addition to the
actual value of the land, that does not apply with equal force and
reason to farm lands which are continuously cropped with grains,
root crops or hay. The uncertainty of realizing upon a tree crop is
very much like the uncertainty of a given farm's producing its crop
in full. The only difference is that the forest crop is subjected
to the vicissitudes and chances of a long series of years, while
the farm crops are subject only to the vicissitudes of about one
year. Many of the crops are only subject to the accidents of five
or six months.

In the present stage of forestry in this country, what is most
imperatively required is such a treatment of the subject of taxation
of forested lands as will induce private owners to retain their
forests until ripe to the harvest and to reforest denuded lands.
This would apply to those having lands suitable for such purpose,
or others who might purchase lands suitable therefor, who, under the
present diverse, and oftentimes inequitable, practice of assessments,
cannot be induced to make investments of that character.

REPORT OF SOCIETY FOR PROTECTION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE FORESTS, EX-GOVERNOR
FRANK W. ROLLINS, President: The law of New Hampshire requires
that all property shall be taxed equally, according to its value,
a law constantly and necessarily violated by assessors of forest
property throughout the State. Its strict application even for a
short period would go far to rid the State of its standing timber.
The reason for this is that timber is a growing crop--the only crop
taxed more than once, and if taxed annually at its full value the
cost to the owner of holding the property would be so excessive as to
require its hasty disposal. Assessors everywhere feel instinctively
the inherent injustice of taxing a growing crop at a high annual
rate, and violate the law and their oaths of office with impunity.
The result is there are as many systems of forest taxation in the
State as there are ass