reforest but is continually reburned. Where it accidentally does
reforest, he makes a rough calculation of the value of the second
growth, based upon no particular system and seldom alike in different
counties. But the principle remains the same and the result differs
only in degree. With the most lenient valuation at 10 or 15-year
intervals, the addition of material which makes growing forests
so different from our stationary mature forests of today is bound,
under our present system, to have confiscatory effect. The land
owner, so far from being encouraged to establish and protect a
new forest, is actually penalized, for he must assume that its
expectation value will be taxed annually, perhaps on an exorbitant
basis, as soon as it becomes apparent.

If only the value _added each year_, $2.80 in our illustration,
were taxed annually, there would be no injustice. The tax would
then, in the case cited, be 9 cents the first year and 17 cents
every year thereafter. But this cannot be calculated with sufficient
accuracy upon our present knowledge of forest growth and under
conditions varying with every trace or acre. Our example, with its
several arbitrary factors of growth, tax rate, interest rate, and
future stumpage price, was merely for the purpose of illustration.
Furthermore, such a solution would still be illegal under our present
laws.

REQUIREMENTS REFORM MUST MEET

These facts are recognized by all students of forestry and taxation.
In all countries where forests are grown the general property tax
has been abandoned. Disinterested authorities of every class,
approaching the subject only from the public's point of view and