farmer might well exclaim with the huckster from sunny Italy, "What I make on de peanut, I lose on de banan!"

The owners of woodland and no other taxable property would be benefited by classification, and the owners of other taxable property and no woodland would be prejudiced by it.

If the apportionment of state and county taxes is considered it will be observed that it must be less to localities where forest interests are large and greater to sections where those interests are small including all the cities and large towns, than under the present system. It might be that in Coös county ninety per cent of the acreage and ten per cent of the people would be helped and ten per cent of the acreage and ninety per cent of the people harmed by the change.

The weakness of the general property tax as a practical proposition lies in the fact that it affords no affirmative protection. If it does not destroy the trees neither does it save nor restore them; but no tax unaided ever did or will do that. For all taxes can accomplish, cutting will increase as long as present prices are maintained, and prices will never be permanently lower. It will be clean as long as a three inch spruce will make pulp or a four inch pine a box board.

In 1903 a statute was enacted providing that the owner of land planted with not less than 1,200 forest trees to the acre should be entitled to a rebate of ninety per cent of the taxes assessed upon it for the first ten years, eighty per cent for the second ten and fifty per cent for the third. The statute is still in force, but landowners have not planted to any appreciable extent, nor would they have, it is believed, if absolute exemption had been granted.

The crime of the lumber interests lies in the removal of the seed trees. Nevertheless pine reproduces marvelously.

Like volunteer wheat in the West, it comes up in such unexpected places that it is difficult to understand how the seed was distributed. Under favorable circumstances it grows with great rapidity. It is not rare for an acre of second growth pine to produce from 40,000 to 60,000 board feet in from thirty to fifty years. It is persistent and free from serious disease, unless an exception must be made in the case of the blister rust. About this no one knows as yet.

At the beginning of the present period of very high prices more pine, both in area and in volume, was said on good authority to be standing in this state than at any time within fifty years, and to be growing faster than it was being cut. It still "holds out like a widow's meal and oil," but the drain is tremendous.

Spruce, although it occupies the relative position heretofore assigned to it, does not grow so fast as pine; the stand is not so thick or the trees so large. On the other hand, popple and white maple, good pulp trees, become merchantable in twenty years. Hard woods in general, to which this paper devotes slight attention, grow more slowly.

It is of the highest interest to New Hampshire that her present forests be perpetuated, and as far as other uses of the land will permit, her ancient ones restored. The most important areas to consider are the steep mountain slopes. The only safety appears to be in federal ownership, like that of the 360,000 acres in the White Mountains already acquired, or state ownership, like that in the Crawford Notch. On these slopes there is not a stopping place between no cutting and clean cutting. If a few trees are removed, the rest might as well be taken, for otherwise they are sure to be wind thrown. In either case, the fire comes and burns out the roots, the rains wash off the thin soil and there is bare rock forever.

levels. These will be stripped of trees even more completely than when the old growth was removed, unless restraint is imposed. Restrictive cutting was recommended in 1896 by a forestry commission that has had no superior in this state. It may be that its suggestions of twelve inches in diameter for spruce, pine and hemlock and ten inches for popple and birch are excessive, but surely some limit should be set.

As to the 700,000 acres of waste land that once produced magnificent forest, it may be remarked that nature will set it again with trees as before; but as the seed trees have been cut, this will take decades, perhaps centuries, and we cannot wait. It is too great a task for private enterprise; the public must do it directly or indirectly. To quote New Hampshire Forestry, "The experience of the world is that reforestation is a state enterprise."

In a word, it is believed that the growth on certain mountain slopes should not be touched at all, or if at all, lightly and with extreme care; that the cutting of all other growth should be regulated and that waste areas should be reforested, in order that every acre of wild land may, according to its capacity, contribute to the future wealth of the state.

Fortunately this program involves no constitutional amendment. However radical and visionary it may seem, we are for the most part committed to it in principle. Five hundred and sixty eight square miles of the White Mountain forests are publicly owned. For several years the state has been expending $5,000 annually in purchasing waste land and planting it with trees. To a limited extent it is reforesting land deeded by private owners, with a right to buy back within ten years at cost of improvements and four per cent interest.

It need not be feared that this plan will be adopted hastily, all at once or much at a time, that the right of private ownership will be unduly invaded or that the cost will be oppressive.

One thing more. If, in view of the facts and in spite of the facts, the approaching constitutional convention, the people and the legislature shall decide upon classification, it is hoped the effect will not be a mere horizontal reduction in forest taxes below other taxes, such as is now being sought. There should be an option, and from those who accept classification adequate compensations, like re strictive cutting, reforestation and perhaps other scientific management should be required. This might make the law unpopular. But that is another story.

Whatever form the law may take, it will be enforced without fear or favor. The apt words of Mr. Amey to the New Hampshire assessors in regard to the present statute are appropriate here. He said, "If you do not like the law, change it; if you do like it, but are not willing to have in enforced, it will be necessary for you to put the responsibility of its enforcement into the hands of some persons other than your present tax commission."

FOREST TAXATION.

JOHN T. AMEY.

Manchester Conference, December 20, 21, 1916.

Before going into any discussion of this question, I want to state to you, whose duty it is to assess, in your several localities, this class of property, that the present law in this state provides that standing timber, owned either separate from or in connection with the land upon which it stands, shall be assessed at its "full and true value" on April 1 in each year.

The courts have said, "The fair market value," "The highest price it will bring at a fair sale."

Since 1912 the present board of tax commissioners have, without reservation or hesitation, used their best efforts in coöperating with local assessors to the end that standing timber or forest areas should, in common with all other taxable property in New Hampshire, be taxed according to the laws of the state.

I do not know the personal views of my associates upon the wisdom of the law, but I can assure you we are agreed that it is the duty of the assessing officers to administer the tax laws as we find them.

Personally, I am in favor of some changes in the law governing forest taxation. For several years the question of forest taxation has engaged the minds of many of the leading students of the general subject of taxation in this country.

The subject is so closely related to and so vitally connected with the broader subject of the CONSERVATION OF OUR TIMBER SUPPLY AND WATER POWERS that it has been given considerable attention by professors in some of our