..... ;.. . . H: 1... .. . ........ . .. n .. m ..,.. .... . .. h. mfw

waywkwxfir. .. H .
.amw

km.

n
my“... . .mWw

33.08

kg

”drag ”I.

1 Y\ .. . .
. i . ..
id. . . mew. . . . ..
.....5n..fl....m..J.hF.p . mam... _. . . . . . , ... . .

10?: A in}. . . .

ltttugigfi . v . . . V 2
It? .. , . . . . . . . . .. 3m. .36...

... ; . . . . . . . . . It .u at C

.. . . .. . ...U~6wmwmusm1.

. p .
..-uu.m.w:}u..x...fi Jag

- 1.5.
£me . $.31

.. haamsu. 5...”... bwhhirfl~
. 1:38.me mnfiufln. £36....
IuA . l l u u
. “qgghnan- . .
Hmmfidmmlhfl
i...l:.$§o.xfi.

. . .u , .. t. :uunv...1Uv.D..Iva

 

THESIS

 

 

 

 

WOODLAND TAXATAT I OH
in

MICHIGAN

 

WOODLAND TAXATION IN MICHIGAN.

THESIS

Submitted to the Faculty of the Michigan State College
of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfill—
ment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of

Forestry.

by
KARL DRESSEL
\

June 1926.

THESIS

 

The writer wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness to
Professor A. K. Chittenden, Head of the Forestrfi De-
partment and Professor W. O. Hearidk, Head of the
Economics Department of Michigan State College of
Agriculture and Applied Science, for suggestions and

assistance received during this investigation.

35034

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION.

Wbodland taxation is an intregal part of the agricultural tax problem
before the American people to-day and the burden is increasing rather than
decreasing. In the last decade, taxes in the state have jumped upward 251%
on the average. Tax delinquency has jumped forward also until in 1924 this
state had $1450.7l4 acres in some phase of tax delinquency with a total
value of $126,336,663.

Nflchigan, in 1924, used 1,500,000,000 board feet of timber and pro-
duced 402,109,000. The freight rate from the producing centers on the
Pacific Coast nearly equals or equals the F. O. B. price of the lumber.

we have in Michigan some 36,787,000 acres of which 19,032,961 acres
.are in farms, 3,900,000 acres in woodlots, and 11,945,000 acres in Idle land.

The tax problem on woodlots and forests is grondng each year by leaps
sand bounds due to the extra activities taken on by each of the political sub-
Ciivisions of Government.

This thesis has a two-fold purpose: the collection of all the
exvailable data on woodland taxation in Michigan under one cover and a detail-

ed study of the actual results of Act 86 of 1917 known as the Woodlot Act.

 

-1-

The original forest area of the United States as estimated by the
forest service was 820,000,000 acres or nearly one-half of the total land
area. In 1924 about 30% of the original stand was still uncut, and this
contained 1,600 billion board feet merchantable saw timber. About 75% of
this remaining virgin and 60% of all timber lies west of the great plains.
In 1894 the Michigan state census when graphically presented gives
us someWhat of an idea of the conditions of that time. Even as early as this
most of he timber had been removed from the south half of the lower peninsula.
The Michigan Forestry Association in a news letter states, ”Modern
Greece, stripped of timber, can support but 5% of its old time p0pulationr
since the wooded areas of southern Spain were devastated, she has lost 90%
of her population.”
GENERAL IMPORTANCE OF WOODLOTS
The 1910 census estimated that one third of the forest land in the
United States, or 190,000,000 acres were owned by the farmers of the United
States. In the United States Department of Agriculture bulletin, ”Forestry
and Farm Income,“ it is stated that there are 178,000,000 acres of forest land
owned by farmers east of the Great Plains. This is eight times the forest land
of France which furnished practically all the timber required by the Armies of
France, Great Britain, Belgium, and the United States during the world war. The
productive capacity of 190,000,000 acres of land in forests is enormous, and if
under some form of management, would be greatly increased, and if fairly well
stocked would more that equal in annual growth our National annual cut of timber .
It was also eatimated that in 1910 farmers east of the Great Plains
sold $195, 306,000 worth of woodlot products, and in 1918 dordwood cut from
farm woodlots was only exceeded by corn, wheat, oats, rye and cotton. Pro-
fessor Cheyney in his book, ”Farm woodlot”, estimates that the farm woodlots

of the United States in 1914 produced 80,000,000 board feet of saw legs, and

this could easily be doubled by good management. The census shows a reduction

 

 

 

\rHARLEvoIA.
/".B\ '\ \ -
.' 9 ‘ '\ ---—l / £131.:
1, LEELMAU \. —, cmmzqu' I- ' ' '

   

Q ' 7..-. ' ALP
\0 ’ ANTRIM ETSEGI M a“
mum ._.l _I .3
BENZIEr- GRAND KALKAS if. F0 I OSCODAI LCONA '
I__3

Kat:noscommou1_o Aw'i osco

-LL

- 1: ARENAG

   
   
  
     
  
 
  
 

I
-—-——-J’ HURON
0 e r c 11

1:5 ELLA MN) 1— 13—1.? A—
| "L. Ma' / s

A TUSGOLA IM'LAC
CALM emf. SAGINAW r'“L1

i—-—--I ------ —--—4."“"
l GENESEE

OTTAW ' KENT I IONIA ICLINTONISHIAWABSEE
l l r. ._

. ..L. T..1. .1...1. _I._1_.[_L__I

EATON IINGHAMILIVINGSTON1 OAKLAND

 

 

 

 

 

 

A EGAN I BARRY I
.... ._1.. -_1_. .— —-—
VANBURENIKALAMAZOOI CALHOUN I JACKSON IWASHTENAWI WAYNE

1F._-_I_._.+1_Htfi.1_b.lf+l_.|h _

semen! CASS iS'JOSEPHI BMNC“ IHILLSDALEI LENAWEE IMONROE
1
_J-....i_.._...1..-_.i ..._..1__-._L..

. I1a/F0! c5 I» Tel/Jes

M,'Cht‘7an$ Or}?
I: 0°‘¢A~ Bfrcla,‘ Alta/le
2‘ Oafi~ I‘lr'ChOI“!
I= TA; It - VL(/'1c-4e vflec( an<

‘f-‘ fifruCe - Fir

_ 5 _
in area of nearly twenty-two million acres in the last decade, yet the
forest service asthmated in 1924 that timber was the best cr0p under the
present economic conditions, for one fourth of the land area of the United
States. Of this 470 million acres 21% is owned by the public, 32% owned by
farmers, and 47% owned by lumbermen, Railroads, etc. Out of every original
ten acres of virgin forest four and one half acres are cultivated, four acres
untilled, and idle, three acres cull timber, and one acre burned and nonrpro-
ducing.

Even to-day 98% of the rural dwellings ad from 59 to 98% of the
urban dwellings are constructed of wood. The percent of urban dwellings of
wood depends upon the section of the United States in question, and the retail
pice of construction lumber has doubled in little more than a single decade.
The forest service in the bulletin ”Idle Land and Costly Timber”, states that
in the last eighty years the price of lumber has advanced three and a half
times as fast as the average price of all staple commodities, and in most of
the Eastern markets the value of timber has advanced over 20% in twehty years.

The United States Forest Service in its bulletin ”Timber mine or
Crap” states that in Michigan at the average rate of settlement for the last
twenty yars 380 years would be required to settle the present area of cut over
land. In the upper Penninsula 800 years would be required, in.the northern
part of the lower penninsuda 200 years and in the southern part of the lower

penninsula 1,700 years.

"I

  
  

. IIOUEIITEI‘N [AKE SUPER/0R
. GNTONAGOIJH‘fi‘ - '. . 3:»?! a... ‘50
- .... .1k‘.~’ 0‘... .1 . f . 9 . BARAEA | .‘.e..‘§.. . o‘ -

s 3—." ‘ I
3.." 8 _‘- {ffi‘ifil LUCE.

\‘ 7:7..*:-;,;;‘.:I=1~:=I Wouéfii ' I . «.1 -. . I -
~ ...'5: Q o .O..'.e e....Ael . I CHPPEW
\.\:.!,. :;.'°.,."~‘:3-Io... .Iz, AL-"f-‘E I CHOOLCRAFT' _..._ ,__ I ~ f.
' . 0. ‘ Q a: . ~ ... '0 ' ... ° ' I I ' I a : "_-°-—:—" .
. -. ... If _ . .. . ' - MACKINAC "'L_I

'NErI. ' .
' Icueaovcm".
. \ -—-—I - PREsoucISLE -.
I LEELANAU \~ _- - I—'
- . _ -, cIIANLEvnIx _‘TE -—-_ --.— — .
IGQ .‘ I ' L..-.]._r . .. IdONT ALPENA
’ ANTRIM -0TSEGO MORE. NCY I.
‘ I FAv-
“WU I .-—- i.—.-— ——;'_.-E- —-. _ Chit-Lu- lend

3mm: GRAND I'WKASKAICRAWFORD oscosAl ALCONA'

.—I-.-.—-~- .._ :_..__.___ “44—-..-

MANISTEEIWEXFORD NIESAUKEEIIIoscoNNoN og'gMAw'I 19.5130
I

I
_.....L _- ..I." _....L. - 'g' l—
I« "7- I - IANENAQ
LAKE oscEOLA CLARE INDW'N' ‘ ,

  
  

 

   
  

 

. ~." '- .'so It“:‘: .f ‘. 18A! .. '\~
I V 3"" M5005“ ISABELux MTDLAND'R“ .. . -—
..o,NEwmso;,_‘, __‘;L"""~‘”‘I-:-‘-L r’
‘ 0.0 0 .’ I 1 .~‘\”__'- §

‘5 "~ fixirrfifi a. TLI
".2, 3 . MONTCALM5 u. .

Transiiorq
R¢7(I'Ofl

 

-'
'.
0"

 

 

 

 

 

..C.€‘
_q
C
U3
C)

‘ J

' FED] I
'5

I

«F
1?»

 

 

 

 

 

 

\ I RAJIOTS ‘ ; i
SKEGON .v. . g, j'" . \I.‘ ‘. .I" «- x-g. , .-
.£.J.:“efi:‘ ‘L"“k—]}-~‘~ o‘.§,./.§‘. e1.‘.e-C
S 2‘ VT‘O- 3' \_..e a: -0. \ ‘ ole ’ c‘
- {II K'EN T} "‘.. “Irv: ‘ ‘ f - ~I-LAP 1...-
PITAWA' "“ I cI0NIA1J'CL'NTONISIIIIIwmsEE. GENES?" ‘ N: I fit
u\::0 "‘I \‘.;‘”." ..n_ - cl‘j‘ H ".6 I: '\:~, .: v
-"~.-_l_:r‘...-J\\ '2'” _i‘i \:—‘L« _9F7
.mEcAN“ :FJPABRI, FENQEI‘I IINGHAMILIVINESIQNI:
.V’ "".. . a 0-s \ -. t‘ e Q‘ ~ s.- '.l"‘
-- ._~:- ~.--_u: .. Ir: .. l_ ~ =;l‘-«t_-*_:-_
s. . I-Tsu s “$1.2: ‘, ‘ H.:'L:.‘:.: 3;!‘..\‘.-~s.:_‘l—:e: ‘

VANBU'IE“ IKALAMAZOOI I'CALIIouN I JACKSON IWASHTENAW I w’AYNE“ ,4, r I' c L I I u. ”I

.‘I;': :~ .
.. I—fii‘ 31+ -\~ 'A ifgxc ¢~I\~‘ I; _L__'b_7_f 'n-‘I '-.__. JPN/“sir?“
. v ~. ‘ ‘J-fz'a't #44517. :1“,.,,?I.‘:x“-‘ ." firm”

a \' +;
l ~CA:S,5\:L , '-5 {OEEPHI BRANF“; iHlLLSpALE I; LENAWEE; f MONROE
- ' I c- ‘ ‘ “ \e ”as e ‘M’
‘...e..\s‘.¢ ‘:“‘:' "\:.:"\.‘:.“"‘|‘N':‘ e.
_L..._.- _-.—.I ‘:.: : #1.: ‘.~\., I

Afl‘r:

J‘oooooa

Jfluvaa

10000 OD

 

 

 

 

 

Dr 2 71'"!

 

 

Orl'7t‘na/ l‘hfi/l Fl‘65</7/ T,‘,_,.1[7¢l-

ACF£Q7<

Farr: f

/’7 /V7W(41'712n

Alma/4a c

/71‘/

_ 6 _

The census shows a reduction of nearly 22 million acres in farmsteodlots
in.the last decade. Of the 470 million acres of forest land in the United
States, approximately 89 million are owned by the Federal Government, 8,700,0G)
acres by the states and 450,000 by municipalities. This is set of fihe aggre-
gate forest landso Of the 371 million acres in private ownership, 79% or 150
million acres are farm woodlots.

In the first report of the Michigan Forestry Commission in 1880 is found

a table showing the percentage of woodlots in relation to the total farm acre-

age 0
suisgan 28% Kalamazoo 17
Barry 29 Kent 28
Branch 22 Lapeer . 29
Berrien 28 Lenawee 21
Calhoun 18 Livingston 23
Clinton 25 Macomb 22
Case 24 Monroe 29
EBton 27 Oakland 21
Genesee 28 Ottawa 31
Hillsdale 22 St. Joseph 19
Ingham 25 St. Clair 26
Ionia 24 Van Buren 26
Jackson 17 washtenaw 18
Wayne 21

In the United States Department of Agriculture Year Book for 1898,
Gifford Pinchot, states that hundreds of thousands of acres in.the white pine
regions of Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota have been.cut over, abandoned, sold
for taxes and finally reduced by fire to a useless wilderness because of a
short sighted policy of taxation. “To lay heavy taxes on timber land is to
set a premium on forest destruction.“

Mr. 0. W. Ward one of the Pioneer Lumbermen of Lovells Michigan in the
Anwrican.Lumberman for December 28, 1911 states that chief risks in timber
investments are fire, wind, insects, and floods. The chief carrying costs
are taxes, protection and interest on the capital. '

A fair example of the effect of high taxation is promoting the pre-
mature destruction of Forest holdings may be cited in the history of the
David Ward Estate timber holdings in Michigan for the last 30 years.

In 1880 and for several years thereafter David Ward considered using
German Methods of Forestry on.holdings but decided against it due to the
heavily increased taxes on timber lands. They had 100,000 acres, a heavy
stand of pine, hemlock and hard woods. The annual taxes amounted to from
$9000 to 12,000 and this required cutting of 3,000,000 board feet of pine to _
provide funds to pay them with. In 1910 the same holding had been reduced to
66,000 acres of land, cutover and lumbered, stand of pine had been reduced to
5 % of original stand, the hardwoods and hemlock 75%. Nevertheless, the taxes
on the remanent left in 1910 was $36,000 or nearly four times the avesgge
annual tax from 1875-1880 Which required the annual setting of 6.000.

_ 7 _
board feet of stnnpage to pay taxes. Had the original holdings remained
intact the annual tax would now have become confiscatory. While I have no
exact record I am satisfied th t the Michigan Timber holdsing of the ward
Estate have paid a total of $700,000 in taxes in the last 35 years and have
received no protection.

In fact, for many years it has been the general rule among’ lumber-
msn to cut their pine and cease paying taxes on land assaoon as tract was
denuded, allowing the title to revert to the state for non-payment of taxes.
As a result of this policy we now have the vast tracts of cutover lands which
have 80 recently been the cause of such disastrous forest fires.

As early as 1882 Mr. Ward suggested these methods of taxing mature
forests:

A. Assess the soil at its fair value for agricultural purposes as
unimproved agricultural land.

B. Levy a specific tax on 1000 board feet of lumber or its equi-
valent in other forest products, upon the lumber products as they
are cut and manufactured.

METHODS FOR TAKING NEWLY PLANTED FOPFRTS.

A. Exempt all newdy planted forest lands from all annual taxes ex-
cept a neminal specific tax, say 5 or 10 cents per acre for such period of
time as found necessary to bring timber to a product fit fer manufacture and
sale, usually 40 years.

B. At the termination of the period of exemption, levy a specific
tax upon timber products as cut and manufactured as for mature forests.

ms. ward advises diet the following requirements should be met if
foregoing policy is adopted:
1. To declair his holdings as a permanent forest tract and place
it under supervision.

2., To prepare his holdings for protection against forest fires

-8-

by building and maintaining fire lflnes.
3. To remove ripe and over ripe on all tracts available for
market.
4. To destroy the most imflamable portion of the debris resulting
from cutting.
5. In cut over lands build fire lines and plant if necessary.
EFFECTS ON TAX RECEIPTS.

l. Steady income would be assured from the tax on the soil value.

2. The specific tax on timber manufacturedeatnatprice*ofeso much per
1000 board feet of manufactured lumber or its equivalent in other wood products
would not be objectionable to any manufacturer. Fifty cents per 1000 board
feet, for instance would yield in most instances nearly as much and in some
cases more than is collected under the present system.

3. The increased cutting of over ripe timber from tracts devoted to
permanent forestry would provide a substantial additional revenue without
destroying the future taxable value of the prOperty.

4. Placing of considerable area under permanent forest treatment would
remove a substancial amount of fire risk.

5. The conversion of large areas of cut over lands into young forests
by planting or natural reproduction and the placing of such tracts under per-
manent control would further reduce the risk to a minimmm.

In 1900 the census states the average Michigan farm contained 86 acres;
of this 58 acres were improved and 28 acres unimproved. The farmers sold
$7,530,000 of “modlot products in 1899. The lumber camp in the same year pro-
duced $20,462,000 worth of forest products. In other words, the woodlots of
the state, as early as 1899, were producing a product that valued about one
third of that of the lumber camp. It is interesting to note at this time the

relation of lumber camps to the woodlots in a few of our states.

! BARAGA

 

Mm: ,5 LIFER/0R

14-77,

._L______1

I MARQUETTE

lac”.

LAKE

sassy/f- - ..

H'—’—l‘! t/ 770i

I . A .
“GER rs—cnoomaanl

’-'fiv ’4'" 770;
LUCE i

 

i
r.—._
| LTA

~\ “ .- .—

 

,' VANBUREN IKALAMAZOQJ “EH0

o. " . -
n‘i'.‘v

-su

seams , -- -_-‘

o I a a.
‘ ‘ -.

cu. . .o ”I
c Q
--—-. F—: _—

PO/aulafl.0n

/700

MIC/”fan fleac/el71"
hat/’orf' I?03_

CH IPPEWA

UN l‘ JA'CKVSON IWASHTENA\

\‘n

l—..—.—.
MACKmAc ‘L_|

 

_--—W51.

 

      
 
 
 
   
 

'—-‘~r...-1..

[ INGHAM iLWINGngNl-.

.‘ . O \

o-"!::‘~l-:._-

I
:,:’ .O ..l

.TIL— {TL

.CAss i.$‘-_'J95fi’ifii ELMO“ lHlLLSDALEl LENAWEE IMONRQE

.§- ..:
‘n
n

L: " '- '- 133:3.“ .':.L-‘..'-

/\/( a P

of Safe/1c c,

OAKLAND
.l . c

it ”“770.

_-. 35‘70/2

 
  
  

 

    
 

I
oNToNAGON ""' I

 

i,
L- F NW?
GOGEBIC l . __I_____
. _... ‘ M ..
\- IRON I P'KQUETTE.
\. I _---1
\; I I
DICKINSON -
I I" 1__
r“ 7
J i
,Nmomwa
/
(/
w
b
$
0
S
In
5<
V
\l

' ALGER I I
SCHOOLCRAFT _ , __

MAéR-IN'KE'"L

£14le .5 UPERIOR

8 i._-,' LUCE. I

9 \ CHARLEVOIN.
\\

i LEELNNAU \\
I

(3 n
\
' Liam

-T
GRANDE
BENZIEITRAVERS

-_I.-.____rE. _...

MANssmEI WEXFORD NistAUKEEIRosOoNMONI oczu’IAw. |

 

/0

CH IPPEWA

_I

"I
-

 

° masons: mi.

. —, cum - .-_--~-I--— '13,
' 1...;-
O - I ' MONT ALPENA
\. A ' MOREthI

RIM" - OTSEGO

*" - ‘~--I—. .fl..-

1
NALNASKAIGRAWFORO OSCODAI ApcONA

. I \
my “nu—_Ao oh—a—vou—‘L—nsfl-‘

I uosco

 

i

 

. ......t _... _'
«SON! Lin
.1?— 1o-—'—-.——-— .

OCEAMA NEMYGO

_I-q _-—

 

 

 

.a—q

MUSKEGON

oscaoui CLARE IOLAwa .,

. ' l .-
MECOSTA lsAsaLu IMIDLAND
' .F‘ I

. ;. JLLI
MONTCALM I—

._T_._L——

ARENAC

I _..!"
BAY

 

GRATIOT SAGINAW

I”

 

 

I KENT

l
_.J_.

OTTAWA'

 

mum I CLINTON lsmAWAssu
. I

 

-.L..-
E;

'0

rn

m

:0

  
  

GENESEE

 

 

. -__..l—l_-..l

_|__r_l_

L“""l

 

ALLEGAN

 

BARRY I EATON IINGHAM LIVINGSTON

I OAKLAND

   

 

_T. .
VANBURENIKALAMAZOO CALHOUN I JACKSON WASHTENAWI WAYNE

I__.I____.JL_._T ..I_ T_._[_J_-_

 

. I
CASS II STJOSEPH B

BERRIEN
____-I-...-- L..__-J__-...i __ _ -_i..

    
  
 

_.|_ I {— .—L_r—.——.

 

”NC—TH IHILLSDALE! LENAWEE IMONROE

5an¢( Lane! of Mu‘cha'qan

-11.

STATE CAMP woonLors_
Washington $11,332 ,000 $1 ,002 ,000
Wisconsbn 18,112,000 6,116,000
Michigan 20,462,000 7,530,000
Indiana 4,058,000 5,235,000
Ohio 4,384,000 5,625 .000
New York 4,364,000 7,671,000
Connecticut 493,000 1,276,000

RATE OF TAXATION IN MICHIGAN ON 141000 VALUATION.
No. of Counties.
Counties paying over

 

1901 1902

$50 1 0

40-49 - 5 3

30-39 13 16

20-29 30 26

15-19 18 13

10-14 15 23

Less than $10 1 5

According to this, peeple in over half our counties paid more than
two percent on their prOperty as taxes, and in about one-fourth o f the Counties
they paid over three percent, while one county in 1901 paid a tax rate of six
percent. One farm of 115 acres in Charlevoix County containing 40 acres of
woodland paid a tax of $56.00.

The bulletin ”Selling‘Woodlot Products On Michigan Farms" states that
43% of all the farms in Michigan in 1910 cut woodlot products and they sold
about $50.00 worth and used about the same amount for personal use. Besides
this, the total value of Maple Syrup for the state was $7,900,000 or one-
twentieth the aggregate inc0me from all Michigan crops. The total area of
woodlots in the State equalled 3,000,000 acres or 1535£of the total farm area.

Between 1880 and 1910 there was a decrease of one and one half million acres of

130

:10

(IO

loo

70

70

To

50

10

30

20

1.
537:. of 7/76 flue/”a7: Far-rm In {4:14 Wao(//o7‘ [Fe
-. 5h0M/I'h7 Acre: o/Im/vrauc/~ (II-lt‘nifirddfr/d-nd M

73:77.?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ifcql 0/11 Reyel'omll fi’erll‘onfl ficf'févn inorflz
Hm 16W Min 1 “(2 MIG WW I410 I?“ (no
Imfrsul
[and
““3!“ re VJ
Linn/fa]:
. - JM ' vet/
Ih‘jirau «J 125:2: ‘( Infrprul AIZJ
‘. or! I J Land
Im’brch may:
(and
Im TW‘I
Aer-”f 1m raved
LA :1 6"
Ufl’mflrlvu‘
unWO'lfll
[cairn flyut'
knu eel/«J
him rvun‘
“nu/coll"!
unih run!
Unlmfrnnl Una/.41"!
MnWooe/hf
unim arwd
“WWaetl'd
Mna‘lnrnud
(4n Non/cl
/ .
.. magi/mi M431 /0 1.4 4/246sz Wont/(ear! Won/(ml. Won/{m1 idiom/{0nd Wad/aa( m/ml/anr/
Farms Fat-n1: Fart": Farms Farm)
F. r m: F3 -
23,74 5' za.ril "(7,0 I I [Marl 2v,“ 7 11,734 N. 2?: firs, b;;;"i
Mm 5e ANN-f "(had/o f Fwd. c ’5 0n Aim? 6 Fa rI-ns

IL

woolets in the state. The average woodlot in 1880 per farm was 29 acres, and
in 1910 it had decreased to 14 acres.

The conditions can best be graphically presented for the year 1910.

Selling woodlot Products in Michigan (Bulletin)
10th and 13th census

WOODLOT REGION

 

lo 20 2.3.
1910 1880 : 1910 1880 : 1910 1889
Proportion Farm Land to Total Land 85.5 72.4 71.4 57.0 30.4 11.9
Surface
Average Value of Farm Land Per Acre 34.75 35.73 18.68
Proportion Farm Land Weeded 4.6 22.8 12.8 30.1 27.6 63:4
Proportion Farm Land Improved 76.5 69.2 72.0 62.1 46.7 30.9
Proportion Farm Land Unimproved and 18.9 8.0 15.2 7.8 25.7 5.7
Unwooded
Average Size of woodlots 8.8 21.7 11.4 26.2 27.1 65.7
Average Total Value of Woodlot Products
Per Farm Reporting 75.87 86.75 108.06
Average Value of WOOdlot Products used
0n Famm 51.58 48.71 42.50
Average Value of woodlot Products Sold 24.29 38.04 65.56

Proportion of Total Value of woodlot
Products to Total Farm Income 4.1 4.7 11.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 n u n v
, n
_-
p e n a
l
. .
n
p u a 9 n e u n a n.
s
u
u n n a I
u .
i
.. n o n e a e I l I
n e I

- 14 -
( CONT)

10th.and 13th Census
WOODLOT REGION
4. 5. TOTAL

1910 1880 : 1910 1880 : 1910 1880

Proportion Farm Land to Total 8.9 2.5 5.0 51.5 37.5
Land Surface

Average Value of Farm Land Per Acre 15.25 17.41 32.48

Prepertion Farm Land W00ded 43.2 81.1 68.6 15.5 32.2

Proportion Farm Land Improved 36.7 14.3 19.1 67.7 60.1

Preportion Farm Land Unimproved 20.1 4.6 12.3 16.8 7.7
and thooded

Average Size of woodlots 43.8 105.5 72.9 14.1 28.9

Average Total Value of woodlot

Products per Farm Reporting 185.84 191.95 98.77

Average Value of woodlot Products

Used on Farm 54.59 30.08 47.77

Average Value of W00dlot Products

Sold 131.25 161.87 51.00

Proportion of Total Value of W00d- 20.2 28.4 6.4

lot Products to Total Farm Income.
Farm woodland in Michigan by woodlot Regions, 1910 and per cent of

increase or decrease in and since 1886.
Increase or De-

 

 

 

woodlot Region Areagggrm W00dland 1916 crease 1880-1910

1. 209,209 53.9 Decrease

2. 1,698,043 46.6 ”

3. 783,836 11.0 "

4. 216,211 88.6 "

5. 201,255 Alger Co. wdth 68.6%

farm land wooded was

organized 1880. No

racomparison is pessible
Total 2,927,554 34.2 decrease

In 1911 some of the seniors of the College made a woodlot estimate of

Lansing Township and found that most of the woodlots were on Agricultural land

  

44 KE .5 UPERIOR

ONTONAGON

H1 I 4
|—-—.

togEsnc

F
-1114

‘ MARQUETTE
e e e

F

imcxmsau}
‘ r-

, BARAGA
°— '-.’

_.-

41......

i .
O
' RON HOOLCRAFT‘

9'

HE‘S"? Isa

Hm“ ‘I

,J‘ DELTA .

\

-.w-_l
l
a

   

l

9

0

.’
!

\G’B

f!

I
’0’

LEELANAU

BENZIE GRAN

. . . . . ITRAV_E_P.5E|_
' —|--

MANISTEE! WEXFORD' MISSAUKEE

0" Oooe

.Oooi.
'0. '..

. ..'_...- “..1—l”
MASON LAKE. 0

.'.Oooeo. .

e— 1—_¢—q -

OCEANA

Good.
.000
s—e—d
0.04
I. ,

MUSKEGO

'0

NEWRYGO
.000.
00001
000',

 

 

 

‘."r'|:K

OTTAWA I . .
._-_L.

D

S
80!.

l LUCE

O. o ' r.—--

' LEELA-NAU \\

' M 8205111

.0000
no
MONTCALM I
0 00

.NI: 0 O.

:3.

KENT

._l

 

'JOSEPH

O‘Od

i
1

' 'CHlPPEWA

4......O

MAckTNAc '1

l o o . ’ .
--- -| ' " 3880988159.
-, cuAsnTuF-—f.
1.3.1! ' J

0—. u-u-

MONT
MORENCY'

OSCOOAi ALCONA

0'0.

ALPENA
. o. o o

ANTRlM-OTSEGO
00 ea. 0 v:

o—-~ ..1-_--

I
0 'IKALKAsmcRAmeO

." "O 00:00

—-— _..—o.

llOSCOx

.ov
oo

 

HOGEMAw

I000

inoscommou

..1

SC E0 LA

0000
O

 

| BAY

0".

L4:

ISABELLA MIDLAND

00"
I
[_.-

    
   
    
   
 
  
 

 

 

SANILAC

Decca.
‘00

1.
IONIA —|CLINTONISHIAWASS[E.i “mm " ' ° .3185“?

COO. '50 Q .“‘
I."'..'OCI':;‘ - -_ _‘—-
_fio’f- I '1
_1
BARRY - EATON iINGHAM —iuvmcsmul

loao oop‘.00lo 000’

{—O‘O‘ .000
! I

TUSCOLA i

000'-

SAGINAW '. . - [_..-L

'_:'.':r._:!' _J

‘11..

 

e-GRFUIOT
.0000
lo 00

00
e000

.
O

'00:. :3: oi i'::c.

- - —T' ' ° . —- ———L . _-
__.|._ _.l— I
! BRANCH 'iHlLLSDALEI LENAWEE [MONROE

Farm “1...! [of Areas 1410

[31‘ CenSus

" 5:104 AcrfJ

- 16 -
and pastured from medium to real heavy. The fire damage was nil in all cases.
There was no attempt in management whatsoever, and all were run in a hap-
hazard manner. In this Township there were 66 woodlots and the total acreage
was 429 acres or an average of 6% acres per woodlot. On the 429 acres there
was estimated to be 9,248,038 board feet or an average of 140,121 board feet
per average woodlot Of 6% acres, or 2,155 board feet per acre.

Seven Sections were found at this time to contain nothing large
enough to be called a woodlot, and woodlots in the tabulation ran down to an
acre in area.

In 1912 F. H. Sanford made a woodlot Survey of three Townships in
three counties in the woodlot region of Southern Mibhigan, Easton Township in
Ionia County, Oxford Township in. Oakland County and Penn Township in Cass
County.

One of the surprising things was the fact that in southern Michigan
in these three typical Counties, there seemed to be very little relation of
woodlots to the poorer soils, yet the general farming land in Easton Township
was valued at $50.00 per acre, the south part of Oxford Township land was
valued at $25.00 and the north part at $125.00 per acre. In Penn Township
land was Valued on the East side at about $40.00 and $200.00 on the_West side
per acre. The woodlot in many cases was occupying very high priced land that
was more suitable for agricultural purposes.

The farmers themselves were very reluctant to haveing their wood-
lots valued lower than the rest of the farm land, and in many instances they
‘walued it higher than they did the cultivated land. This, of course, means
the woodlot was growing on good Agricultural sOil.

In Easton Township, out of 113 woodlots, 82 were pastured regular-
ly, and 31 were not pastured. In Oxford there were 109 woodlots, 64 grazed,
and 45 not grazed. In.Penn there were 107 woodlots, 68 grazed and 39 were not
grazed by the owner.

An example is cited of a farm in southern Michigan under very

 

 

 

 

-17-

fair and average conditions. The fact that a crOp of timber had been removed
made nbtdifference with the assessments or valuation in the eyes of the
Assessor.

The farm contained 200 acres. Of this, 20 acres was in mostly mature
White Oak which would average 150 years of age. The average yearly tax ( for
75 years ) was $50.00. The total tax ranged from $25.00 in 1850-1893, and
$110.00 in 1910-1914. The tax on he woodlot per acre averaged .25 or $5.00
per year on the 20 acres.

The growing period covers 150 years at the end of which timber sold

in contract for lumber and fuel with the following results:

1. Ties and Timber $400.00
2. Fuel 250.00
3. Fuel for home use 20 years 400.00

(Before this time fuel was Ob—
tained from other sources.)
4. Total cash Receipts for 75 years - $1,050.00

5. Accumulated tax on 20 acres for 75 years with interest
compounded annually at 3%, $1,363115

6. Net loss on 20 acres over 75 year period 313.15
This locks like a big 1088 but yet if the owner of this farm had
more land than he could cultivate, and it the land had remained idle, the scene
mulation of taxes would have been a much larger loss. As it was, he made at
least part of the loss back by the sale of the products of the woodlot, While
it the land had remained idle it would have been a much larger hose.

In a small bulletin published by the State, entitled ”Michigan
Agriculture“, Mr. V. H. Church gives us an idea of the conditions in 1919. The
graph shows the conditions and use of land in Michigan.

The total land area of the State is 36,787,200 acres. Of this,
19,032,961 acres or 51.7% was in farms. Of the acres in fanms, 12,925,521
acres, or 67.9% were improved, and 3,217,000 acres were in farm woodlots. The

average number of acres per farm in 1919 was 96.9 acres. Little over half the

 

r1 5
rn‘

1F}:
I

IA“ (/0

' ’19:-

"DP

I

 

 

H370

'7
-P‘(/ ‘I
(1 q

(. l-ons I'—7

( 1

I Co

' e

a m

a. [3,1
/,7I‘/.CU(1‘¢4
’(AIII/uvn

[51.5 (-/M Charc‘v

A“ 7 MH.

{1'5 ‘lic'al
57“.-

IS

 

- 19 _

total area of the State was in farms, and only a little over one-third was hm-
proved land.

In 1920 the following report was submitted to the United States
Senate thru resulution.311. The lake States had originally 112,000,000 acres
of forest, and there now remains Only 24,000,000 acres, of which 58% is in
farm woodlots. In the lower Peninsula of Michigan, only about onerhalf
million acres of hardwood and hemlock remain. In five years the lumber that is
cut in the lower Peninsula will be from farm woodlots. The lake States are
cutting.about three times as fast as the annual growth.

Russell Watson in his booklet, ”Forest Conservation" with special
reference to Michigan, also gives us a picture of the conditions in Michigan.
South of a line from Port Huron to Grand Rapids, Only about 10% of the total
land area remains in woodlots. These woodlots taken to-gether, are the most
valuable woods left in Michigan. Mr. watson estimates that about one~half of
these woodlots will be gone in 30 years unless strenuous methods are used to
restore them. The principal damage is done by grazing stock in the woodlots.

Condition of Farm Land in Lake States, U. S. census 1920.

Professor A. K. Chittenden in the Bulletin, “Improvement of the

Farm woodlot", states the total acreage of farm woodlots in 1920 was 3,217,000
or about 17% of the total farm area of the state. The average woodlot would
equal about 16.3 acres. The value of woodlot products in 1919 was placed
at $12,649,621.00. The stumpage price has doubled in the last thirteen years,
and this expressed in compound interest would equal 5.4% on the investment.

In 1922 an investigation of woodlot conditions in sections 8-
9-16-17 of Meridian Township, Inghafn County, showed the following results:

The woodlot of C. F. Grettenberger contained five acres, and
“Was on good agricultural soil. It was pastured and poorly managed. The

“woodlot contained 21,998 cubic feet of wood.

Na bot-

Nllm be :-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nut-n c!‘ Number Ptrcen #- Prrun '
Far-( 6 F4 ms Farr-n3 Fdafll'fis Lao r’v'n 9‘”,
17300 MID “:10 1420 72.5-31.5 1:75;”!
In 1L

A'I-[cr‘ upper- I.” 275' J“ 5.2 27.;
Ban-47a Pmnuu,‘ All! In; L51 $3 17.:
Chivas/a. ' (036 1399 15” 19.1! 51.:
Del Ira, soc ”2K I375 revo :1. 3
pic Inson us 235‘ ‘01 we "-3 *' -
Go7ebr'c in :57 5'27 3-3 35: I.“ ' ’77 5
Hau7hhn so: In} 1711/ 20.7 #1.: [100
Iran :31 3:] £21 5.4 33-7 I‘Ho
h’chcnau/ 22 3c. 71 In: 4:45 1920

u c e M“! H5 I‘H Hr) ‘H-l
Mackinac. 374 410 #7? 7.7 40.4 A” ’/ [2"‘c’r'f- éf- /
Mar ueflc. 5:3 tu 944 ‘I-‘f 3I-L Fag-owlanr/Inafraufr
{Wen mine-e. Inc ”.77 2106 32-? “-1 /m I ‘1 2 o
On fona7on :51 37! 7!“! 9-4 11.1
School era-fr an «WI 371 5-4 37.2
Anirim Nari-h In: tun um 51.; 53.;
Ben is Wes+ ‘7‘“! was ‘772 w: s 51.7
char/evaix 12‘15 Mw I306 51.: ‘17-!
Err: :11 61’ NH) I457 1377' ‘40-3 «v.2
Gram (I 7rauer-sc. I72: 203) (725 (0-? “-1
[fa/has kn. (.71 5’41 71:. .73.? ”.7
Leela run u. we: mm! 1317 7a.; 54-?
Manr‘sf to 13!! low M" Iu-a 5'14
Mo‘ssaulrec. nu 1931 ms 45-: 1a.:
We rforr/ 13m: 1711 In: 31.1 “.3
Alconoc North 74: m I” 34-0 37.3
.4! (ma Eur nn 1324 1;: 4m '11.:
Chebfllv’ 7nn llb‘l PITT 1;,“ 27-‘1 'I‘I'O
Craw arc 22? 24V 121 Iii-8 31.7
Io: c o 771 in w, 33-4 woos
Monfnwrrnc'c/ 33¢. no [2! Is-‘f HI- I
O c n19 w m In: 27: ems 40- J
Oscaela. am :14 5 ’ 1:..«7 32.1
ofse7o no In 7 2.1-? 44.5

[at

Pres «aisle. m (on 2 7 30.5 33.3
Roscommon (3‘ 24? _, ‘ 111-7 so.)
is In. chf (.25 73: 703 21.1 “.1
Mafia/1 Ccnkral [895 2:24 30“ 51.0 59.0
Mash-7am 2334 2:13 2031. 534 (-9.1
News. c a 2140 3110 .2135 51.2 52.:
0: car? on zero 2t“. 2351 to: “-0
0164 r c. Ccnfcrdll 752 I u r245 504 Jr- J
Glarlwrn 7m 1315 I452. Alb-6 I47-.2
Graf for #771 #105 I?” 9935' 7L-‘
:rsabe/la— 3431. 3454 an: so; we
Mccosfa 2720 2123 an; 77.: 59:1!
Mic/land 21:: 2241. 2H.) 51.1 n“
Mon'ICa/H‘? 1171‘! I“ 7? min “-5 67-9
Osceo lab 22W 2574 21m 70-: 44.5
'lircna a. fast- It“ two 1572 so; 5%?
[3a canto-d 3173 311! 321‘ at»! 73.7
Huron #37: I112: In“! 87-0 7%?
5a ginaw 58!) 5370 5‘11} 31.! 73.9
San/la c. 5320 545? 51:: yea «1.1.
To sea la seq: 51:4 ‘ILft 8W4 75.4
Allcyarz 5 Dana 60!? :1)? 5731/ 8’1-9 75.4
13¢ rrl'cn We.) 1*- 5433 5'25: 5’40? 87-7 80.5
Cc. 55 2407 15'“ 2573 91.0 76- 5
[(a/anva 700' 3303' 33?: 3H.) “-7 7h:
/1’¢n 2‘ UN 62% 56:5 35‘! 76-:
offer we- vau H60! 11296 85-7 77-:
Van Burt :1 II“: If?!) PILL]. 94-? 79.0
flqprq ,SothcrI‘I 35-70 3123 3.7L? ‘73 ‘f 74'0
Branch 31175 337! 1222 77.1 73-3
Cal/wan woo 37m 34% 72.0 73.?
C/inforz 3777 31H“! 3223 74-! sot-2
Ea-lon Ima 3702 37M 73.? 77.1
H i (/5 c/a/e In" 4:?! #025 in 7:. o
lnqha I7? .7115 3:45’ 322% ‘11-: 73.8
Ionia. +052 3602 3223 #2.? 77.5
is c/I5I’7 39m 373‘. 39%! 11.0 71.7
5! In: h 1077 .2623 24m 70.? {0.3
5km asscc J76) 3677 335'? w-q w?
GcnOSQa Soufh no: .3876 m? 57.? 74.:
Lakec r- Easf 40:: 3:03 J6I‘l one 73.1
1.: haw: c m: 5334! $060 14.6 {ti-1
Ln‘w‘nqsfan 368: 2775 21.3: 411-1 (9.1!
Mace nub 38:22 371A! 3570 76-1 “-2
Monroe. 9955' 4321 #103 64-9 55.:
Oak/anal If??? 11113 ms 61-5 73.7
SfC/cu‘r 9790 45-27 415? 67-1 "-7
Washfenaw #15! 3117 ”so 13.; 7:17
Waqnc $13: #175 3g“ u-r “.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'2!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
 
 

   
 
  
   
      

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

  
   
 
 

 

 

. LPQNTONAGON "' i,“ , .. ' ‘_ .
‘ o 1 \ 0 . . ‘ o .
' . .L_-._‘ , i ..BAPAGA [(3 . ~ _ x .
. a . . e \ . 9 ' . .L‘.-‘_, . . . u '
G'oQE-Plc. L_e— ' zit—_J‘ ‘ . ~ ._ 8 . .\ . 9‘! LUCE .\ . .
‘\ . o 9 ‘ 4 v MARQ'UETTE . .s ‘ ‘ . . ~ o I o o E‘w . §
‘ - - , - CHIPP A '. .
‘ ~I.ALGERS GHOOLCRAFETF__;-__L_1‘ ... 0-: \ “ _‘ l-I:“’;, lM/7r0u.‘(
- ‘ r—E-:—-.+l ‘ . . 9 ' . ‘ ‘ ‘ - h._.—: A
"i DELTA I -J . . . .l_ - MAPK'E‘AC‘ ~_.L_n g
o. I ‘ . f . “
0 ./.‘~
I .l s . . ,l/D Qb.
. 23‘ -
manommn . _ ,
- 9 \Qumrvom‘. ”MET ~ _
"'0‘ . . may
0 '/ g \‘ \ fi .
. . \\ ~—- - - - masouusfi ,
, LEELA'NAU \~ _vf_-J_~
. . -. CM "‘""
3 08 F 5' . "" MONT ALPLNA
\ 3' . ANTRJM OTSEGO MOREN CY
\ .5. ‘3 . ' ‘ ' .
m; ,, -—.—-—u-.—; .. .. .
. ,5 ‘ .
' KALKA KA CRAWFORD dscooA ALCONA
BENZIEkAngD ..J t. .. o :i- ‘ -. . ‘~~--/‘I9-folhl/’rvu<(/
3‘3“}- -- MANIerEIWExFORO MISSAUKEE oscommouloc.:r.MAwl '05“?
e -i . . J - ! ~ .
a v .. :' .- _ 11: [ARENAC --'5Za"30/a lmlbl‘aycr/
Q, “£63.05! LAKE sczom CLARE IGLW"l -
\ v: ; i '
t 5.2: I .. , HURON
«’3““"«: ..‘.;‘.$-:‘.
0 31 Lo .6. - - {OCEANA‘ q‘- .. . [NECOSTA ISABELLA LMIDLAND: .__.l___._.-
\ lmfraucol‘ . U. . .WN‘E' . . ‘ .O.~‘. - ‘ o u
1 " " . or |‘” ' ‘ "‘ ' '3‘ ' SANILAC
2 . I w TUSOOLA |
MUSKE OP: —'! | I._ _.___,,.J ‘!
_.- I KENT H—j ..... ._ lemma ”PEER [_ST-C-LZR
lu OTTAWAi I mm |CLINTONIwulwwsstti l
- -— _L-
K _"L'T ..1. ‘_{"_l'_l'_l_r __L__.'r- he“:
V ALLEGAN FBARRY i EATON [INGHAM luvmcsmnl OAKLAND
N I - ‘ Oucr 607°
._._. .—J.-—_'..- I i— i -——-‘~-l-—-—-- Imrl‘uvesi

o

. r . 7 /
VANBURfiNIKALANAzoq CALHOUN I JACKSON IWASHTENAW| Wm: ”WM/"’5

F. H-— .-+ . —. i— . . L - To oo—hv — ——L- .-
! I

BERRIEN i
_. L.._-j___.i i. _L“

Cancfo‘foot“! 0/- Farrn lay-‘C/
“HSVCcr-‘SMS {‘720

 

2&1

 
 
 

‘- Ifl-Za 70

«Mm: .s UPERIOR

  
       

  
 

\~\CHARL£vmx‘. ,
.\~ \ \

IQ \‘ .\

   

 
 

'/
\ ‘\
LEELANAU \

0

O

-—3°“/07u

     
   
   

 

!'
!

\.

  

_ /a-2070

   

 
 
   

    

seen

AiLEGAN5'

Percen/aia nfmfchiyan Farm Lan(/ In \fl/oac/s
Census a} 16110

-225-

A4 Kline's woodlot contained 35,264 cubic feet of wood on two acres,
and was on poor soil. It was being pastured but not so very heavily. There
seemed to be some attempts at management.

The woodlot of E. F3 Berg contained two acres with a volume of 4,731
cubic feet of wood. The woodlot was located on good soil and-was being graz-
ed. There was little attempt at management.

The woodlot of Carrie Roby contained six acres with a volume of 8,289
cubic feet. It was on fairly gpod soil, pastured, and under poor management.

Mr. B. B. Smith owned two woodlots, of 16 and 6 acres respectively,
and both were grazed. The 16 acre one contained 45,580 cubic feet in volume,
and the 7 acre one 17,844. The 16 acre one was on good woil while the 7 acre
one was on poor soil. Neither were under good management.

The woodlot of C. G. Smithecontained six acres wdth.a volume of 12,249
cubic feet. It was on Agricultural soil fairly well managed and not pastured.
The woodlot of G. A- Wilson contained five acres with a folume of
13,643 cubic feet. It was on poor soil, pastured rather heavily and under no
management.
The woodlot of E. Bevier contained one and one-half acres with a
volume of 1,968 cubic feet. It was on Agricultural soil, grazed and not manag—

edo. TS .
The woodlot of H. Ferman contained eight acres wit a volume of

15,580 cubic feet. It was on low land unfit for Agriculture, was being heavily
graded and showed no signs of any type of management.
The woodlot of W. H. Stevens contained five acres with a volume of
7,840 cubic feet. It was on forest woil, fairly well managed and not pastured.
The woodlot of A. J. Eichle contained three acres with a volume of
10,687 cubic feet. It was On forest soil, pastured, and with no signs of
management.

The wooldot of J. Kaiser contained three acres withaa volume of

 

- 2; -
4.925 cubic feet. It was on good Agricultural soil, grazed, and under no
management.

For the four sections or 2560 acres, only 77.5 were in farm woodlots
with a total volume of 184,407 cubic feet. Thus the average acre of wood-
lot in this area contained 2,379 cubic feet. The total number of woodlots
was 15. -Of these 12 were grazed and over half were on.Agricultura1 soil.
Only tow were under anything like a plan of management. Thus in this area -
only one acre out of every 34.1 was in woodlots.

Russell Watson in his booklet "Forest Conservation“ states that in
Southern Michigan south of our Port Huron-Grand Rapids line, the original for;
est has been largely cleared for farms and only about 10% of it remains
wooded. These farm woodlots, altosether, are the most valuable woods, left
in Michigan. In 1914 the northern part of the state paid 31% of the total
state tax burden; in 1921 it paid only 13.6 %. Each year sees the total
burden of state expense shifted more ad more to the southern part of the state.
The freight bill on forest products hauled into the state now is above
$15,000,000 a year.

The Michigan Land Economic Survey records show the following facts
for one of the poorer counties of the state.

The United States Forest Service diagram shows the long freight
haul most of our lumber is subject to to-day. The freight rate fron:Port1and
Oregon to Chicago, Ill. is $20.16 per thousand board feet and to New York,

$25 .20. From Hattisburg Miss to Chicago $12.54 and to New York $25.51.

 

 

7;IQ( Vl/ovc/Iof 44ch¢47t Feb Cyan I?

Acres @ra
Ac I‘ve

IV?!

«I
74;r~t]

.. (I

[725- Ger-15:45

50u+h<r n 00‘s 10‘ I‘d‘f

 

Ba”1+

Bra nth

Clo/[Hun

Gift-Plan

F4 {on

”I. ’ij/a/f

Irwin-n

IJhla

473cf55r7

.S-I Jase/h

sl‘lflbs-irc

 

 

51000

I“ can

46.7900

(Iona

31000

3‘ one

330:0

34 a»

47900

44000

21000

[(000

[5600

[.2000

9000

6000

Jo“

 

707a f
“(Opt/(v, I

 

 

 

 

n in /
Wool/(0U

 

Pillurvul

 

 

IV: I
{OSf‘tl‘c 1‘

PA’IIPCC(

To 1! a I
“So/la ’4

73(4/
Mid/H 5

“riled
Vflvadfil:

‘Tofal
Mhmflflfs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

h51hrr t,

 

 

 

~97
flag!- red

 

Not
557krn‘

Phi-‘r c «I

 

 

N41
flay/«r u‘

Pa5ial‘tl,

asfuw/

To In /
W0 or/llf:

70 fl a /
Weed/p];

704 a I
Wand/cl:

 

 

 

 

 

[Va f
fogf-ruf

 

IV: r
£75“:ch

Fasfnrrl

Pdg'lupecl

Ppg'lur (c,

 

1_.

7010-!

W0 "(/0 f3

Fbsfurrfl

 

TO I u /
“food/4’5

 

Pas’urn{

 

 

 

 

N97
Vaginal-(II

 

NI 7
P051“: P!!!

 

Not
fl5furcrl

 

M)"
Fbxfurtd

 

 

1V0!
H‘{. D (J

 

 

 

 

731‘4/ Wear/(of I? I"

gt

4 (rs:
Acres {VatG «1'4

We‘lce

GP"-

"lh‘a’ Die}

<47:

1‘ I‘! f

[45

PCI‘ caulvlfi

Cen'fchal

/?25€cr15£¢5

Die

h‘t'c f".

 

Aercs

Lake

Mason

IVN4lkqnw

News 7’s

Octet n“

lit-(nae

647

Huron

Sayt‘nam

San/Inc;

fined/a.

 

 

700“

(.6000

62090

“a so

JHaOO

50000

‘ltooo

4200a

36000

37000

30009

41060

ZOIOU

(L000

(1000

3060

I
|

To 5 a (
Wool/o I:

 

Pasha-o4

 

Ta fa!
WGOJIO (5

To H1 l
”fowl/cf!

Ta 4 a l
W001 (of:

 

 

Pas/urn‘

 

 

No I'
Pastas“!

(- star (4‘

 

r‘sfuru‘

 

Na?

 

70 ‘ul
Weed(o/5

 

73 I a I
Wear/(l I:

J.____

 

 

 

7" 4 a. '
Wool/(of:

 

Fagiur «K

 

 

To ‘6’
Well/ll!

 

Faefuccd

 

Nor
fljfhrtd

 

Fesiha‘td

 

 

No?
fasten-(cf

 

 

N a f
refine-(J

 

fias‘krtd

71 {a I
MIMI/II f1

 

 

 

le
[asfurflf

Pa: («u-s4

f4 shawl

 

To In '
Wag/’0 It

To i a t
Woolf/o {a

 

Fasten-«d

 

 

Nut
Radar"!

 

 

IV I
”3:“ Perl

 

 

No I
Pagfurrd

fislaruf

 

Nor
rash-rel

 

 

No?
Puma-l

 

 

 

mite, Wl’oC/llf /+crg a

fierce Ernied

72. Per Court {of

[7.15

)Vor'fh Wcsf

0'1?

 

 

 

fleets NafGr-“Iec/ c‘ns“, Disfrl‘cf
An him Be ' ‘
4 H]! a Char/(Jul fmme‘f 6 rant, [(4 Iflfigkg Lee/1nd“1 Mnnr‘slcc Mn's$¢al- Wrifinr/
Then“
A el- «5
Vince
11500 a Tova I
Wood/cf:
42.0»
To 4 a l
Won/{11's
3?400
T1 In!
Wee/h f:
34000
7a In I
Won/la};
To ‘0- I
Woo/Id;
33000
Joana Ruhr".
To fa I
W “(I
o of: To fa I
Wood/1‘5
27000
7314 I
21(000 Wool/415 [Raine-c4 F‘sfuqu
T0 1 I, To" I
Weed/o!) WooJ/I U
Fasfiued
21000 Pflbfurccf
Piffurrd
Hooo
’35“er
No 1- P« 51' um! “(oat/(d5 Nor
Patiurul [Juiaru‘
Hose Past-mot
No f-
4
Fe: urn! Pasha-<4
1100a
P‘s’urul N9? No?
7' r
7000 N" N01“ Na? a’ "J pas“. (1
Pl Slur“! Pas-lured Paj‘thCJ
(.000 ‘ N- ’ m1
natured P414“. u‘!
J 000
a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

70f“! M/00(//0f H‘PCa-ffi PCP Coon-1f?
HCl‘Cs G’raycd

I725C’rnju 5

”0071/7 Edi?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Afl‘cs N0fCF41‘4 DI-5*r"cf
Alco.l114,/'H'¢Ind Club." ,‘ i-C ' ' ‘ j
7 _: 77 P jui 1rd!) fewerd Iosca Mon/nuéén 070114“, Obdoc/a. 0{5¢7a Frag so [oft-gm,“
Acres , 15 ‘-
- 75000
70000
70(- 0/
Wool/0 7 3:0th f
65600
fatal
WO’JIo r P45 *4! r .1"
06000
55000
PflS‘hlrfJ
$0000 rash-ch
l—-_ T0 " “
To ’- «I
W00¢{(0T we’d"?
95000
“”0 F4: 114?th
35000
~
TI Ml
35000 “’0’!!!"
7‘0 l‘al
Weed/0T
‘ . ‘nf-el _.__.___
1:000 W'9(//or ’4“:ch fajfur
To (A! Tofu,
Waco/lot W'ou/laf (’Owhu' ‘4
Pas‘huw-I
80000
fi‘a I
IV". F4;::rul WIot/IIT Push-9.4
Pasha-s4
15000-
». [705th
Forum“!
l-““1 Na!”
N‘lr PRS‘urn‘
Power-4
N Net
01' P4srun4
50°00 Plan-M4 .‘: .‘
F‘S“I‘¢‘( N f
[’14ch “4 A“?
! N0? P‘lf‘f'
Pasteur-‘4 N0 f
l Pasturd

 

.7344! Vl/ual/Id'f ”Cir
Acrrs Gr47c6/

Acres M'f GF‘I"/

<a~l< Per (foam/cl

lezJ'Cemyus
.:E;¢au £46 IF‘a.$'f [:7i5 lt-I‘c f’

R"? \

 

Aer?)

Ger-recs

[,_a fee r

Luna-uh:

ls‘ v u' nfshn

Mum-uh

Mantra t

0‘ Illa (I

Ste/air

M55 {fnaq

Mp1 ‘-

 

 

51 am

flue

Ilsuo

‘10 00

J 7350'

at!“

33“ 0

30000

47000

14000

altos

Itooa

(5’0“

11000

1000

6000

3000

 

r. 1.. I
Wen/{o ’3

 

 

 

‘rotal
Went/(0‘3

 

[7051:1ch

73(01
W0 0(/0f5

 

’3,Iur¢r‘

Flilflfnf.

 

7'0 fa I
Wow”: #5

 

fife]
Wald/0 {S

 

 

Faun-u!

 

 

 

 

No 1
fishnet!

 

N0 r
I’AIfuval

 

 

N01
fi-Hu r u(

N01
F051ur¢'(

 

flafiw-«l

 

‘To ‘3‘ I
Watt/l0 {J

 

7'0 fl,
tflfioflqhb

 

 

 

 

file I
"fiaflbfls

 

F"1ui"'(

 

Nor
Fhsfur<4

 

 

N0?

(9.15 NP ‘4

 

 

Pa? fluted

!’ 0-4.

FA i ‘ an I"

70 (a I
Wool/01.5

 

Pfi‘ivi‘tt’

 

To in I
War/II It

 

 

 

 

[Y0 r
F‘i‘fu F(‘(

 

No!
ijfurs"

7’, Isu- (,l

 

 

A'JIuad

 

 

 

1715 C en 5a 3
Ccnfrl‘a/ Dfs/PI'CI‘

731‘4/ M/oorfIrJ/J fie/“:47; Pcr— COM-(1%?
Acrcs 6ra c4
Acres MOE r474rI

 

Aerca

Clare.

Gin (Inn's

6’4-4h‘01‘

lleécfla

Mtcosla

M I‘d/and

Monfca Im

0.3::0/‘u

 

 

06100

50000

60000

50000

52000

“0‘0 0

44000

#0000

300M ,

32000

2?000

0.7000

9,0000

[66“

I20“?

€000

W00

7

 

 

73 I a!
“lead/OI;

 

 

I705 Ihl‘ct‘

T0 f 0 I
MRI/0 I5

 

To I a I
Wad/0 I5

 

[aeIurcd

 

Talal
W00 (”0 I5

 

 

Pabffirtal

 

Nat
3" Ta r («I

Not
figluru!

PaefurUI

 

 

To In I
Wank/[0’5

 

 

7'0 I a /
Woo/”of 5

 

Pnslumrl

 

 

ch‘ .
Pasfuruf

 

 

N0?
f’lslurcrf

N0?
Pa 5Iur ( [I

 

Pa: IuI- c (I

filo r
Pllflrcrl

To (a I
M/aOII/IIS

 

To fa I
Wow/I08

 

[’ajfur-CII

 

PA 5 [arm]

 

N0 f
F5 5 1‘“ P¢((

Nor
defu r14

 

 

-—.--.-—— QNH-‘fln—n—a ..— -.__._. _..-

- —-...n..—. .. --.H,‘

a.- ..-...p-..._.._.._...

_ ———.....'- -—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«u av H «a O
I... ~v003s¢QL 5%}
a? . 3
midweek ..rs‘wsL s. laemuk V... 138 as? V1335
F °\< "NH\NHflOF #Qz ‘V I‘ \uvL3\W& -~L$*fidfl~ $.2
. No.3» R u 3 90>» L37
fl kvgaanfik Vuiasmfi ‘ V VuLSVnsQ eat n«o\\\o\\> “7::35 ..sl 0 ‘33:...(L 0060.
+52 :3 .:§ 71:: a .01 2k
\eeaivmfil
Presses) “estrus; .— .2
14:. we $.13 . .. a 2. xtesabwfi 003w
V~§\w1\ \i$§k H\§\\~\3\S
~ 6 a on
¥vu§¥h§k
y. ‘2 \seil*nfik
coco».
VsLJ$W§Q
.s-gaxfl‘\
022.
2.:‘0:
\sut‘v‘mnfik \uvL3*W§N\ ~V+ §h
Lot .
«a fines); «astute? .rzszsm oooeh
\ \+ a\ ‘73.}. «l s Q +QL! 2 5:33;
Tst
0* o\\~\=§
\.u* \k Qatari; 006.4
\ ‘hfikv.
coach
600°.
0.30.!an “Km;
. vufi‘t” as?
:[t ‘V\F¢Lbnstv~vs OO°§¥
V t..3a£ W:.\;550 U
L on.
my oi 5.00)) \issk
dasmfimcuk 5.77: 2:53
“\§\\\Q\\5
‘1 «L.
eoooaa
i4.3---t1vl I &.~ch 08 .. mVLU<
sects“... ctoxto set...toh€< arrange! cecatvs! 00:4 33tv~>3¥ CvLH resisiez dabvfub teat...‘v..0 1%.“va 0}v&*..£u 4P¢05Q LOP~Q

 

 

- 32 -

Seligman, in his “Essays in Taxation“, defines a tax as "a compulsory
contribution from the person t the Government to degray the expenses incurred
in the common interests of all without reference to special benefits conferred."

The importance of taxation is ably eXpressed by Professor Fairchild of
Yale: ”Next perhaps to war, taxation is the most powerful instrument of
government, capable if unwisely used of destroying individuals, communities
and industries."
MAXIMS 0F TAXATION.

A number of years ago one of the world's formost economists in Public
Finance gave the world four great maxims of taxation. Adam Smith in his
”wealth of Nations" states the following four maxims of taxation:

1. "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support
of the government, as nearly as possible in prOportion to their respective
abilities; that is, in prOportion to the revenue Which they respectively enjoy
under the protection of the state."

2. "The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be cer-
tain andnot arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quan-
tity to be paid, ought to be clear and plain to the contributor, and to every
other person."

3. "Every tax ought to be levied at the tine, or in the manner in
which it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay it.”

4. ”Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and to
keep out of the pockets of the peeple as little as possible over and above
what it brings into the public treasury of the State.“

GEEERAL THEORIES OF TAXATION.
The Benefit Theory.
The followers of this school of thought believe that the protection
of live, liberty and prOperty is the benefit we receive from the government.

As subjects of the State we should pay for these benefits. The benefit we

receive varies, generally as the prOperty of the subject varies. This theory

-33-

is known as the benefit theory, as it attempts to estimate the benefit con-
ferred and to tax in prOportion to these benefits. I
The Faculty Theory.

This school of thinkers believe the subjects of a State should contri-
to the state in accordance with their ability to pay. This ability is suppos
ed to be indicated by wealth and income.

"Leave them as you find them“ Theory.

Taxes should be so assessed that the financial status of the tax-payer
bears the same relation to that of his fellow citizens after as before payment
of taxes .

FEDERAL TAXATION.
Constitutional Limitations.

The Federal Constitution provides for direct apportionment of taxes
among the several States according to their respective numbers and for uni-
form duties, imports and excises throughout the United States. Another pso-
vision of the Constitution is that no State Shall without the consent of
Congress levy any imports or duties on imports or exports except what may be
absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws.

The Federal Constitution thur restricts the powers of taxation of both
the state and Federal Bevernment. Most of the Federal Bevernment taxes are
indirect while these of the state are direct. The Federal Government has
adopted the policy of direct taxation in times past but up to the present
income tax law theses attempts proved futile. The present income tax has
proven successful in many respects.

Insofar as this study of woodland taxation is concerned, we may dis-
regard the indirect Federal taxes. The State and local taxes under the general
property tax system is the one big tax upon all preperty in the United States.
The following map from the U. S. D. A. Year Book 1924 illustrates the impor-

tance of this tax. In.Michigan 87.5% of all tax revenue in 1922 was derified

 

.4 .u .D a In;

 

 

 

85.6 5.358 a .595: Sam 2 Banana
.3 so .... ...: «a: e: i
' 5 2.. . u..._ u l. ...-11..-..ulin... ... ill... ........................... Egg—avo3-“nfiilu3—lefi
.. (.... . - . I. c. . ...... -111!!! i giant-5
... .. ... .... ...-.. .-.II. oasis?» eta-6};
s.. \.u u. . \ Aim I. a 3:! 313.05
- . ...-i....-.\ .Il....|.l.:|..]
...,M.» e. - .3.
. .Ar; .1. .Q N .. «2.339
r... . . . ...: . Em . mmheew amhzo.

 

pk O.

9".
LVA (531‘ +a g5€t VEU<

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0
. P V
5 .. .....2 a i
D 0 _. .....
II.|.‘| I. ........ _.
_. I . ......Jl. I
_. . . _ _ ’3.’ ._ /../.
s . .....i.4 _ . ./
. l -- _ . . l x
u _ . s /.
a y, ¢ . _ _~ ~ It,
0 ., a _ o _ _— ... J
,, 1.-., ... .. l _ . . s. . .. . .
/(-.J..\\. h. z . . .. . a _. .
u . ‘0 ' . _ I
\ \.\ s .I ._ filllll . .
\ . o .x\ as I\|J . . ._
4. \.L.| .|\J. ...
/ ..\x.. 1.\ ..f . .
w l .0
WK. 3
\... . (ex... ... e ..
\.|.\. I . _ o
[\\ . —. ._.
1
. .l .--...i-
—. .I-...|.I
be M. . ”..1 .\.\ I . s . o .3
. . .fi I ...
I. M Q 03 \ c . Ir'.’ .\I./ W J
u w k. . .lni. . M. Ii. )1. I._ kau D
¢ u» e .. D .L . . . n‘
. s ../ \m-\- 9.0 .. t . to. ex on {£7 . yaw . (h
. x I. a. V\. .I. u o
x . J. v
x . - v ,
0. ~ .\. . _ a. .
. . ....... l _ Q . A N e
z , .lf '1'], I . t ..
..l .I.I..I..~.I_\
..I I s.
v .. --.
w. I _
.... *
.l||||n

 

 

 

 

 

.4 .

aqua—5 539.80

In;

 

 

a .D E
...—_..on e5: 3 Ensues
e'

 

 

 
 

 

. as... ..Q l
Fl.

few I.

u .50 Vb ‘hvnQQk mhhvk *3 \vasenx

kWIN ?* LvLs.& \ttetvu

5‘ h— 5:
r.’ 5 . . .. -. I... .....3...!-..-l.l...x- .13.]! .--lll.l 85......-
yIVt : .....v...ull.... .. .... u'ollnuvuulno.l.vl :1 55;- uvoq—n _o cos-ERI— 5.1-!
..., . I. r .. - . .-..-...-..- In!!! ~ .. tsetse
u. ..-.. - l 1..-, caries-u cit-53:53
\ ..\\... - s a! 3. a .5! 3.333
e .. ,
Al‘i“ p P~ 0 .. (- vu J5 * § .v \ Il‘rw \ , I. 3. I. .— c

       

 

m «2.239
Wuhan nmhzo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ij-

from.the general property tax. This is the important tax upon all fonsst
property in the state of Michigan.
Michigan.Tax System.
Constitutional'Provisions.

The Constitution of 1850 made it nandatory upon the legislature to
provide a uniform rate of taxation except on preperty paying specific taxes.
The assessment of all preperty in the State shall be at cash value, this being
the value that could be obtained from the preperty at a free and voluntary sale.

This means that one and the same system should be applied to all pro-
party except that preperty that is specifically taxed already, and all such
pr0perty shouldsbe put on the assessment roll by the Supervisor for what it
is actually worth in money. The system established by the legislature is now
known as the general preperty tax. The legislature may impose specific taxes
byt these must be uniform upon theclasses upon which they Operate.

Bureau of Census Report.
General Preperty Tax.

All prOperty real and prsonal within the jurisdictinn of the State,
not expressly exempted, is subject to taxation by the State and and lecal
governments. This excludes all buildings and prOperty under the jurisdiction
of the Federal Government. PrOpsrty is divided into two great groups known
as real and personal.

Real property contains all lands within the State, and all buildings,
and factories thereon. Real property is generally expressed as land and the
things semi or permanently attached thereto. This type of proPerty bears the
greatest burden of taxes for State and local subdivisions. It is the one
easiest to find and hardest to hide.

Personal fireperyy.
All credits of every kind belonging to inhabitants of the State, over

and above thezamounts owed by them; all shares in corporations, organized

under the laws of the State, when the preperty of such corporations is not

 

...57-

exempt or is not taxable in itself, or When the personal prOperty is not tax~
ed, all shares in banks within theState, at their cash value, after deduct-
ing the assessed value of real preperty of the banks; all shares of foreign
corporations, except National banks, owned by citizens of the State; all in-
terests owned by individuals in lands, the fee of which is in the State or the
united States; all buildings and improvements upon leased lands except where
the value of the real prOperty is also assessed to the lessee or owner of such
buildings and improvements; tombs and vaults for hire and the stock of any
corporation.owning them; all other personal prOperty not herein enumerated
and not specially exempted by law; all nursery stock and trees; all produce
seeds and grain on hand, stored in warehouse or mill and in transit, owned
‘within theState; the personal prOperty of all gas and coke companies, nat-
ural gas companies, electric light, water works, and hydraulic companies,
assessed in the township or city where the principal works are located, the
mains, pipes and wires of such companies being assessed as personal property
in the township, village or city where located. The personal prOperty of
street railroads, plank roads, cable or electric railroad, or transportation
companies, bridge companies, and all other companies not required to pay a
specific tax to the State in lieu of all other taxes, assessed in the town-
ship, village or city where the principal business office is situated; the
tracks, roads or bridges of any such company are held to be personal preperty
and may be assessed in the township, village or city where located, used or
laid, Possessory claims to hhmestead lands are assessed as personal prOperty.
The exemptions are as follows:

1. All public prOperty.

2. Preperty of library, benevolent, charitable, educational and
scientific institutions.

3. Housed of public worship and parsonages.

4. Cemeteries.

5. Preperty of State and local agricultural societies.

 

6% Parks and armories.

7. Preperty of posts of the Grand-Army of the Republic, and the
woman's Relief Corps; and personal prOperty of Sons of Veterans, Union Vet-
erans, Unions and all Yoflnngen's Christian Associations, Woman‘s Christian
Tenperance Union Associations, YbungiPeOple's Christian Unions, and similar
associations.

8. Fire apparatus of organized companies.

9. All prOperty of the Woman's Auxiliary Society of the University
of Michigan.

10. All State, County Township, City, village and school district
bonds.

ll. ProPerty of persons who, in the Opinion of the sopervisor and Lu
board of review, by reason of poverty, are unable to contribute toward the
public charges.

12. Real Estate owned as a homestead by a soldier or sailor of the
Federal Bovernment who servediihnthecCivil, Spanish-American or Mexican wars,
or wife or widow of such, to the value of $1,000.

13. Pensions receivable from the United States.

14. Bona fide debts.

15. Property of Indians who are not citizens.

16. The library, family pictures, school books, one sewing machine
used and owned by each individual or family, and wearing apparel of each
individual.

17. Heusehold furniture, provisions and fuel totthe value of $500.

18. working tools of any mechanic to the value of $100.

19. Personal prOperty owned and used by any householder in connect-
ion with his business to the value of $200.

20. All mules, horses and catttle not over one year old, all sheep
and swine not over six months old.

21. All forestry reserve Lands are exempt from taxation except for

_ 59 -
the maintainence of roads and schools.

22., Private forest reservations are exempt from all taxation
over and above the value of $1 per acre; timber may be cut and removed
therefrom upon payment of a license fee of 5% of appraisal value.

Sec. 3.

Assessments.

In general, there is but one complete assessment roll for State,
county and municipal taxes, but incorporated villages and certain cities
may cause a separate roll to be made up for their own taxation. There is
no State assessment. The actual cash value of all property in the State
subject to the general tax law, is determined annually by the State board
of equalization. This forms the basis of the apportionment of the State
tax, each.county paying such a preportion of the tax as the qqualiced
value of the county bears to the total equalized value d’the State, irres-
pective of the annual local assessment upon which the tax is actually coll-
acted. The township, ward of city is the unit, and the initial assessment
is made by the township supervisors (elected annually) or, where a city
charter otherwise provides, bv some assessor or board of assessors. In
villages an assessment is nade by an assessor and taxes for strictly vil-
lage purposes only are levied thereon, all other taxes levied on preperty
situated in an incorporated village being spread upon the tax roll for the
township in Which the village is located.

The assessment of all pnpperty is made annually. Property is
assessed to the owner or person in possession, and personal preperty in
general follows the situs of that person except in specified cases in which
on account of liability to evasion, the situs of the preperty itself is
preferred. The supervisor must require a sworn statement from every per-
son ”of full age and sound mind”, both as to the quantity and value of his

pooperty; and he may require persons claiming to have no pr0perty to take
oath to that effect. The value assigned to the prOperty by the owner is

 

not taken.as conclusive, it being the duty of the supervisor to make the val-
uation at the cash value, or selling price, where the preperty is. The ass
sessment proper is completed by the township or city board of review, which
after correcting the roll, is required formally to approve it.

Wilful neglect or refusal to furnish a statement of prOperty owned
or in control of a person, member of a firm, or officer of a corporation, is
deemed a misdemeanor and is punishable by imprisonment for not less than 80
days or more than six months, or by a fine of $100 to $1000 or both.

Corporations in general are assessed precisely as individuals, but
certain classes of corporations are assessed upon their property by the State
board of assessors. The assessment made by this board is not apportioned
among the townships or counties and is made the basis only for those taxes
which are levied by the State board of assessors.

A. Public utilities.

B. Mines and minerals‘

C. State and National banks.

D. Steam vessels.

Sec. 4.

Ehualization.

There is no equalization, so called, between individuals. Ex-
cessive assessments and undervaluation may nowever, be corrected by the town-
ship board of review or by the State board of tax commissioners.

The board of review for each township is composed of the super-
visor and two tax paying landholders elected for two years one in each alter-
nate year.

The State board of tax commissioners consists of three members
appointed by the Governor for a full term of six years, and including the
Gobernor,”who is a member ex officio, forms the State board of assessors.

The board exercises general supervision over supervisors and other assessing

officers, advises them of their duties, receives all complaints as to pro-

 

perty liable to taxation that has not been assessed, and furnishes the State
board of equalization an estimate of the actual cash value of taxable preperty
of each county.

The county board of supervisors of each township and city in the
county, equalizes annually between townships, wards, or cities in their
county, making such additions and deductions on the toal value of property
so as to produce relatively an equal and uniform valuation. The assessment
roll after it leaves the hands of the board of review is not amended except
by the board of State tax commissioners.

The state board of equalization which consists of the auditor
general, commissioner of agriculture, and the three members of the State board
of tax commissioners, annyally equalizes the valuation of all prOperty in the
state, except that paying specific taxes, by adding to or deducting from the
aggregate valuation of taxable real and personal prOperty such amounts as
produce relatively equal and uniform valuations between the several counties.
This forms the basis of the apportionment of the State tax.

The State board of tax commissioners has powers superior to those
of the board of equalization. It has power on its own motion, after inves-
tigation or upon receipt of a written complaint from any taxpayer to order a
public hearing at which the supervisor and the interested parites are present
and may change individual assessments, add preperty omitted, and, when the as-
sessment of all preperty in a given district is complained of, make a general
review of the roll.

Sec. 5.

Tax rates.

The state board of assessors annually determines the average rate
of taxation in the State upon prOperty other than that assessed by the board.
The rate is determined by dividing the total advalorem taxes raised for State,

county, township, school and municipal purposes by the actual cash value of all

 

 

- ‘ -

preperty in the State subject to such taxes. The rate so fieund is applied to
preperty subject to taxation by the State board.
The amount to be raised for county purposes is levied by the county
board of supervisors and apportioned among the townships and cities.
In the townships the amount to be raised by taxation is fixed by the
inhabitants at the town meeting. If the town meeting fails to fix the amount,

the township boards may make the levy.
The city council is empowered to impose such taxes as may be necessary

for municipal purp0ses, exclusive of taxes for sbhools and sbhool-houses, and
not to exceed by a general tax 1 %% in any one year.
See. 6.

Collections.

In general, all taxes, state or local, except those called ”specific" ,
are collected by the township or city treasurers, who are elected annually.
The taxes due fronxtaxpayers become a debt to the State, county, city or town-
ship and secured by a lien on the prOperty, attaching on the first day of
December.‘ Taxes are delinquent-on the 10th of January, when collection fee
becomes 5%%. After the 10th of January, theatreasurer makes a personal de-
mand on each taxpayer who is delinquent, and in case payment is not made he
collects by seizure and sale. The township treasurer is required to return
to the county treasurer as delinquent all taxes which he is unable to collect.
Sec. 7.

Poll Taxes.

No State or county poll tax - Township may impose one.
Sec. 8. ‘

The inheritance tax is raised by the State for educational pur-
poses and for the payment of the interest and principal of the State debt.

The rate if 5% upon the clear market value and payable at the time the proper-

ty is transferred. Certain cases are taxed at one percent only when transfer

is between man and dependent relatives.

u u
u
.
1
c
.

I 1
o

n .

 

-43-

Sec. 9.

Corporation Taxes.

Most corporations are taxed under general preperty tax. Special pro-
visions are made in the case of certain public-service corporations, insurance
companies, river improvement companies, and kindred organizations, The taxes
and valuation on these is made by the State Board of assessors.

Sec. 10.
The State imposes a great many busniess, occupational, professional, and
miscellaneous licenses, taxes and fees.
Sec. 11.
There is no State income tax.
Sec. 12.
The State at present levies a tax on gasoline, revenue from which is to
be used for read construction.
Present Michigan Tax Organization.

The smallest taxing district in the State of Nichigan is the school dis-
trict. The amount to be spent is voted on at the annual school meeting and this
when spread on the tax roll becomes the school tax for the year. In some special
cases the school board has the power to levy taxes. This would be one of the
heaviest taxes on the peeple of the State to-day if it were not for the pri-
mary school fund Which is paid back to the school district in prepertion to the
number of children of school age in the district. Even with this great help
the school taxes are very high in the State. In but very few counties of the
State the state pays back more to the county as primary school money than it
receives as state tax from the county. The primary school fund is a great help
to the schools of the state and in many districts is the thing that keeps them
in exinstence. This is especially true in the cut-over sections of the State.

The next larger political unit is the towns and cities. The money

to be spent is voted by the peOple generally though in the city council in

some cases may vote to spend money for certain definite things. Thus again in
either case the peeple themselves vote their own taxes either directly or by
representation and delegated power. The municipal andcity taxes are very high
in a good many cases. ‘Municipal taxes affect forest taxation only in very
small, unincorporated places where the town does not function but relies upon
the township government. In such cases the municipal taxes are nearly nil.
Some cities have special tax assessors.

The next larger political subdivision is that of the town-ship. The
annual town meeting votes the amount of money to be spent in the insuingdyear
and for what purposes. Thus again we see the ppople vote their own taxes.

The township supervisor elected by the peOple and responsible to them
is the assessing officer of the towhship. He holds office at the pleasure of
the people whose prcperty he has to value and assess.

. we have atthis place another unit of our tax system coming in and the
being the township board of review. This board is composed of the supervisor
who assessed the preperty and two tax payers elected by the peeple. This board
listens to complaints from the tax payers and equalizes the value placed on dif-
ferent prOperties of individuals of the township.

The supervisor elected by the people of the township with the rest
of the supervisors of the county makes what is known as the county board of
supervisors. This board votes the amount to be spent by the county and appor-
tions this along with the State tax out to the townships, where the supervisor
spreads it out among the different tax payers in accordance with their total
valuation. Again we see that the peOple vote their own expenditures through
their elected supervisor and thee vote their own taxes.

The political unit next in size is that of the State itself. The
State legislature votes the expenditures of the state and thus set the amount
to be raised by the state in taxes. The members of the legislature are also-

t°d directly bythe peOple of each district and are directly responsible to the
peOple of that district. 80 again the people through their direct representa-

 

tives vote their own expenditures and thus set the State tax.

The state board of equalization.is made up of the Auditor General, Con»
missioner of Agriculture and the three members of the State tax commission.
This board used to meet once in five years but now they meet once a year. It
is the duty of this board to receive the report of the State tax commission as
to the_extimated true value of each county of the State. This board equalizes
the State tax among the various counties of the State on.their equilized val-
uation. The representatives of each county are given a chaneeto tell their
“tale of woe“ at the meeting of this board. This board publishes the record
of the meetings of the state board of equalization. The board of equaliza-
tion was established in 1851.

State Tax Commission.

The state tax commission was established in 1899.to bolster up the
general prOperty tax decay. t consists of three members and a secretary
appointed by the Governor with the consent of the senate. The members of this
commission hold office for a term of six years. The duty of the commission
is to:

1. Have and exercise general supervision over local assessors and tax
officials.

2. Confer with and advise the assessing officers as to their duty.

3., To receive all complaints as to prOperty liable to taxation that
has been improPerly assessed or not assessed at all.

4. Require from any officers in the state any information desired in
regard to taxation.

5. Furnish the state board of equalization at each session an estimate
of the taxable value of all the various counties of the State.

6. See that the tax laws of the state are enforced.
7., Act as a board of assessors and set a value upon public utilities

and other corporations paying a specific tax.
8. Find the average tax rate for the state and apply this to the

value of the concerns paying a specific tax.

9. Ptblish.a report of the findings of the commission.

Lntz in his book entitled.”Public Finance" states that: ”The state tax
commission.has been largely respensible for most of the prOgress which American
State and local taxation has made in every direction. The beginnings of cen-
tralized tax administration may be traced far back into the nineteenth can?
tury, but the first of the modern tax commission wdth general supervisory powers
appeared in Indiana in 1891. At the present time some kind of central adminis—
trative board exists in every State, and in about forty states these boards or
commissions possess supervisory powers over the local tax officials#%

The Theory of the General Property Tax.
The general prOperty tax is based on two broad principles, as is ably
expressed by Lutz in his "Public Finance”.

1. ”Every citizen should contribute to the support of the Government
in prOportion ot his ability to pay.m D

2. "Property in general, or viewed as a homogeneous mass, is a univer-
sally adeQuate measure of ability to pay.”

The first of these is generally accepted as a good sound principle of
taxation today. Though in some cases we know it is not desirable to use pro-
portionate rates. But taken as a whole the first principle is today accepted
as a sound basis of taxation.

The fault of the general property tax lies in the second principle
which states that prOperty is a universal indication of a man's ability to con-
tribute in taxes to the Government. The principle likely held true and was
adequate under a much simpler economic condition as in our own Colonial times.
In a pioneer community a citizen's money and resources are generally invested
in land and buildings. So in such cases the amount of prOperty he owned came
near to measuring his ability to pay. But as the community advances prOperty

becomes less and less indication of the real ability to pay.

 

 

-47-

General PrOperty Tax.

Ely in his ”Outline of Economics” ably states, "Thegeneral preperty tax
is the key to the revenue system of our state and local governments, and
by far the most hmportant tax collected in the United States.”' In theory
this tax is levied upon all real and personal prOperty except that payinga
specific tax or is exempted by law or State consitution. This tax is the
real backbone of the entire revenue system of the State, county, township
and school district. It is theftax under Which most of our forests and
forest lands are taxed in Michigan. This tax isrusedtinteverycStatevinuthe
Union as the main and foremost tax for State andlocal revenue. This tax is
also used in Switzerland, Prussia and Holland, but generally as an auxiliary
tax and not the main one”.

Lutz in his ”Public Finance" states, "The general preperty tax has been
used in many countries during the primitive stages of their economic devel-
opment.”

‘E. R. Seligman in his ”Essays in Taxation", states " It is not.surprise
ing, therefore, that traces of the general prOperty tax has been found in
antiquity and various EuroPean countries during the medieval period."

The general preperty tax in the United States dates back to the
Colonial period in which it first started as a specific tax but the list of
things to be taxed grew each year and it soon became a great deal easier to
state the things that were not to be tased rather than those to be taxed,
and thus it gradually became a general tax. The way this came about is well
illustrated by aniextract from the Laws of Ohio, Act XXIX, march 14, 1831:

“All lands and lots with the buildings and structures thereon; all
capital employed in merchandise and by exchange brokers;‘ all grist, oil, and
saw mills; all manufactories of iron, glass, paper, clocks and nails; all
distilleries, breweries and tanneries, all iron, brass and copper foundries;

all money loaned at interest; all stocks or capital invested in steam boats;

   

all pleasure carriages with two or four wheels; all horses, mules, asses
and meat cattle of three years old and upwards.”

Finally, in 1846, the form of the tax law was changed by the intro-
duction of the following statment: "All property whether real or personal,
within this State, and all moneys and credits of persons residing therein,
unless exempted, shall be subject to taxation."

Thus we see the specific tax evolved into a general tax.

Administration of the General Tax in Michigan.

The Supervisor of each township in the State as soon after election
as possible, is to ascertain the taxable property of his district, the per-
son to Whom it should be assessed and their residence. Each person of”full
age and sound mind" is required to make out a statement under oath as to the
amount and value of his taxable prOperty.

The township supervisor then or before the first Monday in June
makes up the assessment roll. This shows the name of each person or firm
liable to taxation in his township with a full description of all real proper-
ty and the value of all personal property.

The assessment roll thus made up is reviewed by the township board
of review and each assessment is looked over and weighed by this board.

This board again meets the second Monday in June to hear the re-
quests and objections of any taxpayer of the district in regard to his valua-
tion.

The assessment roll after having been sighed by the board of re—
view is taken by the supervisor to the June session of the county board of
supervisors. This board examines the assessment rolls of the various town-
ships to see if they have been equally and uniformly assessed at their true
cash value. If in the Judgment of this board a township is over or under

velued in relation to the others they may make a correction so that all town-

 

-49-

ships shall bear equally the tax burden in proportion to their wealth. If

a supervisor of one of the townships thinks his district is not fairly equal—
ized he may apply to the State tax commission and they shall investigate the
charges.

The state legislature in its sessions determines the amount of money
to be spent for state purposes for the year. This is the only state body who
can vote taxes.

The state tax commission makes up an estimated value for each county
of the state. This is tested and sent to the state board of equalization be-
fore its annual meeting.

The state board of equalization at its annual meeting distributes the
State tax to the various counties according to their total taxable valuation.
The amount of State tax to be levied in each county is then turned over to the
Auditor General.

On or before the first day of September the Auditor General shall
make a record of the amount of State tax to be raised by each county. He shall
notify the county board of supervisors before their October meeting the amount
of state tax apportioned their county by the state board of equalization.

The county board of supervisors shall at their October meeting de-
termines the amount of money to be raised for county purposes. This and the
State tax shall then be apportioned to the different townships in accordance
with their total taxable value as was passed by the board of supervisors.

The supervisor apportions out the total taxes for all purposes to
the individual tax payers in accordance with their total taxable wealth as
passed by the local board of reviews.

A c0py of the tax roll is turned over to the township treasurer with
a command to collect and keep the township share of taxes and turn over to the
county treasurerithe county and state share before the tenth day of January.

The county treasurer takes out the county taxes and forwards the

State taxes to the State.

 

_ 5o _
Forfeited Tax Land.

The title to forfeited tax land is acquired by the state under the
present tax laws as follows: The towner having failed to pay taxes withhi
the time prescribed by law, the land is returned to the county treasurer by
the township treasurer, and in the spring following the year for which the
tax was levied, this land is returned by the county treasurer to the Auditor
General of the State, Who applies, early in the year following, to the cir-
cuit court in chancery of the county where the land is located. He states
this land is delinquent for taxes and asks the court to fix the amount due.,
and direct a sale if the amount is not paid befiore a certain date. Thus the
land is offered for sale in may of the third year. If at this sale the land
is not bid in by individuals it is bid into the Sate by the county treasurer
and is so returned to the Auditor General.

It then remains subject to redemption by the owner for one year. If
it is not redeemed within the year, it becomes State land and goes on the
State tax land list. At this point the original owners title is cut off,
the State becomes the absolute owner. The Auditor General them hide all land
that has been delinquent over five years to the State. During this long five
years of delinquency trespass and fire can destroy all the surface natural
resources before the State receives the land back.

PrOperty for taxation purposes under the general property tax is
divided into two large classes, real and personal. Real property being land
and all permanent and semi-permanent improvements thereon, While personal pro-
perty is movable. Real preperty is assessed at its place of geOgraphical
location While personal prOperty is assessed at the residence of the owner.
Real preperty is hard to cover up and hide due to the fact it is permanent
or semi-permanent, while personal prOperty is movable and can escape its just
share of the tax burden.

In the first report of the tax commission published in 1900 it is

 

-51..

stated, "For many years the legislature has wrestled with questions pertain-
. ing to the assessment of personal property" while every state and civilized
country has come to know that there is but one class of preperty that can al-
ways be found; that can not evade the assessor, and that is real estate.

In 1923 real propertytwas paying 80% of the general preperty tax and
penenaalprOPerty only 20‘. And taken over a period of years 1905 to 1923
this percentage has not varied over 5%. There is at the pesent time a vast
anmunt of personal prOperty that escapes its just share of the tax burden.
Forest land and forest growth is of course real preperty and can not be hidden
or be shifted away when the assessor makes up the tax rodl. While if this see
assessor had to value the Rec Automobile plant he might be able to value the
-real prOperty tut he would have no idea of what the value of the plant’s ”good
will"I would be and very likely would forget all about such a thing. While to
the owners of the Rec plant this good will is very valuable. The average towne
ship supervisor has bery little idea of the real value of a going concern and
especially if it is at all large, but he can come fairly close to the Value of
lands and especially farm and idle lands. The average assessor is not used to
thinking in large sums of money as is required in valuing large corporations.
Thus in many ways, as Lutz able states in his "Public Finance” "this has made
the general prOperty tax a regressive tax, hearing more lightly as the size of
the property increases." Local boards of equalization were extablished to help.
correct this but these boards do very little except a lot of "log Rolling".

There are many methods of tax evasion in existence to-day but the tax
exempt bonds and securities are by far the meat widely used. All Federal, State
and local Government bonds are exempt from taxation and this of course makes
them.a rather desirable investment. Nb y local governments and especially cities
and villages have been able to sell their bonds so easily that they have piled
up a large and burdensome debt for their taxpayers. And, as in most cases, where

money is easy to obtain, St was easy to spend and in a great many cases it was

 

spent unwisely.

Another favorite method of tax evasion is the migration of the own-
er of large amounts of intangible preperty to the states more lenient in tax-
ation of this type of property. These peOple often maintain two residences
and can designate Which of the two is their legal residence, and thus be tax-
ed under the more lenient of the two.

Another grave evil of the general preperty tax is stated in the repot
of the tax commission in 1900:

”There are few States having similar methods forthe equalization
of prOperty but what ascribe their gravest evils to the baneful effects
resulting from such apportionments. The evils of undervaluation of pe0perty
in Michigan may be traced almost invariably to apportionments for state and
county taxes.

" For years there has been no uniformity of assessment in valuation
of property in this state. Each supervisor and assessing officer has applied
such rules as he has been pleased to make for himself. Assessments have
varied from 8% to 100% of actual value, while in some localities real estate
has been assessed at more than 100% of its just valuation.”

“In ninety-nine cases out of every one hundred Where the preperty
of a tbwn or city has been generally assessed at but a fraction of its true
valuation, such under assessments are traceable to an effort to get even or
the best of a county or State equalization, or both."

"Men are elected supervisors by their local constituents and it
is but natural that they shall do what they can cto protect and serve them.
Many of these assessing officers merely cOpy old tax rolls that have been used
by the former supervisor. ‘

"Under the guise of equalization a public robbery has been cone

mitted and honesty stamped with the seal of infamy. If ousted and tried,

 

- do -
the Jurors who must sit in such cases are the very ones who have.received
the benefit of the wholesale swindling, and it would be almost if not quite
impossible to secure a conviction before such a jury."

In 1896 the State created the office of State tax statistician to in-
vestigate taxation and methods employed in the state and report to the Govern-
or. His peport, which is very interesting, shows that in 1896 and previous
to that, the state was struggling with the problem of undervaluation in tax-
ation. It was only three years after this report that the State legislature
created the tax commission to help bolster up the general prOperty tax.

In this report the state statistician says that the practice of not
assessing large blocks of preperty held by corporations is illegal and pro-
duces a great injustice and hardship. The intentional omission from the tax
roll of a township of $80,000 personal property and the assessment of real
preperty of one township at only one quarter of its cash value invalidates
state and county taxes levied upon lands in other townships which were assess-
ed at full cash value."

He makes the following statement: "The supervisor is a consti-
tutional officer. He takes the same constitutional oath as the Governor
and Judges of our courts. It is equally as binding on him as upon them. Yet,
if the Governor or nudges should discharge their duties with such gross dis-
regard of law and justice as is everywhere conspicuous and undeniable as in the
assessment of property, there would be an immediate and probable just demand
for their impeachment."

Lutz in his "Public Finance" states: "The first sounce of trouble
and most difficult to eliminate is to be found in the original assessment.
The locally elected assessor, working in a small district for a limited period
of thirty to ninety days each year, for a small compensation and without the
benefit of such technical methods for ascertaining the value of specialized

kinds of property as are known and available, is expected to discover and list
all of the preperty owned by each resident of the district. A diligent and

 

 

__..a

able man may cover his territory thoroughly enough to make a fair assessment
of the tangible property, although the magnitude of the task increases rapids
In with the growth of urban centers and the spread of large concerns into more
than one district. The fact that the assessor frequently holds his Job at the
will and pleasure of those who have voted for him makes rather unlikely the
display of an unpleasant degree of inquisitiveness with regard to much of this
poperty. But neither industry nor ability will uncover large amounts of in-
tangible propertyrnnless the owners thereof are willing to have it disclosed.
As the volume of intangible property increases, the problem of complete asses-
shent becomes progressively difficult. Many instances are known in.which the
successive assessors have simply copied the records of their predecessors in-
stead of assessing all prOperty on the basis of their own independent inspection '
and appraisal."

With all these defects of the general prOperty tax administration com-
ing before the legislature and the demand for more and more State tax money,

the legislature created the State tax commission in 1899 to help bolster up
and correct the defects of the general preperty tax. To-day this commission :

has supervisory powers over the local assessors and often holds reviews in
different townships or even counties where they deem it necessary and correct
the valuation as their findings determine. This commission has eliminated a
great many of the defects and has accomplihhed wonderful results with their
funds and available men.

The result of the system.of State supervision in increasing assess-
ments, especially of personal preperty, is shown in the table below.

Assessed Valuation of Property_in MichiganL 1890 - 1908.

 

Real Estate

 

Your Personal Total.

1899 825,858,711 142,330,376 968,189,087
1901 1,019,968,833 315,141,085 1,335,109,918
1902 1,086,816,327 331,435,531 1,418,251,858
1903 1,187,387,028 349,968,710 1,537,355,738
~1904 1,182,238,299 347,731,051 1,529,969,350
1905 1,229,108,648 345,314,122 1,574,422,770
1906 1,243,066,836 355,868,770 1,598,935,606
1907 1,290,164,227 364,207,665 1,654,371,892

 

Hr. Geo. E. Ewing owns a 40 acre woodlot in S. E. % of N. W.-§ of Sec.

26, Byron Township of Kent County. From the tax receipts the following

data is collected: Byron Byron
Road Hwy. Spec.Co. Ctr. C.Bd.
Year:Valu:8tate:County:Twp. :R'pr.: SchoolzImp.:Road: Boad:Drain:Road:As:Tota1
'1895 600 1.71 1.43 .. 1.99 '
1896 600 1.20 1.37 .79 1.74 .77
1897 600 1.41 1.26 1.36 1.87
1898 600 1.26 1.14 .84 1.45
1899 600 2.16 .85 .59 .86 1.80
1900 1200 2.44 1.53 .96 1.42 2.82
1901 1000 3.20 1.25 .35 1.18 3.35
1902 1230 2.10 1.56 .15 1.53 2.29
1903 1250 3.03 1.83 .99 1.66 2.57
1904 1250 2.21 1.84 .59 3.51 1.25
1905 1250 2.89 1.50 .42 3.00 2.70
1906 1250 2.64 1.66 .30 4.33 1.25
1907 1250 3.77 1.34 .40 6 .23 1 .25
1908 1250 3.14 1.38 2166 3.13 2.93 3.38 1.09
1909 1250 4.38 2.30 1.56 3.13 4.19 1.88 25.65
1910 1250 3.44 1.54 1.63 3.13 1.31 3.13
1911 1250 4.64 1.83 1.44 3.75 1.84 2.50 .84
1912 1250 4.03 2.11 1.98 3.75 1.58 2.50 .12 ..46
_ 1913 1250 6.09 2.50 1.41 3.60 1.51 2.44 .93 1.19 2.34
1914 2500 5.00 3.17 8.11 3.61 3.27 7.10 39.90
1915 2500 7.68 5.28 4.28 3.60 1.50 2.40 4.80
1916 2500 5.25 4.90 4.25 5.05 2.65 1.90 7.83
1917 2500 6.75 5.80 2.65 7.55 3.45 2.58 5.35
1918 2500 6.25 7.95 1.95 4.88 2.63 3.30 4.40 6.06
1919 2500 10.73 9.20 3.05 7.30 3.15 3.15 3.61
1920 3000 11.52 7.89 3.12 6.15 5.79 3.09 5.10 3.46
1921 3000 11.46 9.72 3.33 7.38 5.82 2.85 3s3l 9.72 3.32
1922 3000 9.75 8.25 3.30 7.35 7.17 11.85 3.09 3.18
1923 3000 9.00 7.50 3.90 7.20 3.30 4.20 2.58 12.63 3.04
1924 3000 6.72 7.68 3.33 7.52 5.52 2.46 3.66 12.39 2.90

Carlyle :Carlyle:Byron 0. :Byron 0.: Ross:Ross :Byron: : :
Road As-: Road :Road Ass.:110ad :Road: Road :.0 Rd R.oad :Grad:Tota1
Years: lease: 8.: Tota1.z:ilist.#33 :Total : 34 :Tota1:As .:34 Total: 3r :

1895 .92 6.05
1896 .79 5.87
1897 1.36 5.90
1898 .84 4.69
1899 .86 6.26
1900 1.42 9.17
1901 1.18 9.33
1902 1.53 7.63
1903 2.16 .50 10.58
1904' 3.51 9.40
1905 3.00 10.51
1906 4.33 10.18
1907 6.23 12.99
1908 6151 18.04
1909 5.01 43.09
1910 6.23 14.18
1911 7.09 16.84
1912 6.37 16.53
1913 10.50 22.01
1914 10.71 70.16
1915 10.80 29.54
1916 14.78 31.83
1917 15.48 34.03
1918 12.58 37.42
1919 14.56 40.69
1920 17.80 46.12
1921 1.17 27.75 58.08
1922 1.60 16.62 43.69 72.16
1923 1.54 31.19 54.89
1924 1.48 30.21 53.46

 

767.73

 

_ 237-.

Forest crOp is very similar to agricultural crepe, the chief difference
beingen them being in the period requdred to reach maturity. The raising of
trees is a long time investment. In the case of young growing stock taxes
and over-head costs such as planting, protection and care must be paid each
year. All these costs are figured at compound interest until there is an
income sufficient to take care of them. Money increases rapidly at compound
interest. An investment at 6% must double every 12 years to make a profit.

In mature forests where acme of the products may be harvested annually the inn
terest and charges may be charged off each year, thus reducing the heavy
increase due to the compound interest.
Governmental Costs.

The state tax commission in their 1923-1924 report states that aver-
age per capita tax for local government purposes in 1923 was $42.01, while
the per capita tax for state governmental purposes in 1923 was $4.36. In
1913 per capita tax for local governmental purposes was $14.94 while for state
governmental purposes it was $3.06. This of course shows that both state and
local expenditures increased over the 10 year period but the local expenditures
increased much more than did the state. In 1913 the state received 16.99%
of the total tax levied and in 1923 only 9.41%. The average percentage of
increase in taxes levied during the ten years 1913-1923 was 236.36%. The
state tax increased 86%, county tax 180%, township 101%, school tax 329%,
highway tax 210%, county road tax 404%, general city taxes 287%, and village
taxes 161%. The taxable wealth of the state over the same period increased
153%. Thus the local tax budgets have increased more rapidly than has the
taxable wealth of the state.

0f the total property tax levied for 1923, for state purposes over

64% was borne by the ten industrial counties, Calhoun, Genesee, Ingham, Jack—
son, Kalamazoo, Kent, Muskegon, Oakland, Saginaw, and Wayne; 9.55% was borne

by the nine semi-industrial counties; 5.06% by the 6-mining counties of the

 

- 58 -
upper peninsula and 14.51% by the 20 agricultural count ies;lwh-ile.;the remaining
thirtyreighttcofinties located in the northern part of the state carried on
6.5% of the total tax levied for state purposes. In 1913 the same groupes
of counties paid respectively of the state tax 45.23%; 11.33%; 10.45%; 21.23%
and 11.66%. This shows that the industrial counties are paying more and more
of the state burden each year while the poor land counties of the north drOp-
ped nearly a half in ten years.
United States Department of Agriculture Year Book for 1924.
1. Taxes on farm property in the United States increased about 140% from
1914 to 1923.
2. Value of farm products increased only 58% between 1914 and 1923.
3. Greater part of farmers tax is levied on real estate.
4. In actual practice, not all preperty is subject to the general pro-
perty tax.
5. A large volume of prOperty escapes taxation becasue of legal eva-
sions.as public and semi-public property.
6. A lot of prOperty escapes because the assessing officer can not find
it.
7. Only a small percent of the intangible personal preperty is assess-
ed and really amounts to a voluntary contribution 0n the part of the owner
as he could avoid payment if he chose to do so.
8. Nor is there any close approach to full cash value and equality of
taxation between classes of property which are assessed.
9. Personal preperty put to industrial use is frequently favored in
valuation in order to attract capital from competitive political units.
10. The class of prOperty most subject of all to complete evaluation is
real estate, yet even here great variatians in assessment appear.
11. While many factors contribute toward bringing about different assess-

mentelevels between local districts, the wide use of the prOperty tax base for

Btate and county taxation promotes a competition between local districts for

 

 

-59..

lowest possible assessment.

12. The outstanding feature of our present tax system is the failure of
the general prOperty tax to accommodate itself to the change that has taken
place. The general property tax fails to reach the newer and diversified
forms of wealth as efficiently as it reaches real estate. The resultzis that
the property tax, once general in character, has come perilously close to de-
generating into a tax solely on real or tangible preperty and lost its charac-
ter as an approximate measure of personal ability to pay.

13. Almost everywhere prOperty used in agricultural stands out as the
most ill-vavored of all classes when the tax is considered in relation to earn,
ings. 6

14. The ultimate burden of the tax depends upon the extent to whidh it
can be shifted.

15. It is generally held that taxes on farm land are not shifted to
any appreciable degree in the form of higher prices of goods sold.

16. It is held by most economists that under actual conditions the tax
on agricultural land is rarely shifted to the consumer.

l7. Preperty tax has two points in its defense: it is of such a na-
ture as to make possible the most accurate forecasts of its annual yield; it
is a tax which can be made to yield more or less with comparative ease.

The state board of tax commissioners in their 1923-1924 report state
that if the constitutional provisions and laws of the state relating to the
assessment of prOperty had been strictly adhered to the highest possible de—
gree of equality and justice would have been attained. But this has not been
the case as prOperty has been assessed in the state at ratios varying from 25%
to over 100% of the actual value. This of course puts an unjust burden on some
while others are not paying their just share. The weakness of the present tax
system is in administration, and not in the system itself.

The state law states "in determining the value the assessor shall also

consider the advantages and disadbantages of location, quality of soil, quans

 

-60..

tity and value of standing timber, water power and privileges, mines, minerals,
quarries or other valuable deposits known to be available therein, and their
value." Thus the assessor has no other redress but to assess timber lands at
its full value of soil and crap.
In the reviews of six counties by the State Tax Commission in 1923 and
1924 it was found that all six were under valued by the local officers.
Ely in his book entitled "Outline of EconOmics" sums up the defects of
the general preperty tax as follows:
1. Unjust apportionments.
2. Inequality between real and personal, rural and city preperty.
3. A temptation toward dishonesty.
4. Fundamentally defective.
a. An incongruous mixture of real and personal taxes.
b. The distinction between real and personal property is
artificial, inequitable, and illogically applied.

w. A. Rowles in the report of the National Tax Association for 1916
states that the general prOperty tax works an injustice, because it lacks two
essential characteristics: equality and universality. Its inequality arrises
from the unfair assessment of property. It is not universal for it permits the
concealment of preperty and fails to reach the salaried and professional class-
es having little or no preperty. It perverts the conscience of the peeple; it
fosters dishonesty and places a premium on perjury; it represses the econOmic
developnent of the state as it throws unjust burden on sons classes of property.
It is impracticable and is unsound in theory.

In the same book C. J. Orbison states that the township supervisor as we find
him in most states to-day is an impediment on the road of progress. He is a
most important person, he can make or loose for the state millions of dollars.
The supervisor should be taken out of politics and an especially trained man

who can be employed thruout the year should take his place.
The present system has produced sons undesirable conditions such as

underassessment due to the inability of the supervisor to reach the preperty

and in many cases he is trying to shift sOme of his share of the state and

 

 

 

 

_ 61 -

county burden.to some other district or county. In the case of large corpor-
ations the local supervisor generally has little knowledge of their value and
lacks authority to require full knowledge of their affairs. Often they are
inclined to try to favor local industries due to local influences.

Under the general property tax the farmers' woodlot and the land it
occupies is taxed as one; namely real estate. Under this system there is no
way to tell how much value is placed on the land and how much on the timber.
Some supervisors will assess timber as wild land while another will carefully
estimate its value. The complaint usually made is that our present methods
of taxation forces the owners to cut and therebydiscourage the holding of
woodlots. The fundamental fallacy of the general preperty tax in woodland
taxation lies in the fact that each year's growth from the start is taxed
over and over again until cut and harvesed while in other agricultural crops
the crap is harvested and if taxed is only taxed once. It is like taxing a
field of corn.at its full value each day thru the growing season. In the
case of an 80 year old tree the first years growth has paid eighty taxes
instead of one as would a stalk of corn. The general property tax has a tend-
ency to place an excessive burden upon invested wealth which is increasing in
value. This makes the owner advance the tax money many years ahead of the time
he may receive a return as in the case of young forest prcperty.

In the Lumberman for December 1924 Russel Hawkins worked out a table
showing the increase in investment on a 1000 acre forest of Douglas Fir using

five cents per acre per year tax, at interest of 6%.

 

 

..Dé-

Lumberman for December 1924.
Edited by George Cornwall
Russel Hawkins, Pres. of Whitney Co. Ltd.
Garibaldi, Oregon.

1000 a. - Douglas Fir - Oregon
Year 'tax 5¢ per a. account end cost per A.
plus interest of yr. 5¢ end of each
plus int. year.
1. 53 53.0 .053
2. 56.18 109.18 .109
3. 59.55 168.73 .168
4. 63.12 231.85 .231
5. 66.91 298.76 .298
6. 70.93 369.69 .369
7. 75.19 444.88 .444
8. 79.70 524.58 .524
9. 84.48 609.06 .609
10. 89.55 698.61 .698
11. 94.92 793.53 .793
12. 100.61 894.14 .894
13. 106.65 1000.79 1.00
14. 113.05 1113.84 1.11
15. 119.83 1233.67 1.23
16. 127.02 1360.69 1.36
17. 134.64 1495.33 1.49
18. 142.54 1637.87 1.63
'19. 151.09 1788.96 1.79
20. 160.15 1949.11 1.95
21. 169.76 2118.87 2.11
22. 179.95 2298.82 2.29
23. 190.74 2489.56 2.49
24. 202.19 2691.75 2.69
25. 214.32 2906.07 2.90
26. 227.17 3133.24 3.13
27. 240.81 3374.05 3.37
28. 255.26 3629.31 3.62
29. 270.57 3899.88 3.89
30. 1286280 4186.68 4.18
31. 304.00 4490.68 4.49
32. 322.24 4812.92 4.81
33. -341.57 5154.49 5.15
34. 362.06 5516.55 5.51
35. 383.78 5900.33 5.90
36. 406.80 6307.13 6.30
37. 431.20 6738.33 6.73
38. 457.07 7195.40 7.19
39. 484.49 7679.89 7.67
40. 513.56 8193.45 8.19

 

 

..1-na-I-uonuvuunulnuun..vlnn!
I
.
.
...-..1:-.-...-1‘..-nu...lu.uu.u¢u:.¢.n
-
, ........................................
. t
,
1
n
1 n
7
7 A
7 n.11u..u-.t.nnu.ot.puu....qc.....n.n1...
7 u
a
u
c

 

The Michigan State Forestry Department has figured its river woodlot,
consisting of hardwoods, is growing at the rate of 3%% and the average acre
contains 26 cords.

In the Michigan Tradesman for July 23, 1924, Professor A. K. Chitten-
den, Head of the Department of Forestry of Michigan State College, states that
studies show that second growth hardwoods 30 years old average 25 standard
cords per acre and at 40 years of age, 32 standard cords.

Professor P. A. Herbert of the Forestry Department of Michigan State
College in the hearing of Senate Resolution Comrittee (Senate Resolution 398)
gives the following table fifir the economic maturity of the Lake States Hardwood .

Economic Maturity of Lake States Hardwoods

P. A. Herbert (Senate Resolution 398)

Age Age Age Age Age
sugar Red Bass- White
Object D. B. H. maple Beech Oak. wood ash
Cordwood 5" 33 40 22 25 22
Post 6" 4O 50 26 3O -26
Pulp 8" 50 65 34 38 36
Ties 11" 7O 95 46 5O 52

Saw 16" 125 150 75 70 75

   

-.—.¢.

licenc-
Alger
Allcyan

AI cna
fin+rhn
.fll‘cnac
Bhrafa
[Barrq
.84

Ger! 3:
’36)- 6'01
Branch
Ca’houn
Cass
Char/cvoiY
Chcboq 74H
Chl‘k/VCWG
clay-s.
Clt‘nfan
CPaW arc
Dull-o.
[fickmson
rEflf'Ofl
Emrrlef
Gencfiec
CIAdWHn
607cbic.

Crazies?“

r I! i Ilse/a It.
Hog him?
Hur- 1‘7
1n7harn
’Ionc‘o.
Idsco
iIron
:194be/Ia.
{chRSOIT
'/(¢s(4n1a 00
i)(<u11‘
i/(cwcenaw
tkalc

{Lu QC!“
IL(¢(Gnfiu.
Leann/c:
Lwrn7sfon
Luca
Mackinac.
Macamb
Mal-1351c:
Mar «ell:
Ma: n
Marcos-fa...
EMcnom3n¢<
Mid/arr
IM.‘ssauh-¢
‘Monroa
MoniCa/n‘y

 

Mus kc1an
”(.9011 0

Free

$a1o‘nan/
flanc'lk c.
Schoa/Craéf
5h) WaSSC
Sfczhu‘r'

5+ Tau/m
Tun-scale.
Yenbfl'WH

Way":
“(elf-0rd

 

Grand 'fi-aw rsc

Mo :1 {Warranty

«(IS/f-
Ros ¢omrnan

Wadédcn aw

_..»— -—--u-

-\

, ---.. Ifl-wflllml ‘-...-.

. 1 n“ ‘- -u —- fi—‘tna-fl' ..—--o .

-.— —-—-- h

-— _... a ...-u -—-v.-'—'-..u--.-—.—u— _..-.c g...- -ph§ll uh-u-‘fl— -

 

i

'r

i

37.42: 1539011.

5 ,
I l
1
|

7st Kale. 5A5.“ 55mm!” 9

 

¢:0;:;{h._ VII/H a lion! Rt“, I’Lh,
I”, - m1: {Pvunfv
2 .‘Fr'rn T"
i J In)

ISM-90‘ .11Imu, 25421 0.
31./l. i "Juan. Imus:
2¢.(5f, mutant” 2110125.
.73-30 J IAN/sou, (775350;
€12.11 ; 2165,1874 Luz-n:
33'. 30 " 7,119,712" II 1010.
57.44 E Zrom‘ui 1740750
29-77;: Mug-m“ 7131500.
31-13 . 7541mm Hut-Isa
in. so ; 5,034,737: Joana ,
31.7! . “4412"; “(545“:
2075 : 21,2743», (he 1"
23.24:, 75:34-14qu 707/514
3!- £3 7 251157142; 1219.473!
47-51 ruzmm ”4.7534 '
170.3: , 10.20;)“, 1.113335
37.52 ', DJJQJCT; was!»
374.5, 7.311711" nun 1
21.52: 31.32.1155 221mm:
32." j tonne qwszo;
53.23 , 10.301190; Joni/45:
a. 5'3 24702:"? 18141.43 2
27.35“. Junwo- 3927285
357-13 ‘ (5,500,01’ H.17IM_
271-33 115,927,550: 11515785 .
32.02 3,791,517. we?"
turn Lzeufinz 7276350:
37.17' 15.054»; 1914734".
22.30 49,70,113 2417.75?
27-11 . 1431?”? 2252870 ,
21.17. 116530”, 527.373.:
27.57 '. 37:27:31" 2050650,
22.?! . 1712(4)”: 32021731.
21.711. Jun/815' 443372:
31.31; . 7175707 85'?70l.
37. (7 39w 8"! 21“.?“ '
3!. 0] 94742755 291! in '
21.77.1128‘11FM' 10802135
3245' ”1715170: 7.7727800 _
37. co 4511.140. 22530: g
17.43 'nunnx- 43%|be '
73-3! mama: 399114 i
32.4; nnur ”377: .
27¢) ' 17am“ 2.770655:
35. 7b L'I'f‘f‘n? 11.1771} !
29’.” . rucnso 52H?» !
28.32 : 294299». ”22220 E
27.20 9(‘173I0. 727.2!” '
3 7. If: M 365f1 59’8”;
23-1L: 91270115: 4723!.“
37.3: 17577702" mom
31.41. (JON-5'0], 5732154
3I.3c . Inca/n: :iwlm
28-6‘? Isvflfla I .m we
40. 1'} . 27075:: I: 2‘11?"
IL in :uqu: “my
19. Lo . #1432114 . 2753::
26.31 ' 57144490477716»?
22-37' qunuo til‘ls’fl I
37. 0: . 32:10:17". 219707 .
33.7: ' "new: row!“ '
23.71 . Joanne tunic
'(o- 20 [46849‘I17 "197267
3!»7(. 14271an 7615'!
.39. 5'6 . 607022. 11.75:;
9'!- “ Isvnno' 1:20;”
31.45 [“771]: 77/345
31.. 75 :2 9592:] 31mm
27.00 ' ”In”! ,‘cho
24.Ll(. 752947176. 453”»
3420 . 7713410 723170
42.0), 51370900. 203677
31.47. Iaunln. [WIN/ftp
26. 75 .runwr. urn"
3545. Hum“. 101.3qu
31.24' «051.7717 )qwn!
34. 79 . (“547770; 7490341
26.97' 35’75'618. .231)in
21. :4 3134/90 In) In
JS.IN_ 1.1:“ no, auvzso
517-67 87509791 “4171'”;
.76- Soatuluyw twin-NJ

 

1.37277fl

If

Sldf *-

Tarts
772.3

Couriffi
74/65
[713

_- wt)...

T3wn555P _Ekhool
'Tqr TAX
[423 (q);

 

 

CORN fie;

_ _ "We

Value/ion 5 5
A5565: :4" I"!
1425

Va/oa‘h‘OH As /
Preammcnz/e‘

‘I
5*qfe Tfir

Defar fmcn/
I415

Po uldf"
? d
Celngus

Yd/“Qfl.of7
E’u a If

Sffllc
[5143' I

A3
«d 677!"
poarl( a!
.' QII‘II"

:24

Vd/udfv'on #5
Erna/I" cr/ 0
Boarzzl a Y
5ul"<l'VI‘Sar-5
(726'

 

 

v
4.,
IV

.

 

IIVH‘IHLVN :10 lN‘di‘: '.‘:-.'

K.

LBéD

Esau

”_ao

.wa

wage

.nefi

3°:

heum

:3.

:NEN

25%

ifii

E—‘fi

~¢a~ ~<\M

:Kw! aa\l

afixh

1L uxm: . y ..LM\.N . ......iLuLh.

... 13.5..-

. Luewh

.. .5: ..-. I .. huh...“ .

.. :~u

 

magaew

\+tm7§ 4 fix

mean 6* 4bnb‘xej “HT «609 <§\S§\~.§3

Dyer...

\&s¥ 4‘s

\wuu

 

 

a

14.77;

Prrsana/ Prabvrfq
I

General
0w

AbSFHIr<
r7(l‘

3.2.47,

 

’

Ax Pan/(rs of [Fascamrrmrl Cour! 7H] [7.74

Aanc/ PC an lmfc Syry(‘1

 

Serf

 

Public OWntl‘Sl—Ifr Central ABSInT'CC
OWhtr 55:"?

2‘57, 175"”

 

Lane! UWhtrSA/F Ir: [PoSCa rnrvvor‘ Evan—1+1! I724
Lsn1r/ Fcahonu‘c Surv¢1

 

 

  

   
 
     
  

pm

ONTONAGON :
1 I BARAGA I

    

_,
I LUCE

I
'\\—:I moNuFPéW—TTEP‘EME' Ffiéifimlrg; ____I,l

 

CHIPPEWA

  
 
     
    
  

'_.

\imcmns ON‘IL— _JFL DELTA _IL' i

1*?

 
  
 

\ CHARLEvom‘.
\ \

.'/ Ox \
9 ‘\
i LEELANAU \‘

GHEBOYGAN'

"

     
 
 

 

 

I_.....

MONT
N

TtRAND “KAWSKAICRAWFORDLQSCODA

ANTRIM 0W0 MORE CY
.._.__. .OJ'thl

IfiVERSE I 61 it

- — Lmnsoue ISLE.

' ALPENA

ALCONA '

 

 

 

Ye 51

IVIHNIOI LL \ > .
/ l I

 

 

 

 

IOSCO

 

 

I
MASON LAKE osctom CLARE IGLADWI _j

”1"
a?
$ W 6' fantasy}
53
2

 

1 BAY

' MECOSTA ,n L 'MIDLA
NEWAYGO 5 BE ”I

+r4l

    
   
 

 

 

GRATIOT

 

 

AREN AC.

    

MDNTCALM SAGINAW

 

 
  

I KENT

 

 

 

SowH-l

OTTAWA 10mm CLINTON ISHIAWASSEE.

cmzsu I Wm I SICLNR

 

r" ""1"“?

 

 

 

   
  

VANBUREN KALAMAZO CALHOUN i JACKSON WAS

 

 

 

 

 

(_.....— ...——

Wand/or ficqion For 7h: SfaFc. 0/» /V(vc
Fldn'l

5e/I7nc{V1/ac'(//afi Pr0K/M€‘/j an Mal-117::

.1
mecsmNI OAKLAND

I
ALLEGAN BARRY 1 EATON i |NGHAM
.116 + Seagumj

LE‘afi

| CASS STJOSEPH BRANCH mason; LENAWEE memos

, iMACOMB‘

L44. 47h.

HTLNij WAYNE.

(117nm

r1 Fly-1715"

   
  
  
 
 

 

..
m

7!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. $1: re; A 5:9" Acfiju fizrvnf neg“ A: c:

outrunmq Far 1 P :11 P4941": I- «r
fl11 : us I, z s I“ ""3271 £23512! 1 I]; 312233?

1110 I711- lfizi. ‘ 'e“

A17 c r u. e.- assoc 517431 7114 1.3 1215‘; ‘—— In" ————————

Ba ’.‘7‘ ”any.“ {I LIIO run 9) 1: 511 .1 an: 2712 7
cayefewa 11m 710 90171111 lazy .1: 1:717 sun]
Do a- ny!“ Lozaso Jul .1: 57:: n: 1:
Dickinson vuuo 11m.” 1412 .2 ”V? .7711:
607tbi< 72:11:: 7‘7”: 22-4: -3 , 971 17.320
How #11417 £52110 Ham “-130 1.1 1117:! use:
Iron 761000 7”; 1: In! 1.0 an: .7141"
1(e mm an N art/5w 3: 21:11 741 .1 a! 5114
u e: Elfin #171!!! ill): .: I?" ma
Mackinac ulna 51.111: 741.: :.1 11111 1am
MAI-7L4: a II?‘ :10 ”71911 Icon -I "Is 11771.0
en ominle. 475190 “.1711 1:12: 2.: 11101 I145»:
o -/ r1 4 an 15:12.: mm Jan .2 I 1!) H7410
S<h4alcr¢fr 772-11: 7117:; 1:“ .11 um 2:11:
A n1 r f ’5’" ‘ * .1 3011010 31:4er 2149: 7-o .711" vsnc
13¢ 71 . : ”NZ“ Juana 175710 10.12: 5.1 22117 mu
Char/(Daft zuauo 2110111 11;“ 1.; am," Hun
Emma 31:11:11 2711117 11.11:. 5.4 11227 1m"
6m m! TrarrrSc 291m 2307;: 21.111 1,; 514147 1;";
Ifa Ike 5 16a. 214720 now: 3,115 a- -: 20617 2051:
Lea/n nau— 214110 208!” 20,114 1.1 .7141: 21.11.11
Man 1‘ a f e< 35mm 3433:: 11,117 5.12 :11" 11717
M.‘ 55 a u k c a 372m: J-HIJI 1,7“ 2.: zone a 74::
We r ford 3am 3111217 ”.51: 1.11 14:" 405'!
Manna. Nor H1 437710 3171175 3511 1-1 1:011 41":
Al en E f 777160 mm nu 1.1: an: 7211::
Che bot 7cm “‘ vow” mam: 71:7 1.0 1:121: 312:»:
Cra w a:- 341000 1715’; no] 1.: 1711 saw
105C 3511120 21211: 7:15 an: Hm Stall
Man/I77or<n¢‘l1 :naqn 301211 List 1.7 ‘IH? 11).”
07:11-10 ”1:00 PM”: 71:! 2:! 21m "111
05€d(/A Jams 23:”: 511:: 1.1: 1979 an”!
01‘s: .2 331-120 32w" Ian»: 3.: 7:17 .1011:
Frasier)“: 1111121 3154:; 1:21 at nu u":
”as common 71111110 21:”: van: 3.17 .7411 15110
Lake “((51 JIOHD 1572!! 55!! [.7 Ali]; VII/II
Mn son fink"! 311.111: 3”“! “22 A1 any. #711112
Maj/(r7011 Juno 111117; a: n: 1.4 Jun 1141.:
Ne Mint/fa Ell-(Mo 51.017 turn the Luv? an:
Occana. ”1520 117,1“ 21177 (.4 c1117 501:!
PC. Juno 11:11:47 I417 /.r [0/12 ["151
slash/In C'"""l ”ma Jun: 71 .3 115a 7511-:
Cm 4 1‘” 377m 11m: mu 7.: 1:1va our:
154 be Ila use" :14 n: :41: 1 11.0 41:15 115-n
Mccosfa. J: 5WD 3114;: Inn 1.: 10115 74557
Mfr/(and 377500 nun 1021: 3.0 1.721: 73117
M o r: { 641/711 #113110 Mam! 35114-1 r: um um
Osceola. 317110 ”117-: awn 1.1 w." your
Arcnaa Ea 5' 131311; :naw .1112; 1.0 en: (7717
«1 Crnfcr-( 217520 27LLIL 10035 3.1. .17le 1121‘:
Huron 5110510 Iii/[7 20571 1-3’ 94771 71151
54 1 firm «I {27110 Earn). 154:) l 7. a U717 75“:
$4n1/ac. 4211110 run: 1111: 1.1 lav!!! 1511,:
Tu$ca (a. 5.74210 5”th 2‘17: 5'4 71:10 711:1
n- H c a n so“1K h Sumo $111111: )0)!‘ s- 7 [Min um
:- :‘e n Wes r 3111140 37215: 3““ :1 (-1"! 30217
CA 55 June 1031111 1! m1 11.4 n"? 1517)
Ka M 1716- 700 ”an 3:711: arm 1.: 7:217 313111
[.4. r1 7* siowo :1 Nut I10 m 7.: "no 55152
0 #0 m/a. Jz/Loa :I/tw: 11:77 :1. e 7.14:! Jun
Va n Bu rc :1 541/114 3N1” .1114! r- :1 71m; nan
Dam—V so“ Hm" 39140 311717 37:71 Io-c L12” 141157
nranh 311080 :1-lI-ro JIH'I L1 3737? {out
Ca Ihaun 11113570 Inc—2:: silo: 1.7 77714’ 0-1123
c1711 +0 :1 Ju’wa nun 27401 7-5 7457/: 3“"
+011 Ju’l-fo nun .7111) 7.1 1mm 40va

H. Hsdqlc 37734: 371:" you: 7.1 "71: Jul”
nqhe '1 353911 Jliuo 2 nu 1.1 n-m. nan
Ionia. 370110 nil/.711 27:11 7. 7 L011! 3!)”
Ta cksorl #51110 "1413 3111: 7-9‘ 7a": 7157:
5‘7 70: of»: 12:4” JIVfl] I51“ 1'. 7 1.111“ 2914:
5h 1' w/ns: ea Jnm 311711 1511311 7. 3 Inn 111477
8cn¢5¢c 5.0th ‘lquad 391711 271111 L-‘I 4951:. 375:;
L- r e < r E‘ 57' nut/a VII/7:1 Jim; I. I LEI-11 7301'
L: n a we c V1552» 11:11:15 1 11:4 1. 7 12151 117171
Livinqsion 11):?» 11°91! 34.71:. 1.1 56-175 L773:
Ma can b 392030 a 77:1. Mn; 7. I win! 2411 Y
M on rd L 314120 31.-1:1 2:7» (..1 51117 1:017
04 I: (aru/ 71 7mm 52v“? 5111: e. 7 ML”!!! 7370?
51 em | r «moo mu: 2741:: L. a «:97 a n:
We 5 h f tn 0: w lrosw win“ 1:." r1 um: mu
Wa 1, h < 11".» 1731" 1711‘ '11-? :7”; It”:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mpfidyqn C’ruk /f’r/’)orf' I7

 

 

 

 

 

 

[5‘ comm

17300000

14000000

Islaaoad

(2404000

[160000d

10800000

lOOooooq

{booooo

7200000

bvoooad

Jakwoo

Vfboooa

#000004

3.70 oooo

2400006

[‘0006%

90006:

 

School

 

 

 

 

Thu-1.: Prf mar-1 5660.]

Fund

'Tl'u'j Amen-«1‘ l?e{ura1-c(

SfRfc

 

Cour-J“

 

 

C1+q

\4/l6k 7'11 c

5/70w 7711' ”e/a/I'OH Off/7"...
pfffcrcn‘f 7arr5 /n /?23

 

 

fioqd%

(ftfiosr1 f‘¢[

 

 

n w" 5,".P

 

Orazn I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JhJRS-t""al Gl‘adf of Coun‘ffcs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.. [1
‘IJ
Calhdun Gcncsce th/Idm Jackson Kl/Rmnlll [(fh “f Mus‘cfarl adj/and! 547131-01!
Caunfi' counfl Courn‘q Comm {11 Conn“; Counfq Com—.17 C’ounfq .Coanfq
T; r c: rare; 1% n5 T’«(r.5 Ta yo; Taxr: Taxes TA; :5 Times
(723 [9.23 (713 1?.23 Iv): 1713 I923 I713 [(23
Pru'ma #1»! 5:5 90/ [5140‘ (I
Paved Bark lo Conn FI'CJ
l :1 fed
3519000 92500]
2114090
17¥oaoo
2570000
a¥00009
2130004
aeolooa
5ch00f
ltwpoo
1720000
1.556.000
[3.60.00
Schoal
Scluoal
1'70000
[020600 31.4100! Schoof School
scncals
csoooo Road;
.Scllaol {chufi‘fl'
Kenna Stal‘:
510000
Cou. n in!
5'! 0000 ‘7" “'4
Sid}: Caunfy
«and 5M f:
sfrt c
cann‘
310000 Conn“, Rounds R0 d ‘1
Kat-cl: 146: .' 5 45f¢¢
54d(¢ scbodrufld 81’ng ’f‘fc I; C
Con-«‘1 COM?!" Counfuq Cyan}, 5‘ 'o'F." Sc‘wolfiuul
Coun .
SchuFUr-l 56/109! F- n4 “f— Sc]. olfiud Ra dd,
17900 :r 54:“
O .
a .9 Tawaflnf
d ”wan“? rawn‘b'r foWnshap T'OWluhiP raw/16,11. Town:1.,‘m fiwn,“'.’, ”HHSHP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7‘!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mini”? grad .7 Of Car: fo‘fs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D-‘ch'nsvn Gorcbc‘c Hon-yflon 11'0"? («menu-I Marx-aw.
Counffi Counfq Cgun-{nf ('0‘;an Cpunfq Canal-Y ‘
Tun-3 74x04 Taxes Tiaras 7‘4th Tare:
(74:3 1123 [413 (723 qut (92:
Pr-‘marqi‘odflbur-Ic/ &? e4 0“" 73 74c (can If is In Re((
IIODOOG School
140001
“0000
School
|
93.0690
740005
0000
7 a schoo'l
[#0001
I Schoo’
584604
510000
120000
410000
fichoal Caurvfiq
(a «Le/.3
$0000
3 koads
Conn!”
360000 Jehul Ffln‘ Cu u. n+q
had:
awoaa
coanu/
6+ f
d .51.“. ‘ :1 5“““3‘”
[$000 ‘
Rea s 544}:
Cfiflfllq $¢éoolF~i4
Izoooc (out;
5+4}:
stiulfilm'
66.0: sch“:
$4444 49¢; - Tmr'uh;p
- Rofid
THO sh; 73""5h;f’ Tannin}, '
Township 1" P 7010115th
a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:5 (‘4?r"Cu/"4Pa/ Cour. {its —/Dar-/I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ .
A filleyan Barr-cg acrrt'cn Brant/7 €455 {tr/on "MISC/4". len4w¢¢1$1J8¢/‘ (41.511an
Caunhf (.1..an £04144? 60...:sz Counh’ Con-n f1, Conn 11 C4 14.11" Cum #1, Canal-q
Tax:5 rare) 741:: Ta aft-.5 7'4ch Tar“ Tfilt'é 74X€J T4X€J Tire;
(115 (.711 I113 [723 112.3 [733 I123 [723 .I‘VZ] 7113
Pru‘n-rary School/714114 Paycc/i/j’acfi’ .72: four: ’ I'CS In Ircc/
(you: 3: hoot
{00004
75006::
700004
Giacod I
60600::
Read:
550000
5000M
5:400]
Ffdaoo
School
tloaooa
Sthoo!
350000 tread:
‘Src-hool School
Road
300004 Roads
[Pa «45 RN"
,C‘Uichun‘ I 5‘600’
2511000 Coos-1H, .SC 40,
54”:
5+ql<
((0445 {rid}:
Reads School
G
30000 K044
$6.454
150004 load}
X‘ul Fund 5‘“..(F‘""( (fifi‘...n‘( :CO‘AI'I "( _-
Sfdfc Sialc mar-J“ 56' [A ( €512:an
51a! C “ «1 5‘17. 0!
[00004 Clun‘q Fun‘
5“ 4:. m'L
Counhc Conn {-1 Cour", $1410
Conn!
.SI-Af‘ .. 11““-
54.1.3.7: 37333:}: s: ": Coho-1ft!
500 “n 7690.711": “u" .
Emmi"); r'”"""” Tom-am".
. Townsln' \ fowl-'55.":
& Townshr} nwhSfi‘l' ’0 Tounsfuf rpmsflfr

 

 

7G --. P¢r+ Jf arftr flnlnsld l“-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F7"! Baraqa. chiPrm/a D<Ha— Lug: M ‘ 1" A 4 I saulrn/J
Primar 5choo( Funt/ P47f1( Bat/1 To 777? Cum 1‘ its In Frr/
S<hacl
140000
315a”
356000 School
315000
300000
5<haal
175000
Jim/u sci-on! Coat-61 “and
3<hcu(
215009
homo
County
KauJS Roads
175000
Cuunlyl
1 l r l
_Sehad " '
150nm:
Rand
Count-1
School
11‘7000
(It IE .I
Ito-((5
(whoa < L 1C 1
[fa-((5 Schoat [(9qu
School Cami-“(1
75000
Counoq 5‘4f<
fl 4 Pond
Cour“ 9th" I:
5+a‘c 1 5+«f¢ C°'-‘"1“1
n _ .
"0 Caunfbl r- fllhllv
s—ludr‘md . .. ,J Kd: r! 5ft”: fdtulfhml‘
5 ‘ q‘ ‘ Township khoaIF-Nl
5 . . l _—
Z 0.07'3wnslnr + L“ 5+“:
54-“ , L1, “a“ 5”“ I
. r v ' . ‘1.
rvoullhlfz r‘ r
J T'unsh-‘H T. .nlh .‘I:

71

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr‘f‘ Fain“, flower flnv‘nSq/q

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AI
spit; ‘clg‘n4a- Fguwford IOSCO ((a/faska. fia:.‘=;==€‘ Osroda OfSC o
73.th 7':;:.: 32:: Croung‘l 673“an c°“"'1 Counh’ (””1“ Piaf-fie:
«X6 «X‘s; Taxes 7' I
Hz) ((23 In: In: 1923 Hz: [2:735 7742': Cities-5
Pruner, Sc}: ool Funl/ Fm] cc] fine i 73 Conn 'Hrs In Ker]
11009:
It 00m:
($0094
[$0000
($0000
Scliovl
1.10000
”0000 ' Clkniq {(kwol'
School
IJOOOJ
30:4
0110000 0‘
"“‘a’rml
(0000
Road
Team:
School
600w
Ah fun
(0‘4 Schaol Sch I co“""1
no
5000* "a“!
Counfq
Rand
4:434
5
Chat! 5““ 54...”... Road Scbo I S k l
O
Coa.1{.( c no
30000 Cum-h!
School Hand coun+1
[and
:chmFumt m
C h
240cc 5+¢¢£
“‘4 End-n+1 SHIN
”(fin Tawny“? Ell/"’h'lr Cdunl‘y
,m sun fad 9' '
“flush; Siafc a c. Tawnillw
r 7'0 MI"? JfaIQ e
u I ' ($11!? 030+“ Fans '
faunflnr Tawnsblr‘ ’ MP
J rho-ha“?

78

 

 

 

 

 

SemiInt/ufi‘ff/a/ 604% 0/ Caun/f.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

£341 Gravity-I lat-lice. Mid/and Monro: OflaWa 5fit‘dW4$S«5{.C/air1Wlshfrnaw‘
Co Ni Caunfy Cam-vhf coanfy Coufl/Y Counfy Caun'hf Cour-.11 Cour“;
Taxf: 7741‘s T’nxr} 72195 7415-5 72"“, Tare-.5 73x65 74-k25
(4.13 may 1423 (1’23 H23 1423 I423 Mas (NJ
Prl‘marol School F‘H‘N/ PC‘YI'CI Back 72 7'6..- Co kn‘f‘l'fs In fircl
School
700,000 K6445
150600
‘i’doooa
Jchoal J<holl
ysoaoa
roooaa
650000
400006
550004
500004
Schoo/S
1950000
F fiend ”OAK!
School
fooaaa
School School
Js'oaod
”andlcholfi-fi‘
o J;
3““ C "" ‘ .5;ch
SIhll/ Kouds
1500.0 F- v.
find SChOIFvnd
Connie!
K0945 .59-5’1.
aaoooa _Sdroolfvml
Jfa! fr, <'
‘ ‘.__q '1 Uknfq
School (Benn-I" coun-lq
feat/5 Schoolr‘md
(50600 (5411 E [—51, 4! ‘
m5"*‘ r‘ Sci-ooIFv-d
5“" Counf'f 515d:
laoaao R'“‘[’
LCOanq €00:an
‘ Caunh.‘
5”“ . “bulk-4
,. 514“ row“ "'7’
. Townsh; Townsfii fivWHSM' ‘—_.-' 759nm:
Tan-nah? rouh‘h". I, _ lb I, 7"”"554’ [L
O Belushi?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arcn a e. Cla ? ‘ a“ duu'" "l- a I: c M,-3Sa~1«IV¢wayyo 0 (man 05 c 90/4 “Sunni Wcrfarcl
Caunfq Cdunfy couniq Caunly Coon-uh, Coon-:17 014an Cal-4n!!! Caunf ,Coa [-
Tan-s 7'4 Ya: Tharns T'aXc‘ routes Yaxrs Taxvs Tax-<3 Taro! Tare
1423 ”23 In: 1723 In: [123 M23 (‘03 I923 (721

(a I ‘ I’n

Primqr '1 School Fund Favu/ (3ack To CaunIHS In {fuc/
r
r

I

Jooood

(taco:

2Loooa

240004 - 54h”!

220400

100000

"060‘ School

Race]

Itoooa

Hoooa 5:500!

Ilaooa

[cacao ”‘0“!

”‘.‘ds Caun‘hf
sooao mu! _Roacf
flaw!" cvmw
£<‘h $6 I‘ 5c k0! 5""IF'"4 s'%?'vl
‘oaoa School Schovl
Rod-((5
I CHM" serve” “an”
«one yd", ""4 ”I“! Co‘ahf 5‘1"” coumw
m,rnmarq 5(a'fc
Co an {-1 Counts. faguo'zk $$h::£( scu'lfi'“, 5.42:,an
sthvcf
_ _. nuns/c}, “St-u“ (.44
Couafy
zooad‘ *
. ecu-n 1
5‘ f. 5"“! C St‘oo’thll (1‘1 rawhsfiar
C ¢ “up “"9 ’ I
5H}: roam“; nah“? £62}: ”.th 15.»:th
Toumfiil, I’ Townsln'F r ‘ '"N’ "
flan 5&4“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80 Nat-*6 M/es‘f 14/9: 5501-: Caun‘fl'cj

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anhim acnyi e C'fmr/cull [ficéoyfnn fmmc‘l nun-um [ff/onqu Manly. n Mason Ottawa
°°“"*" “"“V ““"W “M"! 9"“! Count Gown“! Counfv cu..." Caun!
Tare: 7’4 re; 7’4ch To» In: Taft; Taxv: 77:1?! 74:45 74K r: 72‘“
[’2’ ['23 I723 172} I423 I423 [42) [713 /?13 I?27

fic‘mar' 5:500] H4111 PRYH/ 84c]? 70 Caun Hrs In If“!
15:0“
36500!
1906“ 561100!
225nm
9Chla¢
1,0004 SChaa(
HSoaa
Selma!
”Mod |
165000
Isoooa I “
5fhoof
on
[:50 School
(20006 s‘h‘u' Road
I?
(05000 Roads b Mac"!
Road
School Coun+ J;
‘fowq Road [(0445 7 (and Non
It‘d“ COL-fl" ‘ S
c u [‘1
5.4.45.“ “”
750“ Schad/
Court *1 i ‘
Schulflnd 5" CIA“
5:9.»th Set-v.15.” r . 4
60 I! '
can 96 "(f-71ml C’kn‘h1
COLA n+1 ’
cOHnIY
Seine/Find
#5300 flaunfx €05"qu
Raoul $c£u1f£m4 5"}...
5+“: 5“" 5““ 5h!»-
Jun W' t
C I
0“” I! 5“}: Stale Cauflfq.
m2” 0759mm} WUHQM}.
5}“!!! 1‘ _..—m A"
(5000 n“"‘-”';f! nWFJIH'F Townsha‘ r n ‘. our)!“ n! of
“" ’ ‘/’ Man
54-4: 4
I
' J

 

 

81

 

 

 

 

A7rfCu/fl4ra/ Counf‘] :2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clu‘nfon "apart Iaabclla [4. air “Vin ski Moan-ab Measla Manic-In. 5.n,'/‘< 7&1,¢.[.;
County Canal-1 Cauniq Counfq Couniq Cour-uh; Cauflf Clank, Canal-q Caunh
TaYfli TAKGS Tat“, Ta {(5 7“ch ran: rakes Tdrr, fart: 7'qu
1123 I?“ 103 P723 I42: "21 [42.3 Hz: In: («23

Pra‘rnars15chaal Fury, Payer/Back 7‘3 77H“ cam {its I" F“! 7
float/5
7¢aud r.
(#000
SC/toal
‘MOoq I
snow E
L
510004
L
‘ t
I
”can r. ;
I
41(00an
I
#00000 Koadfi
JLOooo
7200M Kurds
I
E Fonds
Zgooou! .
- School
Scfiaol
In“: 5:60.] Sch“)! school _ . 4"_—"
R14 d3 . School
n‘¢ls 591:0 (
. 1 [8:325
h. .
zoooaq J Rant/5
fi‘dfi-nfl
5M}:
60¢.an SChoaI
Cohnh‘
[cocoa Sehov! [foals
561?"! _—
and
(20¢an khflLJ
Conn“; Fchulfimd,
Counfy
I20»;
SHAH
”our... 54¢fi¢ $<I¢u1Pm4 $f¢c¢<
Siéf< filled/ind 365001511
(coca Court-hf 51a(c. ”0‘4 Ska}
r ; ‘-
Courn‘qf ‘ Sicffi can", SdlulFu-vd
ecu-ah! aounfq
wood . ‘b—‘ ‘—--.- .
S rounjba’i 3’.,c flvmhu’ TawnShu;
Iowa 55;, ’ a + t Townsln}, Town Shir
A TOwHJ‘H’J nwflJfil‘r remain,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fl
vats .73?
RGK V5"w O oF‘ttv-«Lvl \CL‘
v‘vu+“ unstvutgk O—
ancvvng nuv‘be v‘c+fi
*thLUL
V¥W+W
“LY-‘k nVKVIN‘
gm “in x liw is;
... my wk. ow
.Lc‘ rzvk .u wdtv.
\VLOKN v3
$\VLU\O§~\VK.
{fittersov n‘k
“\MH. V.» “bk“ kg§Lw on
0 vnMo r
A“ ”vny Q
{“vino ~..\m.k
{or 33s 0 xi.
\SUEV 0 «IM‘A... 2.
§
Nrfiwfivw risk
sovtutqfi $p.oc<
dutXQWmué
v»-..rtou\v5\ om
EOHVS
'V‘Dlstgz
.ud ~5va SE
luv: fl
3Qt§~vod chJbzoS .3
I! & Vfl txapaak.
\W*“Vk\c\< £Kuh§n¢fi
§U WQH disutlhn
UMLV)§LL. \sKQLU Ex'bxtfiz
t.\S\VV\W U$WOV~E Oh
kvEEm SEOMCE
«i\0° to\nktubm~
\v..3.\s¢.qLU 9.39%.; “tax.
IVL¢~U Luv id. .vvgw «Cask muktk. dz>§>
.dev kuiv «xxxdywH ‘Iua... :23}an .cvod Batten «33K 8
fivxbcfi UQU tots: LSvah. ‘5:ch 7534
M..\§.<L¢tu wyktku {£12.51 {$3523. :skvknaz
dastun . 733 tixm h 6».er *xi
«Film 5:53 i... 3.: first kaséa‘
ufit VLQ «330 1.533»; :5 is tontuwfi 2.
..t,.L$ §( cvtdtb EKQLH \zo .\.\L.oH rcatrcfl
0” .4:» _< 5.....ka Oct :9: PoanLU VVn~CvU
0a L0 ‘1 rats v.2«urcu . rug 9.32:60 xvi.
..sxov_< t¢~v=W tom:..«u..Q Isa \vuvrsou .4:.0L.
no..¢tJoU uv~¢§$§d «v..+l!ou nvwv U 3....
H.39UIOUQN «1+:JQU Q mukttxour m»......._..oUs
OQL bobmv .v
Nkatw. ”..Saozwvuk \‘LsttvvaVC Kzok U \y C an... E .u..g.n3\»:H~th Ksuonuv \s.. . x m 3\M!H $t .ka

 

 

 

 

Auoaw WufiwN rb \udklNa r.v\u¢.5m.\.\ J\ «*m &§*Evuo.vklt mVVWN dydvm mm. muXWF \KUQN .‘0 to.~*<. 0k

’, -83-

HISTORY - EUROPE

 

In the year 1300 some of the northern countries of Eur0pe passed laws to
regulate the amount of forest lands thatcould be out each year, and in the 12th
century a number of laws were passed regulating the cutting and shipping of
forest products. The French Revolution was due partially to unwise forest laws.

HISTORY OF STATE FU§E§2§Z

C. R. Tillotson of the Forest Service in the Timberman for April 25, 1925
sums up the efforts of the State in a very able manner.

"Efforts to protect by legislation the preperty rights of the Commons
wealth in timber lands were made as early as Colonial times by New Hampshire
and Massachusetts. The real need of definite and sustained forestry effort was
not evident until much later. In 1867 the Agricultural and Horticultural Secie -
ty of WiscOnsin was invited by the Legislature to appoint a committee to re-
port on the disastrous affects of forest distruction. In 1869 Maine Board of
Agriculture appointed a committee to report on a forest policy. This led to
the Act of 1872,"For the encouragement of the growth of trees", exempting from
taxation for twenty years, land planted to trees.

Following the great influx of settlers to the prairie states, laws
regarding the trees on the highways and for the encouragement of timber plant-
ing either under bounty or exemption from taxation were passed in Iowa, Kan—
sas and Wisconsin in 1868, Nebraska and New York in 1869, Missouri in 1870,
Minnesota in 1871, Nevada in 1878, Illinois in 1874, and Dakotas and Connecti-
cut in 1875. Nearly one million acres of trees were planted in the prairie
regions alone."

The original forest area of the United States as estimated by the
forest serivee in its bulletin - "Idle Land and Costly Timber", was 820,000,000
acres or nearly one half of the totililand.area. In 1924 about 30% of the orig -
inal stand was still uncut, and this contained 1,600 billion board feet merchant-

able saw timber. About 75% of the remaining virgin and 60% of all timber lies
fleet of the Great Plains. ‘

 

-84..

A woodlot is a tract of wooded land smaller than a forest, and usually
connected with a farm. Most of our farm woodlots have descended directly
from the virgin forest which originally covered the land. In New England
some woodlots are in the seventh generation from this virgin forest our
first settlers viewed as their natural enemy.

IMPORTANCE TO FARMER.

The farm woodlot is very important to the farmers of the United States,
and as yet very few fully realize the Value or benefit. The farm woodlot

A. Supplies timber - posts - fuel.

B. Acts as a windbreak

C.V Protects the soil from errosion.

D. Furnishes employment in the winter

E. A place for recreation.

F. Improving the appearance of the farm

G. Builds up the soil

H. Stores up moisture

I. Prevents floods.

J. Makes poor land productive.

Mr. A. B. Graham in the Report of the Michigan Forestry Commission for
1900 states, "In southern Mibhigan there should be a state stimulant to the
growing of timber, applied thru the partial remission of the taxes on land
devoted to the growing of forests until they becOme productive."' Also Mr.
0. P. Gulley states, "Areas planted to forest trees should be exempt from
taxation until they become a source of profit to the owners. The public
receives the benefit, why not help to carry the burden." This seems to be
the first definite written expression and though on the subject of woodlot
taxation in Michigan.

The state legislature passed a bill in 1903 which provided, under

certain restrictions, that a farmer might set aside his woodlot, the area

of which could equal as much as one quarter of the total farm area, and

for tax purposes this woodlot so set aside was to be valued at one dollar
per acre. The bill, however, was vetoed by the Governor Bliss on the be-
lief the Act was unconstitutional, as all lands in the State must be taxed
on a fair and equal basis and at a fair cash value. The bill thus failed to
becOme a law and the first attempt of Michigan in forest tax reform ended
without a law upon the statutes. This proposed Act seemed to have failed to
create much interest or comment in the farm paper and press of that time, but
nevertheless it was a step forward and showed that the Legislature at least
considered it a problem even as early as 1903.

Then again on the other hand, Mr. C. B. Cook of Owosso in the report
of the Michigan Forestry Cemmission 1907-08 expresses another view point.

”I will say that I have no kick on the taxes, because on my woodlot
there are a thousand hard maple which I tap annually, and which affords me
one of the nicest incomes that my farm produces. we also secure all of the
fuel we use on the farm."

There seems to have been a divided Opinion among the owners of wood
lots as to the burden of_taxes upon this property. Some of them failed to
fully utilize and realize the possibilities of the woodlot while others made
the best use possible, thus cutting down the burden of taxes upon this type
of property.

In the 1907-8 report of the Michigan Forestry Commission that body
state s the ir re commendat ions as fol laws:

"For the woodlot the rule should be: fair and equitable aesessment
of the land, 1. e. as bare or wild land, just as other land similar in qual-
ity and situatiOn is valued without reference to its crop: having an assess-
ment of the woodlot separate from the rest of the farm: the rate of taxation
to be a fair fixed average: and under explicitly definite limitations as to

use and treatment of the land.

In both cases there should be the right of appeal from town board to the
state tax commission or wome other general state authority, having the right
of revision.“

This act contains a great many of the features advocated in the fore-
going recommendations, and appears to be an out growth of this report.

The next attempt at reform in the taxation of forests came in 1911
and was more successful than that of 19Q3, becoming Public Act 135 of 1911.

Mr. Foster introduced the bill in Senate on January 11, 1911 and it
then became Senate Bill Number 21 and entitled "A bill to encourage private
forestry, the care and management thereof, and to provide for the exemption
from taxation such private forest reserves." The bill was referred to the
Cemmittee on Forestry and state lands. It was reported out on February lst.
with the following amentment, by striking out all of section eleven after the
word "for" in line seven and inserting in lieu thereof "such part of its value
as is over and above one dollar per acre shall be exempt from all taxation."
Mr. Foster moved the Senate cencur in the amendment and the motion prevailed.

The bill was then ordered printed and again referred to the Cemmitteetn
Forestry and Public Lands. This committee again reported on the bill Februs
ary 23rd with the following amendments:

1. By inserting in line 3 of Section 5 after the word "until" the

words, "at least 90% of."

0)

By inserting in line 1 of Section 8, before the word "Ash“the

"Varieties of."

3. By inserting in line 1 of Section 8, after the word "hemlock"
the word "beech."

4. By inserting in line 2 of Section 8, after the word "butternut“
the word "ironwood, cedar." ‘

Mr. Foster again moved the Senate concur in the Amendments and the

motion prevailed. On March 7th, the Committee of the whole had the bill un—

- or -
der consideration and amended it as follows:
1. By inserting as new Section after Section 10 to stand as Section
11, and to read as follows:
Section 11.
The said Board of Agriculture shall also present the form of appli-
cation and contract to be filed with the Treasurer of the County wherein
such application shall be made and form of notice by the Treasurer to Super-
visor or other assisting officer.
2. By renumbering Section 11 to stand as Section 12.
3. By inserting in line 8 of renumbered Section 12 after the word
"taxation", the following proviso:
Provided, When any owner of a forest reservation provided for in
this bill shall desire to cut and harvest trees in said reserva-
tion, he shall notify the tax assessor of this district of his
said intention, whereupon the said assessor shall before the cut—
ting thereof, estimate the cost value of the timber on the stump
so to be cut and harvested, and shall issue a license to cut and
remove said timber, which license shall be in effect upon payment
to the Collector of this district of a fee of five per cent of such
appraised valuation. The Assessor shall notify the Clerk and Tax
Collector of his district of the issuance of such license. If
any timber is cut or removed without payment of such license fee,
it shall be the duty of the Tax Collector to levy upon such tim-
ber for collection of such license fee in.uanner provided by law
for collection of personal taxes. Section 6 and 7 of this Act shall
govern the cutting and replanting of trees under this provision.
The Senate concurred in tVe recommendations.
0n.flarch 9, 1911 Senate bill 21 was read a thir time and passed un-
animously. The House received Senate bil 21, March 10th and it was

referred to the Committee on.Public Lands and Forestry Interests. This Comnittee

N

reported the bill out :"April 11th without amenting it and recommended it
be passed. The Committee of the whole on.April 17th amended and passed
Senate bill Number 22 amended by inserting in Section 1 after the word
"Acres” the words, "where at least one half is improved and devoted to
Agricultural purposes."
The bill passed the house April 18th as follows:
Yeas 52
Nays 23.
The Act was then returned to the Senate on April 18th and Mr. Foe
ter moved the Senate concur. The vote was as follows:
Yeas 30
Nays 0

The bill as passed by the Senate and House was presented to the
Governor for approval April 25th. On April 26th the Governor signed the
Senate bille Numer 22 making it Act 135 of the Public Acts of 1911, or
the Fester Act.

PUBLIC ACT 135 ( FOSTER ACEL

An act to encourage private Forestry, the care and management
thereof, and to provide for the exemption from taxation of such private
forest reserves.

The people of the Stateof Michigan enact:

Section 1:

Upon any tract of land not exceeding one hundred sixty acres
where at least one half is improved and devoted to Agricultural purposes
in this State there may be selected by the owner or owners thereof, as a
private forest reservatian, a portion thereof not exceeding one-eighth
of the total area of said tract, upon filing with the treasurer of the
County in which it is located a description of such forest reservation as

is hereinafter provided.

SECTION 2:

V' — 89 _

If such selection is an original forest, containing not less than
one hundred seventy trees in each acre, it shall become subject to this
act as herein provided.

SECTION 3:

If any land owner shall plant not less than one hundred seventy trees
on each acre of selected private forest reservation and shall cultivate and
maintain the same for three years, then it shall become subject to this Act
as herein provided.

SECTION 4:

UpOn any tract selected as a private forest reservation which contains
one hundred or more original forest trees on each acre, the owners may plant
a sufficient number of forest trees which shall make up the required one
hundred seventy forest trees per acre, when the same shall became subject to
this Act as in Section three.

SECTION 5:

No land owners shall receive the benefit of this Act who shall per-
mit cattle, horses, sheep, hogs or goats to pasture upon such reservations
until at least 90% of said trees are four inches in diameter.

SECTION 6:

Whenever any tree or trees shall be removed or die, the owner, in
order to avail himself of the provisions of this Act, shall plant other
trees in place of such trees as may be removed or die, and protect such
trees until they arefour inches in diameter, and shall at all times main-
tain the full number of trees per acre as required by this Act.

SECTION 7:

Subject to rules and regulations as may be established by the
State BOard of Agriculture, not were than one—fifth of the total number
of trees in any private forest reservation shall be removed in any one

year, excepting such trees as may die naturally, when other trees shall
be planted.

 

- 90 -

SECTION 8:

The varieties of Ash, Hemlock, Beech, Maple, Pine, Oak, Hickory, Bass-
wood, Elm, Locust, Chestnut, Walnut, Butternut, Ironwood, Cedar, Larch, Tulip-
tree, Mulberry, Osage Orange, Sassafras, Catalpa and such other trees as the
State board of Agriculture may recommend shall be considered forest trees with-
in the meaning of this Act.

SECTION 9:

It shall be the duty of the Supervisor or Assessor in each Township to
keep a record of all prevate forest reservations within his Township as cert-
ified to him by the Treasurer of said County, and he shall require the owner
or his agent to subscribe under oath the extent and description of the land
selected as private forest resefivation, and that the nunber of trees is as
required by this Act, and that he will maintain the same according to the
intent of this Act.

SECTION 10.

The said Board of Agriculture shall also prescribe the form of ap—
plication and contract to be filed with the Treasurer of the County wherein
such application shall be made, and form of Notice by Treasurer to Supervi-
sor or other Assessing officer.

SECTION 11:

It shall be the duty of the Supervisor or Assessor to personally
examine the various private reservations Inhen the real estate is assessed
for taxation, and to note upon his return the condition of the trees, and
that same are properly planted and continuously cared for in order that the
intent of this Act may be complied with. If the said private reservation is
properly planted and continuously cared for such part of its value as is over
and above one dollar per acre shall be exempt from all taxation, provided,
when any owner of a forest reservation provided for in this Act shall desire

to cut and harvest trees in said reservation, he shall notify the tax Assessor

of his district of his daid intentions whereupon the said Assessor shall before

 

the cutting thereof, estimate the cash value of the timber on the stump so
to be cut and harvested, and shall issue a license to cut and remove said
timber, which license shall be in effect upon payment at the tax Collector
of the district a fee of five per cent of such appraised valuation. The
Assessor shall notify the Clerk and tax Collector of his district of the
issuance of such license. If any such timber is cut or removed without
payment of such license fee, it shall be the duty of the tax Collector to
levy upon such timber for collection of such license fee in the manner pro-
vided by law for collection of personal taxes. Section six and seven of .
this Act shall govern the cutting and replanting of trees under this provi-
sion.

Approved April 25, 1911.

In the report of the Public Domain Commission, 1915 it is stated:

wIn the passage of the above Act, the Legislature no doubt had
in mind the throwing of such safe guards around the preposition to exempt
preperty from taxation as would not permit of the exemption of any woodlot,
unless certain rules and regulations prescribed in the Act were followed.
However, in view of the fact that the farmers of the State have not availed
themselves of the provisions of this Act, it is conclusive evidence that
the Act is too complicated and contains too many restrictions to make it
pOpular with the Farmer.

From time to time after the Foster Act became a law the question
arose as to whether or not it was constitutional. In an inquiry to the
Attorney General in 1917 he replied: "The right of the Legislature to exempt
particular classes of property from taxation is too well established to need
any extended consideration. In accordance wdth the general principles that
the Court has repeatedly applied in such cases, I believe that the exemption
extended by Act 135 of lglgfiis valid. ,Of course, the right to entirely ex-

empt from taxation must be deemed to carry with it the right to make a

partial exemption.

It is my Opinion also that the clause imposing a license tax or fee
for the privilege of cutting the timber on any private reserve is valid.
The owner of any such land establishing a reserve thereon and taking ad-
vantagp of the exemption from taxation would scarcely be in a position to
assail the license tax clause. In so far as its Operation is concerned, I
do not think that it can be assailed because of the imposition of the license
tax.“

There has never been a test case involving this Act, but as is stat-
ed above, the right of the Legislature to exempt particular classes of pro-
perty is well established and upheld by the Courts, so I believe there is little
doubt but what the Act was constitutionally valid and would be held so by
the Court 3 .

This act was almost a dead letter upon the Statute books of the State,
and only one woodlot owner was ever known to have been granted an exemption
under this Act. This was due to a great many causes such as general under-
valuation of woodlots at this tine, lower tax rates, thus making the burden
less pronounced than at the present time. Then also the Legislature in pass-
ing this Act placed so many safeguards around it as to make it unattractive
to the woodlot owner, such as, limiting the area, number of trees per acre,
maintaining plantations three years before applying, prohibiting grazing,
planting to replace missing trees, limiting the cut made each year, cutting
tax and and an application to be filled out, fear of the Assessor raising
the value on the other property of the owner to counteract the exemption, and
resentment toward Government control, all worked tOgether to make this Act
unattractive to the woodlot owners.

Although faulty in many respects, nevertheless, it was a step for-
ward and helped establish the principles of forest taxation.

Let us look at some of the consents of the peeple of that time upon
this Act. A comment of the M..A. C. Forestry Department in 1912: ”The

Foster Act passed without much struggle, but it is not an ideal law. Section 1

-93-

 

provides woodlots must not be pastured, and most people would rather pasture
than have the tax reduction. Section 12 provides the Assessor must grant per-
mit and estimate the cash value of the timber to be cut. When this is done for
a small quantity of wood, such as is cut from Michigan woodlots for home use,
it makes the law very cumbersome. Very few people are taking advantage of this
law and this office has not had more than a dozen inquires regarding it."

In the report of the State Tax Commission for the years 1913:1914,
we flind the following recommendation to the Legislature: Amend Act No. 135 of
the Public Acts of 1911 for the encouragement of Farm Forestry thy removing
the restrictions on the use of the products in such corsets for strictly farm
purposes."

The examiners of the Board of State Tax Commissioners have not re-
ported a single instance where advantage has been taken of this Act and on
inquiry as to reasOns for failure to do so, have been told that the requirements
of the Act in many ways were such that they dould not be complied with.

The requirements of application are not only puzzling to the Appli-
cant and difficult to be complied with, but are of little apparent benefit to
the Treasurer and Assessing officer in determining whether it should be ex—
empt as a farm Forest. The provisions as to cutting prevent the owner from
cutting and removing anything, whether posts to fiance a field, or wood for
fuel, or timber for a building, or a stick for any purpose, without first no-
tifying the Supervisor of his intention to cut the same, and paying to the
Treasurer a fee of 5% of the appraised valuation.

The farm woodlot is as much a part of the farm as the farm or
pasture, and must be drawn upon many times a year, and the use of its pro-
ducte for strictly farm purposes should be as free and unrestricted as is the
use of other parts of the farm as long as the requirements as to the number of
trees of original or second growth is not violated. The restrictions as they

now exist make it impossible to so use it. From the view point of revenue the

fee of 5% of appraised value would not pay the necessary per diem of the
'Supervisor, Treasurer and Clerk, all of whom are brought into every tran-
section.

The Journal of Forestry of October 1917 makes the following comments
in regard to the Foster Act of 1911:

"This legislation resembles the Pennsylvania law inthat it provides
for private Forest Reserves but it is peculiarly foolish in making 170 trees,
original or planted, the basis of the benefit. Various other conditions ap-
pear silviculturally unsound, such as the limitation to a cut of only 20% of
the number, such as admitting Mulberry, Osage Orange , Sassafras, and Catalpa
as satisfying the law. The benefit consists in valuing such reserves at not
more than $1.00 per acre for tax purposes."

Thus the effect of the Foster Act was moral rather than concrete
and actually was almost a dead letter upon the statute books of the State.

Between 1911 and 1917 there was noraotion taken on woodlot or
Forest Taxation, but in 1917 coal became scarce and the peeple began to take
interest in the woodlots.

The next step in woodlot taxation came in 1917 at which time Act
135 of the Public Acts of 1911 was revised and simplified.

On march 7th, 1917 Mr. John Schmidt, Representative of Osceola
County introduced House Bill 366 entitled, ”An Act to encourage private for-
estry, care and management thereof, and to provide for exemption from taxation
of such private forest reserves, and to repeal all Acts or parts of Acts
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act."

This bill was referred to the Committee On Public Lands and Forest
interests. On March 8th the committee reported the bill out wdth recomrenda-
tion: that it be passed. The report was accepted and the bill referred to the
committee of the whole. On March 13th the committee of the whole reported this

bill and recommended the following amendment:

1. By striking out line 5 of Section 1, the words,"one-sixth" and insert—
ing in lieu thereof the work "one-fourth". The amendment was adepted by the
committee-of the whole. On.MarCh 19th the bill came up for the final reading
but Mr. Crawford moved to amend the bill by,

l. Striking out line 2 of section 1, the nerds "one-half" and insert—
ing there in the words "one-fourth." The motion did not prevail and the
Amendment was not adepted. Mr. Eaton moved to amend the bill by,

l. Strikingput line 5 of Sectionll, the words ”and in no case over
forty acres." The motion prevailed and the amendment was adepted. The bill
was then passed.

Yeas 66
Nays 0
On March 19th the House of Representatives transmitted to the Senate
House bill number 366. The bill was referred to the comnittee on Forestry
interests and S ate Lands. On April 4, the committee reported the bill back
with the following amendment:
1. By striking out section 2 and renumbering Sections 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,
10,11, and 12. The report was accepted. On April 5, the Senate resolved
itself into a committee of the whole and considered the bill. On April 6,
the bill was passed by the Senate.
Yeas 28
Nays 0
On April 12, the bill was presented tethe Governor for his approval.
On April 19, the Governor sent the house word he had approved the bill.
House bill 365 then upon the signature of the Governor became Act 86 of the
Public Acts of 1917.
ACT 86 OF THE PUBLIC ACTS 1917.
This is an act to encourage private forestry, care and management

thereof, and to provide for exemption from taxation of such private forest

reserves, and to repeal all Acts or parts of Acts inconsistent with the

 

-96-

provisions of this Act.
g» The Beeple of the State of Michigan enact:
SECTION 1:

Upon any tract of land not exceeding one hundred sixty acres, where
at least one—half is improved and devoted to Agricultural purposes in this
Sate, there may be selected by the owner or owners thereof, as a private for-
est reservation, a portiOn thereof not exceeding one-fourth of the total
area of said tract, upon filing with the Treasurer of the County in which it
is 10cated a description of such forest reservation as is hereinafter provided
SECTION 2:

If any land owner shall plant not less than twelve hundred trees
On each acre of selected private forest reservation, then it shall become
subject to this Act herein provided.

SECTION 5:

Upon any tract selected as a private forest reserVation which is
partially stocked with forest trees, the owner may plant a sufficient number
of forest trees to assure a spacing of apprOXimately six by six feet on the
open areas, when the sane shall bec0ue subject to this Act as in Section 2.
SECTION 4:

No land owner shall receive the benefit of this Act who shall per-
mit cattle, horses, sheep, hogs or goats to pasture upon such resermation
until at least ninty percent of the trees are two inches in diameter, and then
only under such rules and regulations as may be made by the State Board of
Agriculture.

SECT 1M 5:

The forest reservation shall at all times be kept fully stocked
with forest trees under such rules and regulations as may be made from time
to time by the State Board of Agriculture, and shall at all times be mains

tained as a woodlot.

_ ( .-

SECTION 6:

Whenever any trees are removed from such private forest reserva-
tion, provision shall be wade for couplets restocking with forest trees
under such rules and regulations as may be made by the State Board of Agricu-
lture.

SECTION 7:

The varieties of Ash, Hemlock, Beech, maple, Pine, Oak, Hickory,
Basswood, Elm, Locust, Walnut, Butternut, Ironwood, Cedar, Larch, Tulip-
tree, Mulberry, Osage Orange, Sassafras, Catalpa and such other trees as the
State Board of Agriculture may recommend shall be considered forest trees
within the meaning of this Act.

SECTION 8:

It shall be the duty of the Treasurer of each County to keep a re-
cord of all private forest reservation within such county as the same may be
selected by the owner or owners thereof under this Act: and said Treasurer
shall, on or before the first Monday in April in each year, certify to the
Supervisor or Assessor of each Township a description of the selected private
forest reservation therein, and the name of the owner or owners thereof.
SECTION 9:

It shall be the duty of the Supervisor or Assessor in each Township
to keep a record of all private forest reservationwithin his Township as
certified to him bythe Treasurer of said County, and he shall require the
Owner or his agent to subscribe under oath the extent and description of the
land selected as a private forest reservation and that the number of trees is
as reqfired by this Act and that he will maintain the same according to the
intent of this Act.

SECTION 10:
The said Board of Agriculture shall also prescribe the form of

application and contract to be filed with the Treasurer of the County wherein

—,JU—

\

such application shall be made and form of notice by Treasurer to Supervisor
or other assessing officer.
SECTION 11:

It shall be the duty of the Supervisor or Assessor to personally
examine the various private reservation when the real estate is assessed for
taxation, and to note upon his return, the condition of the trees and that
same are preperly planted and continuously cared for, in order that the in-
tent of this Act may be complied with. If the said private reserVation is
properly planted and continuously cared for in accordance with the provisions
of this Act, such part of its value as is over and above one dollar per acre
shall be exempt from all taxation: PROVIDED: when any owner of a forest reseru
vation provided for in this Act shall desire to cut and harvest trees in said
resermation, except for firewood or building material for the domestic use of
said owner or his tenant, he shall notify the Tax Assessor of his district of
his said intentions and after such trees are cut, and before their removal
from the land, the owner shall make an accurate measurement or count of all the
trees cut, and file with the Assessor a true and accurate return of such
measurement or count, and the variety and value of the trees so cut. The Ass-
essor shall forthwith assess the stumpage value of the timber so cut and shall
issue a license to remove said timber, which license shall be in effect upon
payment to the Collector of Taxes of the district of a fee of five per cent of
such appraised valuation. The Assessor shall notify the Clerk and Tax Collect-
or of his district of the issuance of such license. If any such timber is re-
moved without paymentof such license fee, it shill be the duty of the Tax Coll-
ector to levy upon such timber for collection of such license fee in the manner
propided by law for collection of personal taxes. If the owner of any such
forest reservation desires at any time to withdraw his land from such class-
ification, or fails to comply with the provisions of this Act, the Tax Ass-

essor of his district shall estimate the cash value of the timber on the

stump and the owner shall mayxa fee of five per cent of such appraised

valuation: and, on his refusal or neglect to make such payment, the Tax
Collector shall levy upon such timber for collection of such fee in manner
provided by law for the collection of personal taxes.

SECTION 12:

All Acts or parts of Acts inconsistent with the provisions of this
Act are hereby repealed.

Approved April 17, 1917.

To this Act the State Board of Agriculture has passed the follow~
ing Regulations: \
REGULATION 1:

No animals may be pastured upon private forest reservations.
REGULATION 2:

A needy established forest, whether planted or of natural growmh,
should contian at least 1,200 trees well distributed to the acre. When the
forest is ten years old, there should be not less than 500 trees well dis-

' tributed to the acre: and when twenty-five years old there should be not
less than 250 trees well distributed to the Acre. The above stOcking must

be maintained either by planting or by natural gr0wn seedlings.
REGULATION 3?

Unless provision has been made for a new growth of trees by
natural seeding, all artificial reforesting shall be done by means of plant-
1ng small trees except in the case of nut trees, which may be planted from
seed. To insure a well stocked stand by natural seeding, Openings of over
a Quarter of an acre must not be made. Unless a sufficient stand of young
growth of desirable species comes up naturally within two years after cutting
small trees must be planted. Fail places must be phhnted with small trees.
It is not sufficient to plant one tree for each large tree removed. The re-
foresting must consist of a fairly uniform distribution of small trees over
the area so as to assure a spacing of approximately six by six feet. The

Department of Rorestry of the Michigan Agricultural College shall be consider -

ed the authority on forest management under this Act.

- lUU-

 

REGULATION 4:
Spruce and Fir trees shall be considered forest trees within
the meaning of thee act. The State Board of Agriculture has the right to

amend or change the above regulations at any time.

 

- 101 -
INQUIRY INTO ACT 86 of 1917

1925.
1. 0.J.Blackmer - Ionia Feb. 12
2. Jim Freeman - Fraescil (Mason) Feb. 10
3. Vern Leqph - Feb. 12
4. John Kohsn - R.4 Balding " "
5. Fred Beaten - R.4 " " "
6. C.C.Chickering - R.l " " "
7. Geo. " - R. 4 " " "
8. B.A. " - R.4 " " "
9. H.E. Parson - Mesica March 9
10. Allen Dayton - PawPaw Feb. 21
11. Henry “beener — R.2 manistee Marh 2
12. Chester Cornell - R.4 Reed City Mar. 4
l3. J.A.Hunter — Mears " 3
l4. Mrs.S.O.Spiers — 8733 Arcadia Ave. " 3
Detroit

(180 a. farm - 8a. of woods - cut 30 yrs. ago).

15. H.Machan - 1805 Wash. Blv.Blig. Det. Mar.4

16. G.P.Glynn - Olivet Feb. 27

17. Chas. Wohohan - Battle Creek Feb. 27

18. P.J. Hoffmaster - Lansing Feb. 18

19. E.W.Sims - Chicago Feb. 23

20. Fred Adolph - t. Clair Feb. 24
(80 acres of wildland)

21. Harold Stinson — Fillunnt Feb. 2
(Co.Agent 25 circulars)

22. O.L.Boynton — 1714 Donald St.,Fiint Feb.18
(150 a. wildlani Grand Traverse Co.)

23. A.Jones _ Flint Feb.16

24. Wm. MacKenzie — Manton N.B. Feb.16

25. L,W.Stanton Detroit Jan. 31

26. Lewis Sherburn — Decatur Jan.29

27. H.C.Coble - R.2 Eatervelht Feb.2

- 102 -

W.W.Brown _ Flint Feb.5
G.C.Tennant — Rose City Jan. 24
J.E.French - R.4 White Cloud Jan. 19
W.H.Ranson — Sault Ste.Marie Jan. 22
J.A.Sherman — Iron Mountain Feb.16
W.H.Crawford - (Box 466 )Gr .Haven Jan .23
(20 acres woodlot)
R.L.Friday — New Baltimore, Jan.23
St.Clair Co.
(100 acres of second growth 35 yrs.old)
H.H.Greeves _ R.l, Ionia Jan.22
Jefferson Woodward Birch Run Jan.22
Harry Weller - R.2 Twin Lake Jan.23
. S.C.Summer - Sheridan Jan.24
W.S.Preson _ Stanton " 24
W.C.Sterling - Monroe Jan.28
G.N.Dean - Shelbyville Jan.27
(130 a. not pastured for 20 yrs.
raised valuation every 5 yrs. - 20 yrs. ago — 800

now 3000 woods 2 miles from farm)

 

J.A.Gordan - Battle Creek Jan.10
. A.M.Leighten - White Fall. Jan.19
H.D.Clarke - Grand Rapids Jan.19
Miss Nettie Belknap R.l, Erie Jan.19
46. Chris Peterson - R.2 Goodrich Feb. 16
47. John D. Wilson Ionia Jan.20
48. H.E.Cobb R.2 Watervaliet Jan.15
49. F.Baldwin R.2 Onandaga Jan.l7
50. G.W.Bliss Gaines Jan.l7
51. J.S.McIntosh Bay City Jan.21
52. R.M.Stewart Tipton Jan.21
(120 a. swamp timber)
53. Mrs.Vernie Ganity Gladwin Jan.15
(80 a. woodlot).
54. Howard Gaff Muskegon Jan.l5
55. wellit Arnold Ludington Jan.16

 

L___________,l

- lUé-

56. C.J.Freeman — Mesick Jan.l3
57. Chas. Groff - RA Balding Jan.9

58. Clark Trowbridge R.l. Mar. 17

59. Jim Freeman — Freesoil --..

1. L.F.Livingston
2. Sen. Horton

3. W.E.Fulkereon
4. Geo. Thorburn
5. E.F.Manning

6. J.J.Miller

7. A.G.Bovay

8. Allegan Co.

9. Earl Allen

10. J.D.Boane

11. C.O.Bratt

12. Mrs. Kneale
13. H.E.Bullock
l4. W.N.Clark

15. Geo. A. Dean
16. A.H.Drapker
17. Co. Agent

18. Co.Agent Chatham
19. H.A.Hertzger
20. B.Horn

21. Chas. Kerr

22. E.F.Kline

24. J.E. Mann

25. Orrie Merrihew
26. Dr. A.O.Miller
27. J.A.Miller

28. E.S.Mills

29. A.T_Shafer

30. Hugh Scott

31. Donald T. Sayre

32. Herman Whgbo

'f%§4.
Marquetfie
Fruit Ridge

R.2 White Cloud
R.2 Mason

R.2 Ravenna
Benton Harbor
Jackson
Treaeine (25)
Clinton

Berrien Springs
Montgomery
Browneon Kingsley
Chicago
Co.Agent Ewen
Shelbyville

R.2 Sheppard

Paw Paw

Detroifi
Budgeman
Ashley
Alpena
Concord
Weedman
Reed City
Mt.Clemene
Mancelonia
Sp'rti
NOrthpart
South Lyons

Northport

Dec. 22
Dec.12
Dec.6
Oct.27
July 25
Oct. 2
Oct.l
Apr. 24
Apr. 22
Mar. 28
Aug. 9
Feb. 28
Aug. 4
Feb. 18
Apr. 26
July 1
Apr. 16
Feb. 16
Mar.21
Mar.l7
Mar.22
July 28
Aug. 7
Mar.13
Mar.26
Jan.29
July 16
Aug. 4
July 1
Jan.6

JUne 10

- 10b -
1924 — continued
33. H.A.Waeeon Gregory
34. Harry WeddiOOmb Gr.Rapid.s
35. 0.T.Wrigh$ Jonesville

36. Allegan Co.Treaeurer (25)

37. Frank Craker Omens.

Sept. 3
Apr. 26
Apr . 22
Apr.19

Mar.14

 

- LUD-

1 9 2 g.

 

1. H.G{Uhl Chicago Sept. 17
2. W.H.Addis Ortonville Mar.7
3. Thou. Armstrong (no address) Mar.13
C.E.Atwater, Co.Agent Traverse City Dec.7
K.W.Bailey Holly Aug.20
. J.W.Michener Turner Mar.9
J.R.Bettis Sparta. R.1 Apr.30
C.'I‘.Bolander, Co.Agent Howell Apr.4

9. E.A.Benjamin Custer Aug. 13
10. E.A.Sprowl " " "
11. Clyde Cady R.3, Grass Lake Apr.25
12. Helena Campbell R.1, Birch Run Jan.30
l3. A.F.Carle R.4, Sturgie Jan.12
14. A.C.Carton (State Dept.) May 9
15. Geo. S. Cook Brooklyn Mar.12
16. W.N.D111ar Sand Creek 0ct.16
17. Co. Treasurer Jackson Apr.16

18. L.L.Drake, Co.Agent) June 27

19. J.H.Dye Roecomon Sept.10
20. T.J.Fieh Hart Jan.13
21. H.B.Gravee July 5
22. S.C.Jenks Shelby June 6

23. Jacob Koleleiech 11.1, Levering Mar. 21

24. Bearch, Co.Treaeurer July 16
25. Chas. Koehler R.3, Muskegon Jan.30
26. John MacBae Bay City Apr. 7
2'7. A.W.Michener Turner Mar-.19
28. M.E.Miller Greenville Mar.16
29. H.R.Moenat Chicago Apr.10
30. C.F.Nelson 8.1, Traverse City Mar.16
31. Leon Gooback 3.4, Hudsonville Feb.17

- - 107 -
1923 - continued

 

32. Andrew Olson . Holton Dec. 28
33. Andrew Olson " Sept. 18
34. Livingston Co.Treasurer Mar.21
35. E.C.Potter Williamston June 22

5 36. Co.Treasurer, Ogemaw May 17

‘ 37. Rossman Bros. Lskeview Mar.5
38. mm. H. Ruesink Airien June 1
39. G.A.Schee1e R.5, Jackson Feb.16
40. M.E.Ryan 3.3, Bangor Mar.28
41. Alvin Ruppert Akron Mar.14
42. J.M.Smith Mencelona Apr.4
63. Marquette Co. Treasurer Feb.15
44. C.G.Swenson Stephenson May 3
45. T.A.Trevethsn Chassell R.1 Mer.20
46. Chas. Ward Goldwater July 6
47. G.W.Tuttle Gemfosk June 7
48. Chas. T.Voorheis Albion Apr.3

49. Treasurer, Ogemaw Co. ---

50. 0.K.Kroft Arcadia Aug. 17

 

 

1. Johannes Anderson
2. R.T.Beckwith

3. J.F.Fournier

4. Co. Agent, Hastings
5. Geo. Bristol

6. W.A.Csmeron

7. A.B.Cook

8. Chas. R. Dean

9. Samuel Dean

10. County Treasurer
11. T.R.Ekesser

12. R.S.French

l3. G.Gilbert

14. J.O.Gilbert

15. J.B.Lunny

16. S.P.Jacob

17. Simon Kern

18. D.R.Kerkpatrick
19. G.H.King

20. Frank Menkey

21. Lee Merryfield
22. O.N.Travis

23. A.F.Naghe

24. Rossman Bros.
25. Wm. Reembn

26. L.S.Schunway

27. H.L.Seeley

28. Elgy Simmons

29. Claude Shurann
30. M.J.Smith

3i. V.R.Smith

- 108 -
1 9 2 2

3.2, Holton
Ovid

Alger

Almont

n
Owosso
Vermontville
R.l, Grayling
Paw Paw
R.7, Lansing
Flint .
R.3, Olivet
'Wayne
Hillman
Grass Lake
Allegan
Reed City
Greenville
R.3, St.Johns
Dundee
Bad Axe
‘Lake Odessa
Lakeview
Tempsonville R.l
R.5, Adrian
Fenwick
R.l, Allegan
Almont
Springport

Adams R.1

Jan.18
Mar.16
Apr.13
Apr. 13
Apr. 19
Dec.19
Feb.8
Apr.1
Sept.25
Mar.10
Feb.l5
Mar.25
Aug. 28
Jen.3
Apr.3
Feb.15
June 5
Mar.L4
Mar.10
Apr.3
Mar.27
Mar.2
Jan.4
Feb.l4
Mar.23
Dec.8
Mar.2
Mar.9
Apr.19
Apr.3

Mar.24

1922 - continued

.. 109-

32. Co. Treasurer, Presque Isle

33. 0.N.Travis

34. Bert J. thAss

1. W.H.Bristol

2. E.T.Brown

3. Robt. Brown

4. M.E.Daniels

5. J.C.Grettenberger
6. E.A.Darling

‘7. G.E.lverett

8. Chas. Gowan

9. Chas. F.Groff

10. D.O.Kline

11. Huron Co. Treasurer

12. A.E.Stratton
13. Deloe A.Towle
14. Verne Wbodberry

15. Wm. B.Hat‘ch

1. Wm. H. Bailey

2. Bertha Beal

3. Miss Vialo Dirath
4. A.E.Kinsey

5. J.W.Smith

6. R.J.Einsberger

Bad Axe

Byron Center
1 9 2 l

Almont
Marion

Bad Axe
Okemoe

Okemos

R.l, Fenville
R.9, Jackson
R.4, Scottville
Orleans

R.2 Grand Blanc

Otsego
Montcalm
Laingsburg
Ypsilanti
l 9 20
Hart # 1
Adrian
Chicago
Dowagiac
Walewalete

[Via r o 4
Mar.2

Mar .21

Mar.29
Aug. 21
July 2
Apr.l
Apr.l
Mar.l6
July 7
Apr.8
Oct. 29
May 25
Apr. 19
Dec.8
Mar.l6
Apr.9

June 9

 

 

 

 

1. E.C.Levenworth
2. L.LaRocke

3. Albert Actman
4. J.H.Gillitte
5. Wm. J. Gilkey
6. John Eggle

7. R.J.Crawford
8. Ira Benton

9. G.R.Bogan

10. R.J.Cole

11. Clarence Carpenter
12. W.A.Cameron
13. Elwood Banine
l4. C.D.Mason

15. J.B.Martin
16. H.J.K00pman
17. Wm. C.Howe
18. H.W.Sandt

l9. G.A.Lun

1. A.T. Kiger

2. H.D.Ingoll

3. Frank H. Hoffman
4. J.M.Haven

5. E.H.Chaney

6. Nick Alfen

7. L.O.Vaught

I 8. O.N.Travis

9. C.P. Reid

10. Geo. Munro

11. R.E.Manow

 

— 110 -
l 9 1 9

IF
I“)

Grand Rapids
3.1, Traverse City
Hamilton

Niles
Plainwell
Cadillac
Armada
Breedsville
Rosebush
Kalamazoo
Bronson

Almont
Vandalice
Cadillac
Gr.Rapids
Falworth

East Jordan
Suttons Bay
Armada

_.8_

Berrian Springs
Plymouth
Carlton
Bloemingdale
Rockwood
Carlton
Jacksonville,Ill.
Bad Axe

Howell
Welhnshing

Bellaire

July
Mar.15
Aug. 4
June 6
Aug. 4
June 16
May 22
Dec.2
May 15
Jan.9
Apr.8
June 6
June 6
Feb.l2
Mar.8
Mar.4

Aug.4

Oct. 18
Nov. 7
Oct. 23
Oct.29

Nov. 12

- 111 -
1918 - continued

 

12. Chast. T. Voorhies Albion Apr.7
13. wm. F. Wahl Centerville Nov.24
14. E.A. Wilson Berwyn, Ill. Feb.14
l5. W.J.Guthrie R.L, Mendon Dec.30
16. Vera Grunan Pontiac Jan.17
l7. Mrs.F.McGuffie Morenci ‘ Oct.
18. I.H.Kenyan Quincy Dec.2?
19. Lambert Devries 3.4, Zeeland Mar.11
20. Chas. M. Fuller Hudson Nov. 19
21. J.H.Gillitte Niles Nov.7
12.1.2
1. G.H.Brant Fennville Jan.2
2. Chas. T. Vborhies Albion Dec.31
3. W.B.Tibbits Hesgeria Jan.ll
4. Walter Gospill Ypsilanti Dec.12
5. J.M.Cascorn Carlton Aug.30
$224
1. Carl Clark Detroit Nov. 24
2. J.R.Kawkins Addison Jan.21
3. Carl Shull R.4, Hart Feb.3
1212
1. Miss Wbod Shelby Mar.23
2. C.A.Wanner dart A;r.21
3. C.A.North Potterville Jan.25
1214
1. Eugene Boyle B.2, Buchanan Dec.12
121%
1. F.E.West Alma Oct 1
2. A.O.White Fremont Oct.12
3. B.F.Lyons Hamer Dec.8

77—.T12f——_—‘

 

1913 - continued

4. H.D .Sanford. Parma Dec .8
5. Mr. Clappk G-aleoburg Dec .8

(Joseph Kinghan, éouth Branch ask if there was an act Dec.23, 1910
Baker replied No.

 

 

 

-113-l
Owners Under Act 86 of 1917

Inghnm County
J.C.Guttenberger
E .P . Kenney
W.A.Milton
Mrs. Dore Foler
Wm. Kartz
Jackson County
Clyde Cady
L. Whitney walkins
Geo. Cook
Allegan County
Simmon Kern
Ven Buren County
Elgy Simmons
Lapeer County
George Bristol )
Wm. Bristol )
Calhoun County
Chas. T. Vorheee
G.P.Glynn
Geo. S. Cook
Glen Vorhees
Ehnwt County
A.J.Kolbfliech
Isabella County
Geo. & Orris Merihew
Alpena County
J.B.Lunney
Antrim County

( D.D.Buell
( Thoe. "

Meridian Twp.

[1 II

Alaiedan “
Wheatfield

Delhi

Nepaleon

Monterey

Pine Grove

Almont

Carp Lake

thermon

Oesineke

Warner Twp.

 

 

- 114 _

Ottawa County

Garrett TsnBroke
Lselansw County

F.H.Hoserot Co.

J.C.Kslchik
St. Joseph County

W.F.Wshl
Muskegon County

. Andrew Olson

Charley "

E. & A. Manning
Oceans County

a.c. Wallaceé‘

W.H.Bailey>

S.J.Stiffenson‘

E. Milled

T.J.Fish'

Rider Bros;

A.C.Kocher'

Hardin Nesr‘

E.A.Clayes

Rider Boos:
Ionia County

Chas. F. Geoff

J.M.York

E.D.Iambertson

A.N.Hsll

I! II II
Montcalm County

Rossman Bros.

Geo. B. King

G.T. Hermbecker

Robinson Twp.

Leelansw

Eorence

Holton

Wears
Elbridge

Hart
Hart

Shelby

Orleans
Eastan
Orleans
Ionia

Ronald

Winfield
Eureka

Winfield

Mecosta County

Harry Weddicamp
Newsygo County

Henry Hertzer
Eaton County

Minnie E. Gilbert
Gratiot County

Chas . Ken
Lake County

Clark Trowbridge

Big Rapids

Everett

7

walton

Elba

Dover

-116-

THE WOODLOT TAX ACT 86 OF 1917.
In Guiana COunty ten woodlot owners have applied for tax reduction on

their woodlots under Act 86 of 1917. Nine of them have been accepted, one
being rejected, due to lack of proper description of the prOperty as requir-
ed by the law.

In the Township of Wears, Mr. E. A. Benjamin applied for tax enenption on
13 acres of woodlot, March 31, 1921. This was described as part of the SW% of
NW%, Sec. 27. The farm consisted of 240 acres of which 205 were under culti-
vation. The woodlot was a natural growth of beech and uaple. Part of the
wood lot is merchantable as cordwood, logs and tan bark. The owner states in
answer to an inquiry that the Act reduced his taxes $26.00 and it is working
out well in his case, though he is in fear the local officers will raise his
total valuation to counteract the exemption.

The records of the County Treasurer shows that in 1922 the valuation of
Mr. Benjamin's proPerty was reduced from $9000 to $8300, in other words,a re-
duction of $700 on 13 acres or $53.00 per acre. The woodlot was listed and
taxed separately on a valuation of One dollar per acre. The valuation on all
the other farms in Section 27 remained stationary from 1920 to 1924, thus shows
ing that Act 86 of 1917 had reduced Mr. Benjamin's valuation and was working
as the law intended. The taxes on the woods for 1924 was $30.00 on 13 acres.i? ”‘

The woodlot owners in the Township of Elbridge have applied for tax re-
duction under Act 86 of 1917 and have been accepted.
Mr. S. J. Steffenson filed his application March 29, 1921, on 15 acres

in the N. 60 acres of the E% of SE%, Section 26, Township 15, R. 16. The re—
servation consists of 15 acres off the South side. The total farm area consists
of 60 acres of which 40 is under cultivation. The woodlot consists of a natural
hardwood growth with the age of the trees firom five to fifty years. The area
is stooked with about one thousand trees per acre. Mr. Steffenson sold the

farm and woodlot to the present owner, Mr. E. Millen who started to harvest the

 

Hf}

OCeana Court‘s,
Mqra Towns/rip
Secfv'lh 27
5.4. Benfaminc Farrsf R€$erub

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

f6. Wallace (F-A-I3en/a/fl/nr) do C. Klkr Ya 3-36/190/77/17: 5’4
l<720:”5‘yoo= My 75’ ”$75 {#033 ”"73
IYZI: 00= //0 (.5' lqzl;f¢00:l”0.‘5
[722: pa: 2/ 4‘ [723- 53/0 : ’1’ CL
[721.- fI/am 37 7; HM: f’Mg: 7", 7”
l7”: filo: 275?; - 5‘4" - 44 u
??a. 5.yGPI'I'I;’r 800’ 204. M-Gn'hu-
I120.- oao: 147.0; m! 2‘7 :7 7 -
H“: gene: 1:72.13 5.1351112: 97177535.”; 7’
,7“: 7mm: [$17! 1721:)”:57‘ 1922-goo:
(71]: 7000: //4'3‘f 723:1oo=I/.u ””‘W‘
MM: 7M0 = ///- I} I?1'l=7va=ll I] mu?!“
1/0 I
_ _ fl‘
6
7 “ Pilot-{7400:Iffila
I [714: 2100: III?
I 1m: use: (7.07
I my: 2v0°= '7'
5 (12¢; 2:104: 35’”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

u
17
lawn” 0a
a 42.1. . 6
u oblate” Zooo u
04 7‘0)! J.
r M......._ 0.1.79.1.
a 7
a. pawn» (851...... e (won
"I "flu," n = 2:: V . .35
f 3 0° ._ r 6f, ’70:?
2:: nu 00 Q ’I
c .... 00 o If”. //
F 03.2.3. I u. one :1. .. kt
1.1212 .Iv JUool S ._ : a : .... ._
P HHHHH M4 211 as ..o «.0000
WH:: : ”III—UN e ”a 00
1 lo
122”" f. 2.. .... N4 [-6
0 70777 (a a u .. ._
N; If!!! 1 ’U I
I 211 23H.
m «.719 1112
k Ills! 7'70.
.m 142w.” u. a
c w o.7.o..7.. o. v
u I .- oe I10!
.0: r hi... [1! [.4.-urn. M meoW
u’.: C f c.... _... I OWONT'. “(70.9“
L! I" S u 00000 ‘42]!!! JIIIZH“
s C a 00.00 / = H II
n R 4LL6L6 ( 0.. .. ._ .. .. = _. = ._
w "/9 5 _.....I: n OWWMO c MMMNO
w 2 + c munnu a112,...“ .n “iii”.
0 a 5 R 4.9790. R m: : .2. GI 55....)
C T n e I’ll) . Ilsa. ._
L 21212 . g z __ :
8 a r 774.11 M 01133.
.1 a e .r F 4 went.
n 7.. a a II
I Q d: 0
a .c 5 n v
I C
10.09
C r I 9762“ n”
b I X . . . c a-
c .l €3,914. .1 50Va
O I O fie—222 ”Jew/.3
12
E M c 3...... wwlllfln
A IOMMO ah :::=:
I989” .T 0000
1 m 0000”
: .. ._ __ : o 3¥¥fl¥
01:34 5%
“N""fl . t : __ _. _.
I'll, R ””234
qvnun
m [Ill]
0
q
k 0a. H
550 a
.m Loom.“ W 7:05: a
.. . . . 77070 8
w ”an: 3.... 3:
h, .3 93.7., a 42
...... _ / V7363
f o .= . 3
u 0.09.. 5 .....2. h [Hz/2
0 ounce I 0060 C! III
Ileoa I coco“ : .....2.
5!. III I 5555: r of. ._
n. .5: was: .. “.....x
A ...: . on
atzrh w ##9##
E. a: ......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 119 _

trees without knowing it was under the special Act. the present owner then
becene subject to the five per cent cutting tax which amounted in this case,
to $140.00. As a result, the woodlot has been taken from under this Act.

In 1920 the valuation in the farm and woodlot was $2400. In 1921
after the woodlot was accepted the valuation drOpped to $2000, a reduction of
$900 on 15 acres, or $26.66 an acre. The woodlot was listed and taxed se-
parately from the farm from 1921 to 1923, with the taxes ranging from .49 to
$.50 on the 15 acres. In 1924 there was no special item for the woodlot and
the farm valuation jumped to $2600.00. The woodlot was removed from Act 86
in 1933» thus causing the increase in valuation.

The other land Owners valuation remained stationary thru the period
1920 to 1924 except Mr. R. Southwick in the SEA. This preperty increased in
valuation from $3000 in 1920 to $4000 in 1921, and remained the same until
1924.

Thus Act 86 reduced the valuation on Mr. Millens pronerty while
his woodlot was under the Act and when the woodlot was removed and placed
under the general preperty tax the total valuation on the farm and woodlot
increased. This proves Mr. Millen received sore tangible benefit of list-
ing his woodlot under Act. 86 of 1917.

The other woodlot under Act 86 of 1917 in Elbridge Tawnship, is
Owned by Wm. H. Bailey. He applied for tax reductiOn January 10, 1921, on
20 acres of woodlot. The farm and woodlot consists of 80 acres, of which
45 acres is under cultivation. The woodlot consists of a natural growth of
hardwoods of about 30 years of age, wdth seven hundred trees per acre. This
reserve was described as 20 acres in W% of NW% of NE% of Section 34, T 15 N.,
R. 16 W. In an inquiry to Mr. Bailey he stated he could see little difference
in his valuation before and after coming under the Act.

The County Treasurer's records show that Mr. Bailey's valuation on
so acres of farm and woodlot was $1600 in 1920. In 1921 after the woodlot

had been accepted under this Act, Mr. Bailey's Valuation was reduced from

 

$1600 to $800, a reduction of $800 on 20 acres, or $40.00 per acre of woodlot.

The woodlot was velued and taxed separately from 1921 to 1924 and the
taxes on the twenty acres areraged between $.60 to $.68.

In the NW% of the Section, Mr. F. Grings valuation remained constant
from 1920-1924. Mr. G. Shaffer was reduced from $1000 in 1920 to $800 in 1921,
and remained the same thru 1924. Mr. Shaw shows a reduction of $100 1920-1921,
and constant thru 1924. Mr. E. Lewis valuation remained constant 1920-1924.
Bobt. McCarty's valuation remained constant 1920 to 1923, with a reduction of
$100 in 1924. Mr. J. Porter received a $200 reduction in valuation 1920-1921,
and then remained constant thru 1924.

In the NE% of the Section, Mr. Kinsman's valuation was advanced from
$1800 to $2000, 1920-1921, and remained constant 1921 - thru 1924. Mr. Baileyt
valuation 1920 was $1600 and in 1921 it was reduced to $800 and remained con-
stant thru 1924 on the NE% of NE%, while on the SE% of NE% the valuation re-
mained censtant, $1800 from 1920 thru 1924.

Mr. A. Kinsman‘s valuation was $2200 in 1920 and advanced to $2500 in
1921, remaining the same until 1924 when it was reduced to $2400.

In the SW% of the Section Mr. R. McCarty's valuation remained constant
from 1920 thru 1924, while Mr. B. Cole's was reduced fr-m $3200 in 1920 to
$3000 in 1921 and remained constant thru 1924.

In the SE% of the Section Mr. W. J. Cole's and Mr. R. McCarty's
valuation remained constant 1920 thru 1924, while Mr. C. Smith's was reduced
from $4400 in 1920 to $4200 in 1921, and then remained constant thru 1924.

Even tho' Mr. Bailey failed to realize it, he received a reduction in
valuation of $800 on 20 acres of woodlands or $40 per acre of woodlot. This
was by far a greater reduction in valuation than was received by anyone else
in the Section. 0n the NE% of the NE% his valuation was reduced just one-halfi
and at the time of listing the Supervisor must have believed the twenty acres
of woodlot was equal in value to the twenty acres of farm land. Mr. Bailey

saved in actual taxes on this assumption, $22.88 in 1921, $24.92 in 1922,

)2!

Ocean"- Counfv

F/brr'(/7t
59c. fiat? 77

Town 5h0.F

Wmledv'/6¢/ Brrsf Reserve

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

' s 0 .
, gr“ 1’ l, a ‘T Wf’mbo’“ 7h ”0" Ingcr-vc'h y" Wm H- Balifv ”I
91?.- 212: 3‘1! 33?: “2:? 33% 533?: 5222' 3—2-{2 m,“ ”:rr’n- v
'12): too: I .20 ,7)2= 0,; 2,5“ I 21. 2 00" ,0 = = 23-71
'2’: (0“ [’7‘ I123: 00: 23_2f $23: 22": fl_) I 12" ‘0‘. ‘75"0
924: {00: 154/ MM: 00: 2am! $7211. .2004ng ‘0, } f3: 2:; 3:57:
Roget-u:
[‘73]: .70: .¢’
['le 2 , .
[’13:2:=-t:
[’17: Jot-(,1
N. Shaw 30‘ E . A (“Ii-5 Aklglns man yo‘ W;"./fl,3"-I'Y y“.
4
Macy’saoz” 7 :4 J I120: 2200 Hzaxnoo.5,
I7)! = l/ao = ”.9,- 5427= $23,: $162: ["1” '75:“ I'lll' [900- 51;;
5:33: mica: m" sou/oi» I'm: 5533 #3: f :ziféz‘:
’f}l(=. yo'; I;- 30 [3:3: {:40: ¢;.‘:;; [424: 2,00 ,q)’: If 35:”;
1;“ f- 522‘?“er 20c JTPor for 26¢.
"20: 700* 31‘? "lo: 00: .
('3’: 700: o_§"" I 2' : 2’0: 2’? ;§
I?!“ 700- 2.“ ,;32 -.- oo: [2,30
I713: 700' 20-37 [923 = Zoo, [1.61]
I7J1: (no. Ig-IO IyJII= 600: £2.30
Fo6f. MC Car ’7 900. -I- Cyc W W’Ef- MSSGPfY 40¢
,1
9 tn" -4 . l 20: 2900 104.21 ”205 aa 2 ¢ .10
;,; = 3:3; {iii/fig Iggy; zyoo= 62.17 In: £52003: 5].“
, I , 000- ’2‘“, ’1 _ 21:0: 7-‘0 1122:3004: 65.00
I?! 3 I00: lib-90 23; 2 '3: L?! ['13: 00.: _20
I :41. 000'123.2o ’"V 2 ' L2" IYJV: 200‘” L“
3"”? C0]: 90a. J 5- BMI'f/w ?0a.
1120 :1" :4 "IOU/#00: ”/5205
I‘M : 53.03: "%$§ 172/: 92'0: I 3.17
I u . :aoo . ’Loo Mn: 22": ’ ”-70
I723 : 3000. 7.30 I .21;~ 20.: I #31.
you: 3000 , $2.” I 24- #200“ I2 - I.

 

 

”i . . - 122 -

$22.68 in 1923, and‘$23.74 in 1924, or a total of $94.22 in the four years on
this 20 acres of forest.

In the Township of Hart two woodlot owners have applied for tax reduc-
tion on their woodlots. One was accepted and one rejected.

Mr. H. W. Mitchell applied for tax reduction on his 18 acre woodlot March
81, 1923. The woodlot was located in the 3% of the NE% of Section 29, T 15
N, R 17 W. The farm and woodlot cOnsists of 68 acres of which 50 acres are un-
dercultivation. The woodlot consists of a natural growth of Basswood, Maple,
Elm and Beech, with about 2500 board feet of logs now merchantible. The trees
are frOm 5 to 50 years old and about 1000 per acre. Mr. Mitchell's application
was rejected by the Supervisor because he believed the woodlot Was not prOperly
described on the Application and thus could not make the entry on his books.
So Mr. Mitchell decided he c0uld take care of the woodlot without the aid of
the Act.

Mr. T. J. Fish applied for tax reduction On his 16 acre woodlot Jens
uary 20, 1923. The woodlot is described as the w% of the SE% of Section 32,
Hart Township. The farm and woodlot consists of 80 acres 0 f which 64 acres
are under cultivation. The forest is of both natural and planted trees, of
trees ZO-SO—years of age with a stocking of 1200 trees per acre. The land was
cut clean in 1902 except a few seed trees, and pastured until 1908. The wood—
lot consists of Maple, Beech, Elm, Ash and Basswood. The trees average 4" - 8"
in diameter and 25 to 45 feet high. The owner thins out a number each year to
relieve the crowded trees. He stated that the Act had not reduced his taxes
very much.

The County Treasurer's records show that Mr. Fish's woodlot was valued
and assessed separately at one dollar per acre in 1923 and 1924. The valua-
tion on the farm and woodlot in 1922 was $4800.00, and in 1923 after the wood-
lot was listed the valuation dropped to $4700 in 1924 while the vaulation of
the other landowners in the section retained the sane frrm 1922 thru 1924 except

in the case of Mr. BillingS, whose valuation jumped from $3600 in 1922 to $4000

J

 

 

12%

oceana. Court *7
Hat-1‘ 70wnS/I;P

Secfa'on 32
72 .7: Fish Foresf Rfscruc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.ulrfiF .704 o sauna?" Ila JIDunn an Prarf ‘04.
[799243390 £130.33 ’1zoa’aoooagy‘,5q [flair/090953.32 [720=”35'Oo={9¢.23
[93]: ’3“.- 2;" 1771- 2.900: III/.4? [92h ”00:43.2: I'll: 3600s 5‘ ‘4
I722: ,3.‘. 3 _1/3 [722; 30". 57-5, l'l!’/IOU=J.-7f ['23: 3000: 8(1-37
I721= 13»- 53.50 Hz:- 2000- 57.6"! 1723-»...3577 I!23= 3000: 77 .3!
pert: 1340‘ 33,25 "2': 1040: 589‘! 1711:Ioao.~.z9.72 1742'!r 3000:: (9 2‘
J: _Borrnan V9;
20: Rich’s-1.34
1!.- 2000: If“ ‘9
3r 2°" 5,2 -'
s 3000- -.’
24‘ 2000: 5.9.8;
C354. 5}" 1/0‘ J I T] ivecc/ 2’"
.120 :- 3moe 72.2? (72o~ 2300: sue;
172! = 2290: 43.88 I711: .73“: 5']. I0
1?“: are»: 60.76 1422: .2300- 44.22
l’lszn at”: 5'4!!! 1913: 939': {7-27
1121: area: 61.79 /924: 239.: 7.¢7
J . If
”Zenizloogfi‘iafyg" ”175 ‘foa.
Hal: one: vii?
1722- troop: (15./l.
nu: qooa- 103.0:
I924" #000: u 1. L8
Ric/er I3ros #34. Sabin 1:. 71.77 FI'Jh 944 ? Ace/0nd ”"-
4’
I?20= 3900.7,8‘7JJ (no: loco ”20:44:00: ”(.95 I7202¢JVOO 2’7130
(12!: 3000: ‘ -66 nu: (no I111: ll 00: 106.65 1111: 35“: 72 7'
‘12:: 3000: €6.37 (m: in [1'11 : Zgol = 137.20 IqZI: no ‘ [IL/t.
723a 3000: 7. 3! nu: u nu.- oo: [21.]: [$23: on: 103.0,
13']: Joan: 99.24 me: M NH.- Inoo= 131.27 1 21: 000: 117.49
I
C I.” 330- M0fi70m1rv 3" D" ‘a{¢r l I, J.- ‘Ikkc‘r‘qz O...
' 1430 no 20 co . 0
[1208/1700 {€7.77 lvzofls’novfi" 3’ Int: u. ('2! ;§§oa : £813)
(12]: an». In ‘7 Int-‘3'”: ”if-"’1 [721. h," [122 : 2:40: 7&7?
513:3}? $31: '35?” 21““ "v' m: 1?“ err;
= - I ‘20: ... o z=aoo- .
I11“: 390': III. to [93% 20::_- (0-00 "u: ’ 0‘
Res er uc
I?23: /‘
[92'] : IL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 ' — 124 -

in 1923 and 1924. Thur Mr. Fish received a reduction of $100 in valuatiai

on l6 acres of woodlot. The Act, in this case, does not seem to be working
very well, or the Supervisor of the Township places a very low value on second
growth timber. But as us. Fish stated, the reduction in valuation and taxes
were slight.

In the township of Shelby four woodlot owners have applied for tax
reduction on their woodlots. Rider Bros applied for tax reduction April 28,
1921, on 5 acres in the W% of NW% of NE% and 10 acres in the E% of NE% of NE%
of Section 6. The woods consist mostly of second growth hardwoods with a few
now merchantable.. Mr. Rider stated he could see but little difference in the
taxes. after listing the woodlot.

The records of ta County Treasurer show that on the W% the valuation
was $1000 in 1920 and after listing the woodlot of 5 acres the valuation was
reduced in 1921 to $850, of $150, thus making a reduction in valuation of $30
per acre of woodlot. This valuation remained constant thru 1924. On the E5
the valuation in 1920 was $3700 and after listing the 10 acre forest reserve
the valuation was reduced in 1921 to $3450, or a reduction of $250 on 10 acres.
This made a reduction of $25 in valuation per acre of woodlot, The valuation
remained constant thru 1922, but in 1923 the valuation was raised to $4450 and
remained the same thru 1924. This was due to an improvement of the farm. In
both the E% and W% the woodboss were listed separately and valued separately from
1921 thru 1922.

While all the rest of the land owners valuation remained constant
from 1920 thru 1924, except Mr. Bender‘s which was $4500 in 1920 and raised to
$5800 in 1921 and remained constant thru 1924.

On the E% and W% to-gether, Rider Bros. received a reduction of
$400 in valuation on 15 acres of woodlots even tho' they thought the Act only
gave them a slight reduction.

In 1023 the taxes paid by Rider Bros. so acres valued at $4450

was a follows:

 

 

 

 

1923.

State $12.37
County 20.07
Township 4.01
Road Repair 4.48
School plus 1 mill 49.13
Highway Repair 4.81
Good Roads 7.21
Cemetery .72
Bond plus interest 9.62
Library 1.11

TOTAL 113.86

The school tax was the largest item and biggest burden followed by
the County, road and State tax.

Mr. E. A. Calyes applied for tax reduction on his 8 acre woodlot
January 8, 1920. The farm and woodlot is located in the NE% of the sat of
Section 8. The farm consists of 60 acres of which 50 acres are under culti-
vation. The trees are from 1 to 50 years old, with about 2000 per acre, the
predominating species being Maple and Beech, of which some are merchantable
as logs and cordwood.' Mr. Clays states the Act reduced his valuation and is
working out satisfactorily.

The County Treasurer's records show that his valuation on the E% of
the NW% of the SE% was $850.00 in l919. in 1920 after placing the woodlot
under the Act his valuation was $600, or a reduction of $250. Thus he receiv—
ed a reduction of $31.33 per acre for the woodlot. The valuation remained
cOnstant 1920 thru 1924. The woodlot was listed and taxes separately onthe
valuation of $1 per acre from 1920 thru 1924.

The other land owners of this Section remained constant except Mr.

B. Crowl whose valuation was advanced from $4100 in 1919 to $4500 in 1920,

1.2!,

Oceana. Caum‘flf
5’16/[7‘] 70wn5/7/‘f
Sccfl'on L

Rig/n- Bros- Forrsf /?¢s¢ru=

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C. Wore/(1‘! 37a. 6.5.Carwtr 9&4- Ru'drr l3rp5_ 7
vzoalvoa 1740:4540 Helm-”(loan
I: 7;» H21: [5‘00 112/= “q, [7)0:‘-’_;7oo
= You I42}: I!” Hus ”'0 ['21: y”.
= 7'00 I723: 1500 [fzgg 4;. I [721: .7450
-' we I1": ”'00 11:4.- (9’0 1123: yys‘o
l7?1= ll!!!”
Rc5cruc I KtsCrr e
I120 9’0 1;»- a
[‘72]: 5' / 11: to
13);: As: /z§§: ;o
: E D
11114: 5 [17111: In
613;"040!‘ 37a. fi.CImc/l1 l/Da.
Inc 11101 50
[:00 I’ll: 50
I500 I712: 150
14:40 [411: 110
loco 141']: via
. ILArlt/rcws 70“-
MM: [Joe
[72]: 1500
”3" $33
1.—
MN: ”'00
A-‘M’lort/rn J74— €~Ifglvnsan 76¢
910: Koo #2103504»
: 5'09 [11]: 2900
= “0 1921: 2000
= ‘3" /411,— 2,090
= [00 [0211: 2000
.5: Hal/46k 2"-
a= £00
I: 09
I: 4’
J. u
934: Illa

 

 

 

 

 

 

and then remained canstant thru 1924.

Mr. Clays: stated he was being benefited by the Act and that it was
working out quite satisfactorily.

The taxes for the different Governmental functions onthe 12 acre

farm valued at $600 was:

State 1.6? Highway improvement .65
County 2.71 Good Roads .97
Township .54 Cemetery .10
Road Repair .65 Bond and Interest 1.30
School plus 1 Library .15
will 19.03
TOTAL $27 .77

The school tax is very, very high, and the biggest burden on the

property. The County, Road and State tax follows next in order.

128

Octane; Counf-s.(

She/£71., nwns 17.}.

~ feel/ion!

EH4. C/«ys Forvsf A’eScruc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4‘41 Le: V0¢L Ill-Blake. I—laq, B Crow! (04..
VAIJLDO 17!?96200 “71?:‘(4000
: 2mm [#29: 1200 I720.- ‘Isaa
‘ 1‘90 I77” [200 HIRI- {09°
* I700 1722. 120a 171:.- 5'0"
= 1700 I'm: Man i 23. $000
: 1700 [711.- /900 / 11!: race
M lad54n
lqufl’qaao
[920: 2400
I‘ll]: .1000
(71:: goat)
Ira}: 1600
I117: 2000 fl
A. Ivar-far] 77“~ C. cheEt/ICI‘ 74a.
7‘13“" «ammo.
D: 35:00 [720: 5590
I: Jsoo lizl: Fin.
7: J5.“ [411:5‘rao
13‘ 3"“ /7n=,-5-pa
2": 3"” [1.74-{rad
. . a)"
M-l3mrmciefer 772. D Wild/cg] Z70. AJVorfan sum. 5‘ I? lC/ays (,_
7eflfao lily: “log ”mg/550 Hlffls‘o ,7/7‘13000
:0: 1159a 1720: [#00 pm. in [719:Laa ,7”: 3000
III ([00 Niel: ”‘09 I1“: 850 [72]: (no 171/: 3"”
I]: l/foo I722: [409 [’21, 9:0 [711:609 /711' 300°
13.- Ilsa» [721: [400 In}: via I‘ll}: ‘0, (713‘ 3",
"'1: 45:10 [1:]: lift)” [714,350 IW”: an ,,14; 3,40
Rrscruc
I‘YZI: t]
1722: 8
I72]: 5'
I71¥= X I
...
4v

 

 

 

 

 

- 129 -

Mr. A. C. Kocher applied for tax reduction on his 5 acre woodlot, March 5,
1920. The farm and woodlot is located in the E; of the NW% of Section 2.

The total area of farm and woodlot is 60 acres of which 55 are under cultivap
tion. It is a natural forest with trees from 1 to 50 years of age, and a
stacking of about 2000 trees per acre. Part of it is merchantable as saw logs
and cordwood. The owner states the Act reduced his valuation very little.

The records in the County Treasurer's office show that Mr. Kocher's
valuation was $3600 in 1920 and after taking advantage of the Act his valua-
tion for 1921 was $3300, or a reduction of $300. For every acre of woodlot he
received a reduction of $60 in valuation. The valuation remained constant fran
1921 thru 1924. From 1920 thru 1924 the woodlot was listed and taxes separately
frOm the rest of the proPerty on the valuation of $1.00 per acre.

Mr. Kocher was the only land owner in the Section to receive a re-
duction in valuation between 1919 and 1920. Even tho' he did not realize it
his valuation was reduced sixty dollars per acre for the woodlot and the Act
was working better than he realized.

The taxes on the 55 acres of farm land valued at $3300 in 1923 were:

State 9.1? Highway Improvement 3.56
County 14.88 Goad Roads 5.35
Township 2.97 Cemetery .54
Road Repair 3.56 Bond plus interest 7.13

School plus 1
mill 31.42 Library .82

TOTAL $79.41

Occana Gaul-1’1]

She/by Towns/71'?

[30

5n: fiat—7 2

A-C lfdc/Irr Forts”! feseruc

 

[hm/anr (a... A./(o¢/ycr 40 c. Kachcr 10 H. B Hobby l/a W Gal-he.” JIaa
I119: 3900 1111:3400 ,,, 1,7,0 4 gr ”Myth,
1120- 3?00 "20:3300 1123:1700 49.42: 5233 - I720.- 709
19:1: 3700 1921:3300 girl: I156 172/: Xi'an [‘72]: 7o:
[33' ”“ 53???” ”.373"? 45’}: 1’?” $333: 7"

I.- = on : o : pa =

, my: 5’3: [124: .7340 MW: 17m) 14;? = /0M I921: 333
[‘7]? :‘5’00
1420: [5'00
[72]: late
1712 = [000
/?13:/000
’7)I/= [’00
I W M 0.9 u c 0/ 6 0 a.
I? ‘7: lice
/ Lilo
f a“
/ 00
x223 :2:
FOI‘(Sf firser—u-z 1”
(720:1;
/'2’: J"
H. H4 risen 20:» [1:251:5-
2 :3-
111911400 :-
(120 “.1600 I’ll :
In]: llv'6
[323: IIO‘
2 = 00
$421: I/{oo
I I I 3’ 34’ I
Mn: 9 o 1711- 130 MM: Itoo 1111- WW I - : a
mo: fie zo= ‘No H20: lion [fun '4“ I .— 7,4 ‘3; 5313: 3:03
[an 00 I 2I= 700 lflt: moo I?!“ W“ / ; q u I12]: 3‘.“
1122: do 172:: foo 1422: Moo "”1: W” / = #5» Mn: 21.»
1422: ’0 1w.- 404 1?”:1400 "”1"”; I = 4,57,. Mu: :Loo
mu: m luv: 9» NH: 17w "144’” I : 4!, Joe 1724: .2600
' length
[420: (5’0
”72!: Rte
[’22: fJ'O
[‘72]: 95a
”24: (4'0
H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- 131 -

Mr. Hardin Near applied for tax reductinn on his twenty acre woodlot
January 14, 1920. His prOperty is located an the E; of the NE%, and the E§
of th SW% of the NE%, Section 22. The farm consists of 100 acres of which
60 acres are under cultivation. The woodlot is of natural growth, thirty
years old, with about 1200 trees per acre. The woodlot is located on a very
rough piece of land and is ascend growth Maple and Beech. At the present
time there are about 2500 beard feet of Beech merchantable.

Mr. Near states than the Act instead of decreasing his valuation, has
increased his total valuation. Land valuations have not raised in the le-
cality, and he has nade no improvements which ould have counteracted the lows
ered valuation due to the Act. The Supervisor in going over the tax records
with Mr. Near acknowledged that he had not lowered the valuation, and thought
he had forgotten to do so at the time the woodlot was listed as it now stands
Mr. Near has been paying full taxes all the time and yet if he were to harvest
any of the trees or reject the provisions of the Act, he would have a great
deal of trOuble getting out of paying the 5% cutting tax, so as Mr. Near
states, it has been harmful ratter than helpful in his case.

The County Treasurer's records show that Mr. Near's valuation in 1919
was $6500, and that after he had made application for tax reduction on the
woodlot, his valuation remained the same for 1920. In 1921 the valuation
was raised to $7000, while all the rest of the land owners in this Section re-
mained stationary frOm 1919 thru 1921. Mr. Near's valuation remained station-
ary from 1921 thru 1924.

The woodlot was listed and taxed separately at a valuation of $1
per acre 0n the Township tax roll, even tho the Supervisor tole Mr. Near he
had forgotten to take into consideration the fact that his woodlot was under
this special Act. The special listing started in 1921 and continued thru

1924.

The other land owners valuation in the NE§, NW% & SE§ remained stat-
ary 1919 thru 1924, while Mr. Near with his woodlot under the Tax Reduction

- L06-

Act with no improvements on the preperty was advanced five hundred dollars.

In the SW% Mr. J. Near's valuation in 1919 was $2500 and remained
the sane thru 1922, but in 1928 it was advanced to $2800, and remained stat-
ionary thru 1924. Mr. Hume's valuation in 1919 was $1200, in 1922 his was
reduced to $1000, and again reduced to $800 in 1924.

The records show that Mr. Near received no benefit from the Act and
actually his valuation remained the same or was advanced enen the his woodlot
was listed and taxed separately.

In 1923 Mr. Near's taxes on a 100 acre farm falued at $7000 was

divided as follows:

State 19.52 Highway Improvement 7.58

County 31.66 Good Roads 11.37

Township 6.32 Cemetery 1.13

Road Repair 7.58 Bond and interest 15.16

School plus 1 mill 98.07 Library 1.76
TOTAL $210.15

The School tax is by far the heaviest burden,then the County, Road,
and State Taxes. The State tax is Only a very small burden compared to the

total tax levied.

 

 

 

 

U?

OCC'H‘Ia. Coumf‘fi

She/[7c] flwnshi'F
5€c+fon 22

5’. ”car- Foresf’ Restruc-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMOrn/rw75f-qr- fog. 0-77:qu 30-Icar5c o. 7‘7.N¢ar‘ Ibo“,
‘ - - I i
’7’q’3’ ‘ IEI‘YZQIoo: .3777 I'm- nun.” Q: 6500: ,2 -1
mo . :33. 7:75 Mfiflzx W 12:33:33.}: “W:- “"0“ mini
I72! : 5'405- 05",; ”21‘ 200' e 0.11 Manson’s”) IQ“: gem): I 7. 8’7
[422 I fé’di [2'30 lflfliafzg': ?-7( Huh. (0:07.03 [422-— 000: I 6? V0
[72): taco: 142.3; I” ‘ ‘0-73 WNW-“n.2- [‘12]: 7060: / ‘77.)?
[714]. {was 110,}; 172‘“ 7000 = 20:47
N A (I a m? 5 7001.
C5 ruc.
[q] 7%.{00 : fi‘l-fo /‘//7:"00 1"} 37 {1360:} 2
I720: foo: loo-f2 1120:400- 3W _- 20: .4?
’731: 7500: qt}; (12:: too: 12$] 2’: 20:. "5'7
[121: lino: I05’.‘H ”12.400; “/73 20- .60
I12 3 :- 49“ . I2 {32 Hz}: Loo- I793
‘72:]: #500: 127.55 IDY‘UO; [7.22
. car 04:. . anti/‘5 4(p on. . o 055 40a. -. en Herr no
J— N 4 I? / f1 / é FD 71’ F T / /000L
J
[7(7: _# "' ti - ~ ‘I
171497290, 47. 7: mo: 322332.— 31}: $2.15. 223330? 32“?“ 5333132“ ‘ “" 2
[/3375 33:35" if» 3} ’32" $35: ‘ gin / 2/ : 2500 HI 2; Mr; 3335:.“ 474?;
' . I e t . ‘ 2 = ' ‘ '
9:3}? gm 71;; ”m = ”34 ti;- 2%”: = ‘7. fl" #3: £23: ma
[727: 2800': 77.?5 Iqu‘ 2300 : 6‘76 /71¢ I 2f00 3. 3'02? /{2': 3200 = 7/' 7y
7T fi/ur-n 1:. 40m E.D~1kc;f2h
I?! fr‘yl’z oo .3.“ ‘ "’1- '5'“: .271]:
”/20: [20 0 ~.- .3325 [Afig‘o‘zi JIC
721: 1200: 21.37 ’qn\ p”; 3;;
()2: I000: 2V0; : , . i
If ‘ I00 ~ 1‘!” I53”. V2.7
’75:: ‘03; :77}??? "Na (:40 I 10.04]
F- De ”0 SS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7' - 1.34 —
CLINTON COUNTY.

In Clinton cOunty we fine two applications filed for tax reduction 0n
woodlots under Act 86 of 1917. One application was filed by Mr. R. L. Beck—
with of Ovid, Michigan, and the other by Mr. Charles Clark of Grand Ledge,
Michigan.

The application on file from Mr. Beckwith is dated March 10, 1925, but
in looking at the t0wnship assessment reels I find that Mr. Clark received
an exemption in 1922 and Only for that one year. So it is very evident that
Mr. Clark's application now on file is for the re-exemption of his woodlot.

The first entry on the township tax roll is flound in 1922 and reads as
follows: E% of NE% of SW%, 20 acres valued at $30 and a special entry is
carried thrOugh for each tax item. In 1923 there is but one entry, the en!
tire farm and woodlot. Mr. Beckwith paid this taxes under protest as the re-
cord shows for this year. In 1924 the taxes were paid but not under protest.

Mr. Beckwith states that the State tax commission would not let the
Supervisor accept the woodlot more than the One year, which of course as
shown by the record was 1922. The reduction in 1922 valuation was noted by
Mr. Beckwith and in answer to an inquiry in 1924 he said the act had reduced
his valuation for the one year.

In looking at the plot of the landowners in this section and their
valuation per farm and per acre for the years 1919 to 1924 inclusive we
receive a much clearer vision of the actual facts.

Mr. Beckwith's Valuation on 120 acres was $8,800 in 1921 or $73.33 per
acre. In 1923 it was reduced to $7,800 or $66.66 per acre. This is a reduction
of $1,000 in valuation and in taxes a reduction of $38.34. The valuatinn
has remained constant from 1922 to 1924 with slight reduction of taxes each
year.

The farm on the north of Mr. Beckwith's is owned by L. D. Green and

c0nsists of 107 acres. The valuation on this farm in 1921 was $7,900 or

$65.42 per acre, 1922 it remained the same, 1923 the valuation was reduced

 

 

— 135 -
to $6,200 or $57.94 per acre and remained the same last year. Thus when Mr.
Beckwith received a reduction in valuation the farm on the north remained at
the same valuation.

The farm on the east of Mr. Beckwith's be10nging to Mr. Lloyd Montague
cantains 80 acres and the valuation for 1921 was $5,200 or $65 per acre, in
1922 it was reduced to $5,100 or $63.75 per acre, 1923 it was reduced to $4,800
or $60 per acre and remained the same for last year. Thus Mr. Montague}s.val-
nation was reduced slightly each year, the years 1921 and 1922 shew a reduction
of $100 on 80 acres while Mr. Beckwith in the same years had a recudtion of
$1,000 on 120 acres.

Another landowner on the east of Mr. Beckwith's is Mr. Roy Huyck, who'
owns a 40 acre farm. In 1921 the valuation on this farm was $1,600 or $40 per
acre, 1922 it was the same, 1923 it was $1,500 or $37.50 per acre and remained
the same for last year. Thus while Mr. Beckwith received a reduction in valua-
tion Mr. Hupck's farm remained at the same valuation.

Mr. Beckwith's application now on file at the County Treasurer's office“
is dated March 10, 1925, but it was sent tothe erng persons and when it
finally reached the county treasurer's office the date was April 10, 1925.

This of cOurse made it too late to be entered upon this year‘s assessment roll.

The ecunty treasurer upon receipt of the application wrote to the super-
visor of Victor township, giving him the description of the woodlot and a note
to take the necessary steps to enable the man to have the exemption allowed
under this act.

Mr. Beckwith's ppplication reads as follows:

Application made March 10, 1925 and the land described as E% of NE% of
SW§, Section 2, Victor township. The total area of the farm was 120 acres of
which 95 are cultivated. The woodlot consists of 20 acres of natural growth,
with an average age of 40 years with 500 trees per acre.

Mr. Beckwith in an inquiry stated.that the predominating species was

hard and soft maple, basswood, white oak and hickory, and some of it was mer-

 

 

H}?

a

d

r

(v

F

It

5

..F...

I.l I

.....n h
s

1 I

uni]

owv:

Ciw

7..0/K

nr/wc

.M o a e

I .U

.mce.

./ .1

Ovsfl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

« f
7 o
q 9
l
— OI
2 /.5
“Ha/WIN) 0
9031703
tnnmuv
2 .. 2 t 1..
wowooa
o 0 a u
t t 9022200
M n [2715333
7 of n. 2 = : .. I
a a ”OIZJH‘
I)?!
5 :7 J! 770.77"
/ H n I’ll/l
a 0
h
C m M
N 200.296 /
7 d. ,2330i P
Iv 7/ . . . . . .
5 1.2“ 0121/4 V. ”M377/ 4 “MU/,2".
. .. . 7 0
M . 7 A i l/ [[74,
. vuwbnz .. . .. 191......»
... .. .. .
A! wwoado .. ....
. ....a..: 0000 0000......
0 0
www.mou 422/79. Wowoaw
009 .. %££. I a T97
: t .s .. = .. = : \~ 2 u. : ~. : .s .s .. ~
70! JV- 70! 7.0!230.
Izlnzls (linuu [122.41
4. c. 1771 79.7 v.7? 17f???
’II’I, ”I ’I”’/ 1”]’/
1F a. A
d 0
¥ 0
2 a.
I
0.2600/2
937373 517M
. . . 4!
M ?W3%MN In H “a
or; 7 c rave
.n .p
c 2 s. .. \ q! t: i ..
I wwwwaw K 00””
0 Jr 00
022.99 / 255
.L 2222// A. 4 fl //l
N ...3: E. \--II::
.7012 .. . f 701211
IZZZUH / (11222
W??777 W 777???
I’ll! III/l,
a .R
7 C
0 C
x B
. 0.77 r
Isl/54.7 In 70.06000”
2233/7 122222.
(ii/2 222/ 1
c Q; -0 1 I I
r so = ~ 00
00
Fe 000.000 00Moam
“Hwaoo 037?00
a 2 1 I
i Q- s. = as I Q. .-
7 NHPL...“ 01017.3”:
[22.2.11 ’.(2221
749?? 0.4.0177?
fl.

 

 

 

 

..1,o/-

chantable as logs. In this inquiry in 1924 he stated he was afraid the act
would not work out well because the lecal officers would take into considers
ation the vact the owner has accesssto the woodlot for his own use, and thm
would also hold true if it was used as a sugar bush. The assessor for these
reasons would consider the rest of the farm was worth more and raise the val-
uation upon the cultivated land and buildings.

Thus in the case of Mr. Beckwith act 86 of 1917 did reduce his val—
uation and taxes while he was under the act. And he must have been quite
satisfied or he would not nake applicatiOn again to have his woodlot listed
under this Act.

The application of Mr. Charles Clark of Grand Ledge was filed with
the county Treasurer January 23, 1922. The woodlot was located in Section
13 of Eagle township. It was described as 12 acres off the north end of the
wg of ow; of Section 13 and the West 20 acres of the eve of swi- of Section
18. The total farm area was 132 acres of which 90 acres was under cultiva-
tion. The forest was both natural and planted with an approxmiate age of 12
years for the planted stOck and 50 years for the natural. The average number
of trees per acre ranges from 300 to 500.

The Supervisor stated the county treasurer in office at that time
failed to report the application to him so he knew nothing of it until this
year. He talked with Mr. Clark about the matter and the owner decided to
wait and put an application in under the Pearson Act.

The woodlot contains 82 acres with the predominant species of maple
beech, basswood and elm. There are about 300 thousand board feet of loge
and railroad ties besides the cordwood. The woodlot has not been pastured in
16 years.

The owner states the supervisor told him in 1924 the law did not
apply to small landowners but only to large ones so he was not eligible
under this act. The application for exemption 0n Mr. Clark's woodlot was

never accepted and of c0urse in that case he received no benefits from Act 86

— 1.00-

of 191?. It is, however, interesting to note the taxes and the amount of each
that influenced mr. Clark in making application. It will be noted in the
following chart the taxes which in the last few years have been bearing hard-
est on both the farm and the woodlot.
Beckwith, Ovid, Michigan.
Area of Farm and Woodlot, 120 acres.
Section 2, Victor Township.

Year Valua— State County Twp. Road School High. County Covert Total

 

tion tax tax tax repair tax Imp: Road Road
tax
1911 $4200 $14.66 $7.86 $6.15 $12.60 $12.43 $55.53
1912 4200 12.89 6.80 6.03 16.80 17.09 59.63
1913 4200 19.82 8.23 5.17 10.50 19.03 4.20 8.40 75.35
1914 7000 13.79 11.41 2.94 14.00 9.80 7.00 58.94
1915 7000 21.14 10.87 3.43 14.00 14.07 7.00 5.25 75.67
1916 7000 14.21 12.46 5.18 21.00 15.40 7.00 8.75 84.00
1917 7000 18.90 13.86 5.04 24.50 21.28 10.50 94.08
1918 7000 17.64 13.79 4.69 24.50 15.33 10.50 86.45
1919 7000 29.19 19.46 12.04 24.50 20.02 14.00 20.58 139.79
1920 8800 35.02 36.26 114.40 30.80 39.51 8.80 21.30 286.09
1921 8800 36.26 47.08 121.44 30.80 33.09 4.80 17.60 295.07
1922 7800 25.12 51.09 92.82 23.40 44.85 15.60 256.08
1923 8000 24.88 49.28 80.25 18.00 46.58 16.00 19.02 252.01

1924 8000 20.96 20.44 72.56 8.00 41.52 16.00 12.16 22.50 217.20

 

Charles Clark, Grand Ledge.

Area of Farm 91 acres.
Section 13, Eagle Township.

Chart of the different taxes for the years 1919 to 1924, inclusive, valua-
tion being $4,000 forthe years 1919 to 1922, inclusive and $3,600 for 1923

 

Year 1919 k920 1921 1922 1923 1924
State Tax $16.68 $16.36 $16.92 $13.08 $11.70 $9.36
County Tax 11.12 17.00 22.00 26.68 23.41 28.38
Township Tax . 5.23 6.64 5.68 11.48 8.42 16.70
Road Repair Tax 10.80 10.60 11.00 6.92 6.77 2.52
School Tax 8.64 11.96 14.48 14.64 14.00 15.23
Highway Improvement 19.60 7.72 12.24 9.44 13.03 10.80
County Road 5.40 9.00 2.76 8.00 10.75 11.76
Covert Road 2.98 2.82

 

TOTAL 83.83 81.03 90.82 85.00 89.30 83.21

— 1.03--

In Ionia County five land owners have filed application for tax reduct-

 

ion on woodlots under Act 86 of 1917. Of tLe five, four have been accepted
and one rejected upon the owners Own request.

Mr. E. D. Lambertson filed application Dec. 10, 1918 on a 20 acre wood-
lot located in the NE% of Section 31 Orleans Township. The total fiarm area
censists of 160 acres of which 120 acres are under cultivation. The woodlot
consists of natural reproduction with 300 to 500 trees per acre ranging from
seedlings to mature trees. Maple and Elm predominate with merchantable tim-
ber in the form of cordwood and logs.

In an inquiry Mr. Lambertson stated that the Act had reduced his taxes
about .07%. The county treasurer's records show that Mr. Lanbertson's valua-
tion was $10,000 on both the farm and woodlot and after taking advantage of V
the tax reduction act his valuation was $9,350 a reduction of $650 or $32.50
per acre of woodlot. From 1919 thru 1924 Mr. Lamberton's valuation remained
stationary. A note on the county books along with a description of the pro-
perty states that Mr. Lambertson receives a $650 reduction in valuation under
Act. 86 of 1917 and this is carried thru and entered each year by the super-
visor.

The valuation of the other land owners in this section has remained
stationary 1918 thru 1924. Thus Mr. Lamberson was the only land owner to re-
ceive a reduction in valuation over this period and the Act is working satis-

factorily only in his case.

 

/€h9

Ionia (Joamfy

Oh/(«ns ‘nwrvsholb
Sec/I‘d” 3/

£0.1ambfl'ffion firref ”(Jr/n.» c.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

f-Cfio‘Ckn-inr, 55’ [1,4 Chicken-in? 8'0 E'. D. [anvbcr-f'SoH /60
I "aroo trig-’2 fon’rb‘1.?7 Pug/0940003 [171. 3/
I 2?” HI 22500,. Eff-5! HI = 10,0“; : [-70.07
I 25’” NH: .7500.- if-Y I7": v, 35‘0 = [57.55
i fix: 1,213? ‘35": $3.13,: /‘(Zo= 4,350 = (97;;
I 500: - 71‘ l ‘0 ‘- 65 re- r g I0 ' ¢,-‘
5 3250: 7:2;: 2509. 73;: £412: gag-o = SJ—I';{ Forolfia r (TerH a;
0 2 ‘ 2500: - 723 = ‘7 39'0 ' 2/4- °“”'5"'" ar "’
I? 2800 [72‘]: 2504” $1” ’I?11(= {de = ZIZ.70 '17 ”a 5
I!
I7! = loco
I?/;= [£0011
I‘Y/‘Vr 1,000
/?10: 1000
I72I: 4000
(712- 1,0(10
I723: 1,004
[$21. [,ooo
$0,?In'ckrrp r71 5%:
(figs’goooz’zflfz
I = 000: 4202
lil¢z ooa= £23!
{’10: $000: 94'4‘f
(I = 000: ‘ - ‘
In - 4000 :107-3’
[11: #000 r ‘YLW
[7": [low .- 41.09
5.5. WoaIEI-rcfre 1:; w‘ I Mprcm xao
1717-4700: ”.71, tend“;
li/i: (,700 c ”17* lfli’r (Ix/0000:
[‘1/7: (, 700 = ”2.87 I‘llfr [2,000 ,
(710- (,Ioo = 141.72 I720= ”,0”
(71]: 5,700: HIJV If'zl- [2,000
If”: 4,700: [77.91 Ifll‘ [1,000
/¢23= ("no = 151.74 I’NJ' (2,000
”I‘ve 4,700 : ISLE? I124: [1.000

 

 

 

- 141 _

Mr. A. N. Hall made application in 1925 for tax reduction on his 40
acre woodlot under Act 86 of 1917. The application failed to state the exact
date of filing. Ten acres of the woodlot is 10cated in Section 7 Ionia Town-
ship and 30 acres in Section 20 Ronald Township. The total farm area consists
of 150 acres of which 110 are under cultivation. The woodlot consists of both
natural and planted stock ranging in age from seedlings to 60 year old trees.

The County Treasurer's tax records show no reduction in valuation up
thru 1924. The supervisor of Ronald township states tlnn Mr. Hall's applica-
tion was never certified to him by the County Treasurer and the only knowledge
he had was thru Mr. Hall at the time of the June meeting of the board of
supervisors at which time it was too late to enter on the 1924 tax roll. The
application was:filed too late by Mr. Hall to take effect in 1924.

The supervisor of Ionia Township states that the woodlot of Mr. Hall
is all "OK" but the application was filed a little too late to be effective in
1924.

Thus the effect of Act 86 of 1917 cannot be determined until after
the 1925 assessment. Tho' both supervisors state that the woodlot was all
right except the application was filed too late and looks as tho Mr. Hall would

receive a reduction in Valuation on the woodlot as the act intends.

 

- 142 -

Mr. G. D. Wilson made application March 1, 1925 for tax reduction on
his 40 acre woodlot under Act 86 of 1917. This is described as 10 acres in
E; of N% of NE% section 15 and 30 acres in E% of SE% of section 10 and
an 80 acre farm N% of NW% of Section 14 in Ionia Township. Total area of the
farm is 190 acres with 140 under cultivation. The woods average about 15 years
of age with 1200 per acre.

The county treasurer's tax records fail to show Mr. Wilson was accepted
under the act. The supervisor states that the application was rejected at Mr.
Wilson‘s own request as he wished to investigate the matter a little more.
And if the application is again filed next year the supervisor states he can
see no reason why it will not be accepted.

Mr. C. F. Groff filed application March 20, 1918 for tax reduction on
his 32 acre woodlot. This was located in the SE% of Section 29 Orleans Town-
ship. The total farm area consists of 160 acres of which 128 is under culti-
vation. The woodlot consists of natural reproduction ranging in size from
seedlings to mature trees of the following species: hard and soft maple, elm,
beech, red and white oak and basswood. On this woodlot there are over 1000 maple
with a D. B. H. of 8" or over and would cut logs and cordwood.

In answer to an inquiry Mr. Groff states that the Act reduced his val-

uation but not enough and makes sOms of his fe110w townmen sore. In his es—
\ timation the 5% cutting tax makes the act a farce and destroys the attractive—
ness of tie Act. He also expects his valuation to be raised at any time.

he county Treasurer's tax records whow that Mr. Groff's valuati.n
was $3000 on both the farm and woodlot. After making application for tax re-
duction under Act 86 of 1917 his valuation was $1800 in 1919, a reduction of
$1200 or $37.50 per acre of woodlot. From 1919 thru 1924 the valuation on
this preperty remained stationary.

The valuation of the other land Owners of the Section remained

stationary except Mr. Woodbridge who received an increase in 1920 and then

 

remained stationary thru 1924. Thus Mr. Groff received a reduction in value-

tion and Act 86 of 1917 is working out satisfactorily in this case even tho

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0
f I. L
0
,. I H
} a
“6’7/ 7 r
r fjfaafl7v. I
e (real/Kit”? In
m fifIJToJJ a."
o. [III/ll 1r.
/ ooaoaoao .. .,
a oaoaaoaa .233... . :u
a G ... .l
P agape: ooaoaoaa ..
mes??? .. mums: . M
J. :...... . ...... aif/«LLLUU M...”
C ”00101234 A .... f
(/1211) C .... .. .... __ ._
”trifle? Hoof IIJ( 7?
III II 74/.W7flflll I /
a IIII/IHH 7”
4 ..m I
a
so
V
(#:10- d
ciiLflflMfl cs 1.
7.27.7. . . o3Sa$LYoI
//.7.5 Veg/3]! u.
0002,7744 r.’/...... . rrF
a. fill/I’ll r/fflollé c c .1
u . a 731?? 5» .C
a? 000MMMMW 00000000 r ......::::: f2 5:
Io/ c MMwaowao woaowwuw G 0000220 ”7......
. 00 0a 004 o
I s a a a
In .. $25,424 «712222422 r. oowrnwww ... ac
..., 5 ,7 K .. .... ...... 2 : .. .. .. x : .. . C’J3/I/I/l m Tafl
IT 2 .lluschIZJu. 71370111...“ : .... x z .. e .. r
n Jr Illzlll I/IZIJZZ 7970] 0 fl
fl 5 alfalMaIINHH 7701414174. III 21“”” F 6
, a n . 11 III/I, Hung/#7
u r .I/
v 0 D o I
o / . F H. 0 o 0
n9 I I E y
I C l _ .
I. f c
I 5 fr N v
7 c a bio-7M:
Q I u. 5 0 74,74
a. e r _ b .E . ..
.I I A) .41.].
T 5 G r 3373...
NH r 000 .............
. .
o rt 1m oaowuuww r oooauoo
75 a I. 1.1;. .
C 121222222 17726.55
: YI/II/lll
:—\K .V x... I
77701134 / i....... ...
I
“ism. a was“?
III/II I
5 447.74.
a . e _ [Ill/”Hal.
7 f 7 4
C N o
C I V
a
7 5&1qu 54.2
a H _ a
r 3244.57 . 3414/12;
.m «9.113.311 C 321,210..»7. 7
I 1.107.127. 227/5521 .r
“17.“..(000556 {I} I/III a
a ......1: 00000000 ts... :
W cocoon... oo’ooaeo ooamzi D so
scan 00 _ 0000 000000
... six...” “Maui! ”fin“... 5 “.../fix
ll 6
{“2233333 I Let... . ifsifflnn 1m 222132.42
74:,th...Ju.. 3211...... ¥...........:. CV: .
1 7770(234 . .2. : rs....
IIIAZI 79701.13 75
ivirffflfl Hflflflflflflfl III 1.222". I INwlsz.
II I/ I I II III]! III 1 774.. 917.1 27917.1(
IlllI/II. .Il/Illl"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the owner thought he should have had a larger reduction.

Mr. John M. York filed application April 4, 1921 under Act 86 of 1917
for partial exemption of taxes on 9 acres of woodlot. This woodlot is loca-
ted in the north end of J. M. York varm, consisting of 174 acres in Section 5,
Easton Township. The township books state that this woodlot is under Act 135 of
1911 but by this date this Act had been superceeded by Act 86 of 1917. The
woodlot consists of cherry, red and white oak, maple and 41m, young growth
with nothing merchantable as yet.

In answer to an inquiry Mr. York states that the act reduced his
valuation and is working out satisfactorily in his case.

The ecunty Treasurer's records show.that Mr. York's valuation was
$11,000 on the farm and woodlot in 1920. After making application for tax
reduction under Act 86 of 1917 his valuation was $10,400 in 1921, a reduction of
$600 or $66.66 per acre of woodlot. Fr0m 1921 thru 1923 his valuation remain—
ed stationary and in 1924 another $200 reduction was granted Mr. York. A note
is found each year on the township tax records stating Nb. York has a reduction
of $600 On the woodlot under Act 86 of 1917.

The valuation of other land owners in the section remained stat-
ionary 1920 thru 1924 except two, Mr. DeGrow and Mr. Goodwin. Mr. DeGrow receiv-
ed a reduction in 1923 and another in 1924 while Mr. Goodwin received a reduct-
uninIWS.

Thus the county records show that Mr. York received a reduction in

valuation and Act 86 of 191? is working out satisfactorily in his case.

 

 

 

I
Jove-qrvz
I7": 2000:)?”
NH.- 1.00: :1. 7:;
If!) -' 2990: (I 17
I171.- )000- (Z ’7

[7202’

 

,7 3 FIfA-ufi't ‘fl

has

901.

 

 

/0¢vr75

L

COKI’If‘1

J
{/7 7;! f [Rec g,~//5

/"

$e<ffan F

If??- yoré Forrsf fest-rut

_Lcanl'a
£;a:5fc’n

7:01 York’

‘00 Woacf/If Err/11f}? of?

WO-l-HCfllrpol“? fOUHS/I
I

’75an darf

7 I
?“3M7
Ltazfl
722’,
I [III
... 3 e ..
000
ooow
##1##
1W#¥#¥
2 a. z I t
0:23?
22221
7777?.

III, I

 

 

A
o
w 4777
0 VII?“
unnd » «mama
c7$L.H H.77r67
I

d3rfh “1

1::: .l 0 ....12:

m coo fl nu ”mum”

w "Z c a ”nun“,

’1’.’ . r
2 t .. t z 8 2 t .. : ..
0/134: 0,234.
21“!) “22”"
HHIHH (Hm/r

«

a m

1

3)!
5'1”.”
0 7p2..
J
H ”idyllawu’
d A.” ‘I “(:4 a = :
I

w a I 77fififi

F: m F 22222

d . 22222
?637/ FBI

‘ v qu .. c. a.

r vine. 0:231

B V760? 211)!
72260 $7777

W. I’// lI/Ill

. 2 e e u .. -
oowow W
00 o
5554:

444‘],
y“ t 2 s. ..
OIZJV
22.1.1.1
11717
Ill/I
C
a
q
6
c
D
K

m u

o .

L

h 79144 ”L nNWHJ

R 0.0473 [YWwD-n“
mnvar q .:
9322 I (o I l
i I], I Q. T c.

H ......e : 555 O
00000 2210’
“was” 7....

JW##97 JW¥4#4
2:: I: = 3:2 ~.
0:2)? 011:!
2mzun “nun”
"/HI/ ..1/Ill

 

 

 

 

 

 

- 146-

In Ingham County seven woodlot owners have applied for tax reduction on
‘ their woodlots under Act 86 of 1917. Six were accepted and one rejected. Of
this number three are located in the township of Meridian, one in Alaiedon,
one in Wheatfield, and One in Delhi.

Mr. D. M. Reckwell, section 25 of Stockbridge Township applied for tax
reductiOn on his 40 acres of woodlot May 29, 1919. His preperty is located
in NW% of SE%, also 831%: of SE71: of Section 25, also sw% of section 30 and SE%
of NW% of Section 51. The total area of the farm was 270 acres with 160 acres
under cultimation. The woodlot was of a national forest growth with 500 trees
per acre.

In an inquiry to Mr. Rockwell he stated that he had made an application
under the woodlot tax act but had been refused due to some foolish notion on
the part of the supervisor. The supervisor also states that Mr. Rockwell's
application was turned down and that he is not under the tax reduction Act. Mr.
Rockwell has been using the woods for pasture and also does not like so much
red tape as is required by the Act.

The records of the County Treasurer show that Mr. Rockwell's valuation
was not reduced but was gradually advanced as has all the land owners of these
sections.

In Meridian Township Mr. J. C. Grettenberger applied fortax reductiai
on his two woodlots February 28, 1921. One woodlot is located in NE% of Sectoon
27, and e0nsists of 16 acres of hardwood timber. The total farm area consists
of 120 acres with 105.5 acres under cultivation. The woodlot consists of a
natural forest about 25 years old with about 275 trees per acre.

The other woodlot consists of 10 acres in the SE% of Section 34.
The Total farm area is placed as 159 acres with 147 under cultivation. The
woodlot is of a natural growth about 25 years old and with 275 trees per acre.

Mr. Grettenberger, in an inquiry, stated the Act had reduced his

valuation and seemed to be working cut very sitisfactorily.

 

W?—

Ih7/rflfl7 COULr1{¢-l
«Side/‘brp'K/Ic ZWflS‘IIfi
See4o'on .75

.0. I77. Fat/4 Wr// Forrsf K's eras,

 

 

M,“ "7' 6957"“, ’0‘ T fockM/r// 704 E. F'Ar hear- I/a‘ Md 6 ha 70‘
i 49’
""té‘“"57"'° ”’5’: 3"“ fif” /7’{‘)€€’0=€7a-oo 14/7=’,/%o=/{5.’oo
"lf:3aoe: 37.50 I‘flf: 34": 95-00 1‘"? ; 3610: 70'00 "If: l/IV’O: 56:40
’7": 3100: In, 25 [120; 36" = Home [920 . 4’00. M 0.00 (920: 6, 7’0: $0.00
’"" 32“». ‘0-00 ’42“ 6’4"“ =”""' 142’ = saoo: Ila-5“ /92I: 4.4/40.- 90.00
102:. 320:. 40. ,0 (112: 44/“: : Ila-00 ['22: 5“,, z ,2 o. {e [921: 6,4“: (“‘0
mu. 3:“: 40.00 I123: Ila/ad = ”0-“ 112.3 : 5100: I2 ”‘50 [’23: a, 790: {0-00
"I": 27°” ”'7; ’4’" ”0° : 75'” 1124/: 4300’ ”7"” I12‘/: 5.5“: 47.2:
Wn-e. Craig Ila. Mre .T Craf 7 70A.
”Wt/aims: ’61:”: ”(i=6 oo : ”25.06
l'i’tft 2,500: 62.50 [11? = 3 00- 75:0
”I“ 3.7Me 30-00 H20 . 3700 = 2’10:
’72,: 3 2'0‘ fo.00 (72’ : 1,440 : II 0.04
1722: 320“ ‘3’"0" /711="/‘/“ . {lo-00
$0.00 [filefl/oo : Ito-no

I733: 32002

I724: 295° = 7125 (m = 3750 .- 673.75

 

Mgrc‘n 5”“ “(Crag-.7 5’" Id- 6P457 7‘“ D FaC/eWcK/ 30“
if

/4/f:f2700 31:35.00 /,/736I0: 22-5-0 ,f/gtgqaoz ' 50_00 [firtfzooogéiab
(1’7: 28003 35.00 I411. foo: 3.57:5: 14H: 4¥00= 56-00 NH: 20'0f 25700
"27“ 35%;: ff'jé fljj’fffffi.‘ 253“ /720: £13: 2??? "1"“ "M‘ 3355;:
{32; 3700: #42; Izzzcioao: £3,002 {1‘}; 5200; $33.02 I;§;:j;::: 3:590
[133: 37po \ 442‘ / 23: I000 ' ‘ : 529° ' '6 2.3: 2 0 3 0°

0 ['14: foe. 22-56 ;;3‘ 4,700: {$75 712.: 2:30: ao-od

[72!!! 32:0 : 70.00

 

c-Crceh (0‘

/1/7:’/eoo filo. oo
/7/f: I600: [(0. 00

If»: Hoes 45100
[’2]: 2000 : 5"90
[722: 2000: 50.00

.{0-00

(713: 2000:
.’?1‘/t [700: 42- 50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

we

 

"‘I’Iarrr ‘—

w

Merit/1"" nuns/77b
Secfl'ar] :27
1C.Grcflenéorlel—

Force f

[FCSCPI/‘C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig")?! 5”“ ’4a1w7770n/ $7-4 IC. Gl‘cflcn btr7¢rug
”2‘” “0:32.50 38‘
1121:3300: 32.“ I72&=(,5ao;152,72~ I?2o=27oa:
/7:2:33M=€,2.;o ”W‘s, IA.- [5172 /7:/: /Héov=/;,_LL
Hz]: 3300: 32.5,, ”22;: gfloo: now/5 I722 : prong : [11. u
"1": 30"": 75"" [12% iii: life? (123. I2 Hf‘l: [0% I/
' luv: M. 1174/: 75.76
Wt'llu'ams 774.
l710=’/0,Illa~/’7I3-'-M
/q2(: II,I00: ll 3-40
/112= II. no: I: 3.411
l123= ”.5011; In 5104/
I127: ‘7, 540: 77']
Dammon 714 Wm grcflcnbtffcr‘m
/ f I
720-7,..9: /qzt:a.2au.— 75820
H2” 7000: /41/:£,910= 31:;
I122=7,aoa:?9.5f "gin/7M. 32¢;
I711: @500: 7/-al/ (€23: 4,110. - a.
l9l‘(. 4,090 57.50 path-gin}: 70..{/
can 7/(
it ‘77. 7
I120: Sood= /07~nl/
171(: 7,“, : [I 7.05!
/721‘ 7,“) = [0741/
I723: 1.?" s 757.77
/’2“/ ‘.i : l./l/

 

 

 

- 149 -

The saunty Treasurer's records show that Mr. J. C. Grettenberger's val-
uation on 120 acres of land in section 27 in 1920 was $27,000. After apply-
ing for tax reduction on the woodlot the valuation in 1921 was $14,600, a
reduction of $12,400 of $886.00 per acre of woodlot. In 1923 the valuation
was again reduced to $12,494 and again in 1924 to $11,494.

The other land owners of the section received an increase in valua-
tion 1920 to 1921 except Mr. Grettenberger with his reduction of $14,600.
FrOm 1921 the valuation of all the land owners of this section have taken a
steady decrease.

There is little coubt but what Mr. Grettenberger has received a tax
reduction on his woodlot reserve in Section 27, and it seems to be working
out quite satisfactorily.

Mr. E. P. Kenny applied for tax reduction On his 20 acre woodlot
May 24, 1921. Mr. Kenny's property is located in sections 24 and 25 of Mer-
idian Township. The total farm area consists of 186 acres of which 120 acres
are under cultivation. The woodlot is a natural forest with the trees 10 to
40 years in age, and about 150 trees per acre, with Oak and cherry predOmin-
ating. Some of the tinker is merchantable as logs and cordwood and is being
harvested in 1924. Mr. Kenny states that the Act instead of reducing his tax~
es has increased them, and the act is not working at all, tho' he will have
to pay the 5% cutting tax on products harvested.

The County Treasurer's records show that Mr. Kenny's valuation in
1921 on the NE% of section 25 was $25,000. In 1922, after making application
for tax reduction on the woodlot the valuation was placed at $20,000, a re-
duction of $500.00 of $25.00 per acre of woodlot. A notation upOn the County
and Township tax redorde states that there is a 20 acre woodlot reserve. In
192:5 the valuation was reduced to $17,630, and again in 1924 to $16,730.

While the valuation of the other land owners in this section re-

mained stationary in 1921 and 1922 except Mr. Kenny with a reduction of $50)
from 1922 thru 1924 every land owner of the section: including Mr. Kenny, has

 

 

I50

Inq/udm Coon-7 f‘v]
Mfu‘u‘tln‘am 70.“)nS/71.fi

Secs/fan 25"
E-fi/(innec/ Farts, [F95CI‘VC

 

 

 

 

 

S/t War d /3'/¢ Kit-[Hes] /£aa.
4‘ sf
1120: ’64 700: 47.0! I720: lfiaoo: l5£.20
[721: /3'ooa: 970/ [12/ : 26,000: 154.20
[722: /J, 000: 97.4; [722: 20,000: )25110
[123; /2, .500: 73.28 [123= 17.630: 112.01
[424: H.000: 57-55 "24: 16,730: 10%.:76
Funk /§2
[quos’gcmma/ISM
12I:/L 000: /05.0(.
I422:/¢:oaa. 65.51
I723: 13.000: 65.52.
Inf 12,000‘ 7’r-‘75
Fat/£7 x574
>97
/?20: /o,’roo= 47-23
”'2’: 13.7oo= 82rz
[722: [1700: f7.yz.
I723= /3, 000 : 6'3. 3‘!
/12¢(- ”,000 75.74
BCnA/cq 310

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/5I

_Ihtffianq Ci

M‘r"‘/"“ Iv 754.0%: 5hr},
Seal/an 24
157/? mm s u, Fermi/71.5”.H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wises: 5'“ W /‘/A(//¢l{ l/l‘ E'. Newman ‘Yla C. A/rwr‘ndfl 694
”20: 6 zoo: ”foo. 00 n,“ /fzo :4 400-. yuan) 4/ /120: 5000 = {51“. V /?lo: {100:42.€o "/
I'll].- doooa [00-00 p... ’71] : 4510: n 2.50 A" lfl/: 2000: 50.“ ”I”! /72I: 3700= f2.” ,‘1
[122: (new: 20.2.00 4... MA): 1,590: 117.50 ' ”22: “00: 50.04 P‘" H22: 37”“ 12.50 4“»
[’23: '7’”a.' 7. 5'0 /’23: 11,000: [00.5% h [723: [£001 410-40 4:": [’23: 3200: fo,ao (1‘
/11V: 1,370 -' 3'" 25' [11q: 3,700: 2' [711: 1310' .77-50 ”,4: 3000: 75'. I0
E-Bel/I’Huk 740 I [A/, Lem/1.5 {44
if >t‘
1920: l/aoo-z 75100 ’729 t 3200 = (7-60 V
mu: 5200: 73:04 My” /‘?2/ = 5790 2 67-50 4/::
1?12: 52.00: 75290 at" [121 : 59100 : 57.50 A
’72}: ”200: 522.10 5: [1‘3 .‘ 5000 n 62‘ 0—0 Cr:
/12t(= #000: 59-» nu” 7500 = 54.25
Ca // /724.
I720 947/, 000:)‘(41‘75
1421: Move: 1.3.75 ye/H
[7323 /0,i’0= 02.7! Ftp
IYZJt ”91””: 57.13 A“...
[424: 7,000 : 52.32
F~I E. [C’s/firm} 3‘34 /(i[7n¢¢( 47a
Meant/zoo =£i$2l «A I720= /,5'40=’,37-3l ’4/
(42/: 70 0o: my.“ 1 nu = 2,570: 37.3, P"
Ifzz: 7000= lid/.7! v» {122: Sada: 74‘61- V»
/723- 7400: [942/ 4, #723: 5000- 7“"- A...
[fit/- 4700: [74.2" "r (121’: 55500.- 47./C

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ihqfia/77

[51.
(foam/H1

’4/4t/l'h ”can S‘ILHV/é
5ft/I'ofl /7

W4 Me/7’ol7 Fares-l WFSCFUC

 

 

 

 

 

Ewens 2”“ 0.63/9», We Fel/an 774.
[12./3 Hzl: ffdd [qzryf
1113: ,400: I722: 5700 ”2?: 730°
In): /c,‘?aa= I413: 500" "13: 71"”
,4;t{:/2,t/oo-‘ /7p/: #590 /‘il‘/: 71590
Gr} /I‘I-r7 ‘52
I721:’/2/?oo
Hm: J,700
MI]: 2,500
[0‘1“ 3.7""
Me/fcn
[1).]: /3(5‘oo
/112: 7, silo
[423: 7, 00:
P719: l‘f, 6'00

 

 

 

 

|53>

had their valuation reduced in about the same ratio. There is 1%ttle doubt but
what Mr. Kenny's valuation was lowered and he did receive some benefit from the
Act even tho' he thought it had raised his taxes instead of decreasing them
on this peice of preperty in section 25.

Mr. Kenny’s property in Section 24 shOws another side to the question.
In 1921 the vauuation was $2500 and in 1922 after the woodlot was exempted in
section 25, the valuation increased to $5000 while the other land owners valua-
tion in section 24 remained stationary in 1921 and 1922, except Mr. Gall who
was reduced $200. From 1921 thru 1924 all land owners in this sectdon have
received about an apportional reduction in valuation.

Mrs. Dora Foler applied for tax reduction on her 22 acre woodlot March

13, 1923. The property is lecated in the E of SW}; of section 29 of Wheatfield
Township. The total area of the farm is 102 acres of which 75 acres are under
cultivation. The woodlot consists of both natural and planted hardwoods from
2 to 25 years of age. Some of it is now merchantable as logs and cordwood.

The county Treasurer's records show that the application was not grant-
ed until after the 1923 tax roll was made up, the notice appearing on the town-
ship records in 1924 where it assesses 23 acres of forest reserve at the valua—
tion of $28.

Mrs. Foler's valuation in 1923 was $9000 and after placing the woodlot
under Act 86 of 1917, h‘erzvaluat ion in 1924 was $8000 a reduction of $1000 or
$3.47 per acre of woodlot.

The other land owners of this section also received aeductions equall-
ing Mrs. Foler's on the same ratio of valuation, so very little , if any, of
the reduction in valuation can be placed on the woodlot Act in this case. Even
tho the woodlot is listed and taxed separately, it is hard to conceive a greafl

deal of benefit dn this case from listing the woodlot.

 

 

1511

lh1han7

Cour. {‘1

“/A ea/fn'e/r/ ”tons/Nye

Sec/1.0!? 27

Mrs Dora [(-7/(1' Fél‘fS/ f€Se/‘”<

 

 

 

 

 

 

lee. qun 70‘ Mrs Dora Foal/c 1‘ /02‘ R. A. 1. an e. Vac W1. Warn c;- 5’0.
'7 er at x
[112: 73€O=7l.8-7 /?22:fl200=‘70.l? [122fi000:’75700.oa I422=£4oo= 70.00
I113? 7‘90: 51:0 [723.- 7ooo= $523 [423: 3406: 35.00 p733: 5,4,0 : (2.5-'0
[114:“100: 80.00 [1:14, {040: 77-43 Iq2¥~ 3000‘ 75' ”0 [12‘/=‘/,400=5—7-.§3
F.£- Cal/car ’944
A“
[fit 196750: 7‘/-.9'2
I123; 74/06: 7/. [5'
l12¥:4900: 05.3?
larval/or l/h F. Fowler ”44 F4 r «'64 We Serv< 234 “2.51”." e' P0," C; 32“
f ,4 , 1172:2400:- 75300
I"! “Mira.“ In»: [12 q: 23 = .32 run/7w; I123: 2! 00: 69.7!
['13:e¥": “-‘0 ’,23: 137-00 ’12': 29’09 65:“
[124- 2:“: 5;... [414’ Iflyguo‘oor
nzri/‘fio-
’7‘72-60

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F. Few/er

 

D. Pa//-'¢ I!

"1233600.???”
I‘ru: IIJO‘ 53.33
"If“ I500? 50.06

30.

 

 

 

)st

Mr. William A. Walton applied for tax reductiOn on his 40 acre woodlot
February 8, 1922. This property is located in SEiand S“20 acres of the NE% of
section 19, Alaiedon Township. The total farm area is 180 acres with 106 acres
under cultivation. The woodlot is both natural and planted with trees 1 to
50 years old. Most of the trees are beech, maple, elm, and ash of which about
one quarter is now merchantable.

Mr. Welton states that the Act did reduce his valuation and is working
out satisfactorily in his case.

The Gennyy Treasurer's records show Mr. Walton's valuation in 1921 was
$13,500 and in 1922 after applying for tax reduction on the woodlot was $9540
a reduction of $3,960 or $99 per acre of woodlot. Again the valuation was lows
ered to $9000 in 1923, in 1924 thirty acres in Section, 20 was valued in with
the 180 in Section 19 and all valued at $14,800 so it is impossible to deter-
mine the valuation on the 180 acres in 1924.

Some of the other land owners in this section received reductions in
their valuations but not nearly as much of a reduction at Mr. Welton's.

Mr. W. M. Kartz applied June 2, 1924 for tax reduction on 8 acresof
woodlot. The property was donated in E 9? acres of the NE% of section 1, Delhi
Township. The total area of the farm is 97 acres of which 87 acres are under
cultivation. The woodlot is of a natural forest growth with the trees averag-

ing 35 years old and 400 per acre. It is impossible to tell at this time what
effect the applicatiOn has had on Mr. Kartz' valuation as it was in too late

to affect the 1924 records.

15.6

lhyhfinw foam/c,
Dc/h; flimsy/A
5¢¢.‘/1‘0I1 /

Wm. /{|/¢r7‘7 Farrsf r¢5¢ru<

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L-l3ou/S 704 “‘5;er QJ‘nfeuc/co )0: ”-0.801 324 M/n—y, [9,. / f74.
2' “ I
".24: 7000;» [27.57 Hugues IVZ‘I= 5150010175 l12¥=35’0°=//K7/ ”ll/t /¢’,‘/00 = lo 7. {7
l3-33
if. 7A1? Son ‘70“- —_ ... T C. [J’sfb5/7/V77th /60
1
I727: #440: 633. 33 [Ith /‘6 YV'D : 70. 00
1‘46; PAIL/,5 (In
I921]: 3000 {€0.50
J‘. rht’l‘ /9¢
I
[127: 6’6“: 227.22
WA. \A/rl‘yhf 30..

[111.4]2 3000:4790 .50

 

 

 

 

 

7 -Jqu -

In Van Buren County there have been Only two applications filed for tax
reduction under the woodlot tax Act. Mr. Elgy Simmons of Pine Grove township
filed both one under Act 135 of 1911 and the other under Act 86 of 1917. Mr.
Simmons states that he was the first man in the state to take our a forest re-
serve under act 135 of 1911 and this would bfvcourse be the first reserve taken
out in the state at any time. This consisted of 20 acres of white pine which
Mr. Simmons states he would have been cowpelled to sell at a great sacrifice if
it had not been for the tax reduction Act. The timber has been sold and the
cutting tax paid out of the receipts.

Under Act 86 of 1917 Mr. Simmons has listed 40 acres of hardwoods, cen-
sisting mostly of oak, yedlow pepal, hickory, and maple. This tract was cut in
1892 and since then has been left to grow. At the present time this is about
60,000 board feet nerchantable as logs and dordwood. Mr. Simmons states that
the Act is working out very well in his case although the neighbors object at
times as they feel he is not paying his just share of the taxes.

Both reserves are located in the SE% of Section 3 Pine Grove Township,
the one under Act 135 is at the north and the one under Act 86 of 1917 in the
south.

The County Treasurer's records show that the reserve under Act 135 of
1911 was taken out in 1913 an 20 acres. Mr. Simmons ' valauaion on farm and
woodlot in 1912 was $5000 after being granted a tax reduction on the woodlot the
valuation in 1913 was $3300, a reduction of $1700 on 20 acres or $85 per acre
of woodlot. Then in 1914 the valuation was advanced to $5600 and remained con-
stant thru 1921. In 1922 ms. Simmons was granted another reserve under Act
86 of 1917 consisting of 20 acres. The valuation on the farm was in 1922,
$5100, a reduction of $500 on the 20 acres or $25 per acre for the woodlot.

The valuation has remained constant thru 1924. In 1914 Mr. Simmons valuation
was advanced very materially but a careful examination of the valuation of the

other land Owners of the section shows that there was an equal advancement in

nearly every case the sane year. In 1913 the valuation of other landowners in

 

- 158 -

the section was advanced except Mr. Tupper's while Mr. Simmons was reduced
$1700. 80 even the Mr. Simmons valuation was increased in 1914 it was a great
deal less than it would have been if he had not taken advantage of the tax re-
duction act on his venilyt.

From 1914 thru 1924 the valuation of the other land owners in this
section have remained constant except a reduction of $200 in 1916 on E. and A.
Simmons‘ farm of 72 acres and the reductiOn of $500 on Elgy Simmons' property
in 1922 after listing the second woodlot under Act 86 of 1917. I believe Mr.
Simmons has been aided in both cases by the tax reduction acts on woodlots,

and Mr. Simmons states that he has been well satisfied in both cases.

 

lf‘i

Van gar“? 60“”7L'1

Pin: Grave 72W" SALV/D
59C*I.OI7 3

57?? Sir-7777700 flrrsf' IfiSCr‘a/c

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.;r'h7r'nc/25 324 9r H.1fl/ood
0: 5?? ’1’7: $002fi.7q lfl‘ G liffifOI‘l 30'“
_/_‘y 1717: 5’00 :17 70 9igt “(00:20-5/0
: 1.?7.‘_ /720= Koo ‘ 2017/ M“ t [206: ’72 7'5-
'15}; Ifll= goo - 2m ”I?“ no: ”“7
[2.7“ q!) 900 _ [07 ’72,: (#00- 'IO
- MN! 5’00 ~ I. I? If”: ’4“ = g7”
{$113 (#40: 41‘
F/qy Sil‘nrnorv 324] 17‘ (400: 37.53
Mtg/50o: 7,3 - ’ 2i 2?:
I?! I fOOt 7.2, Iglgf 5’00: -35
HI?” 5'95: //./3 ’7’ :f00 = .2/
533‘}: rm nor ’ ”z W i ”"3
‘ 900‘ [-73 I ’710- foo: [.70i
I712: 530: I .7 /7”= 500= ”{7}
{or :1: ”if es: 2522’ ’2: 7’
z 0: 0' - : I '
/ 117‘ 5'00 3 MI;
E‘f—fl ‘
Mnfzioe sit/Loy 5' m "10,75 72" I 1"“
iii/:3 2”” Ira-39’ figfigz: g2;
...: rm: er taste“ w
[722: Jfioot 72.51/ 7) ‘5‘“: ”/7
553‘? 1%. £47; 5953;33:377
‘ - - i .
?Oo- ¢¢7 ”1433'“: lot}
/ 73'1‘1/75'0/7 [00“. '
5}; #33531“ I‘ll =60: (31
, - V - (-77 "1-2... :7 Fa.-.- .4
‘7- 1,100: 75:45 ”I“ 26-‘I5 5
27: ”22’2ng [720: 2.. 43 R"‘""‘
‘ 0' s
225' ZN}: $7.73 (3.5;; i?“ 5; Ac; '33- a} I?”
{4: nggf yrcz (‘72). 202.37
tr — 72.22 Iflf— 2w #4
17174400: ,9 15(q7 Simmon “/3
Iflj’: 5.600. 5%.?”
"7" 56'9"” lzyco
[1?“ .9600: ”lath?
(“MM 5400: use!
{33‘ * 701’?
" .5100 :
’72I:/ ,fl
22: :2 :. -
770.22.}; FOICWL Kese'~“‘
/7N= 102417 Ac+ $1, of Mc7

 

 

 

MO

;5}cH‘/CIV
Leanc/Cr Sig-77271 on S Fai'rsf' Kebcruc

.7
w
3,
mm
a
.m
C73
W:
V
Ca
P r
“G
B
C
mm
anm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a a
,3 a
2 J
V
/
7.0.7
. ..7. a
0 . . .
*1“, IN”, a 7 0! 5 c
L
W W: ...... M ”2.1"" M N
on 0 Cu. .0»
N .wa is...” . ...
”E... Sane m
I ‘ I : an — q
I, III e . .1.
GI an);
r
A a.
o w a“ ,m
u, 2 7 w
a a
I.“ 3
d.
41./v7 I
937w...”
(Ur/v ”/67W 5 zggr/ CHICO]
_....I; n Ian/.4} 0000M
tolwwoo 0 :3:: fissile/ac
0 0 0 0 3
42355! I: 2 u n I {or
= : .. .. : : t : : z : : :
... 23 1
mm Nahum m limb/en, RUNUW
.F m s
bl J M ¢
.7 o
r n E . o
T a first. /
379 2
m . .57
9773.. 7317...,
7. t 1.07 m ”wWWW/I 1,2322
¢?M7Hn .- arm/.8 t .. = s ._
\\ = ’1 0c 0
0¢mm= “9:. aomwo
www.m yg.7waw «.unn
//
j ’09 / 7.7—tare; it .
an... E as... ..«n.
wwwmm name” 7WWWm
I// // .I/IN" Mul/// L/
A a
3 D
I 7
o:
quw.)
s 1£a7¢
n ... 7 233%:
270 ,1
o «6337.
Mi/JZGOO = s. .. t :
/ O 000
= = .. : .. oMaoo
m WHMOG f/VWIJWWH
.I a 0 III
Siva/.66 We : .... s
o a = : — : 13f
1 uflflmc Illa“
77.17.41. 77???
I’ll, ’l’l’

 

 

- LOL-

Three woodlow owners in Allegan County have filed application for tax re-
duction on their woodlots under Act 86 of 1917. Two of these applications have
been refused and one accepted.

The first man to file an application was Mr. E. A. Darling on December
20, 1920. The woodlot consisted of 40 acres located on the S. W.a% of the SE%
of Section 18, Ganges Township. The farm censisted of 140 acres of which 100
acres were under cultivation. The woodlot was of both natural and planted stod:
with trees averaging from 1 to 40 years in age.

A cOpy was made and forwarded to the Supervisor on February 17, 1921,
by the County Treasurer. The application was never granted by the Supervisor
and no record of it appears upon the Township tax rolls.

Mr. Simon Kern applied for tax reduction on his 20 acre woodlot January
10, 1922. The woodlot was located in Monterey Township and described as North
20 acres of the W% of E% of the south east % of section 14, and the north 12
acres of the E% of the W% of the SE% of Section 14. The farm consists of 160
acres of which 140 acres is under cultivation. The woodlot is of a natural
growth with trees frOm l to 75 years of age. It is stocked with 300 trees
per acre, of which sOme are merchantable.

The owner has a small syrup making outfit of 300 buckets which produced
115 ga110ns of maple syrup in 1924. He also harvests the ripe and dead timber
for his own use on the farm. Mr. Kern states that after taking advantage of the
Act his taxes and valuation were reduced.

The County Treasurer's records show that Mr. Kern's Valuation on the W%
of the Eir, of the SE% was $4200 in 1921, and after coming under the Act the valua-
tion in 1922 was $3200, or a reduction of $1000. On the E‘s of the we» of the as};
the valuation in 1921 was $4500, and in 1922 it was $4000 or a reduction of $500.
On the twenty acre forest reserve Mr. Kern received a reduction of $1500 after
taking advantage of the Act. From 1922 thru 1924 the valuation on both pieces

of property remained stationary.
The valuation of the other land owners of this Section remained stat-

ML

A”! 4/7 (gown'l'
Mifll‘l‘c'f TownShl'f)
_Scc/I'on /"/
5. /|/crr For-(sf /?rjcr-VC

 

 

 

 

 

 

RD- /30wcr‘ 806-- ; .( Mrs E. C/euc/arzc/ /)0<1-
12b: 1,4500: [00.3] [‘72]: 7€ao=fl7dc7 ”Ila/O 500:45270I
722 = 41.00: 79-27 [722: 7799: I3) 7/ I722 .- IJ,;oo .~ I73. 7/
1).}: 41600 I 75 [723: 8000 = I57 Lo I72}: lam/'00? 20?. 97
$24 = #60“ 6 ’5 ”24‘ 9'00 = /‘725 /71‘(\ «1,970: 217.53
5 Se. brp'yhf 154.
Hllr’llooo: 2/.f7
;;j§= 5000:; $2
= 000:
/?2'{-‘ {000: 30.7?
FT)
jfl-Ky‘b'” Ira.
HM- I’ODt 25,177
lgzz: H00: [3,17,
I )3! [(00'2/-?
’71" ”00th '7
E“. I707):- 904 1!. Jha cr [206» $.Tcrl‘ «sea. 5
>1
I72]: 7%»: a? '75 VIII: 6200 z’léféz ”111/:700369/5 H2]! ”0:415? I72(:"Ioo:”?;/; Iatr’fizoofi/Jz
I712: 7590: 01745 I722: (200 = NI. 2 I112: 45“.- ?4 5'7 [732;- 106: .4/4 I7zz=£loo= .07 fijzuhooswnl
[423: 7jaa : /‘/742 #713: (200 = £23.?! [71121/5’00’77.” [’23, 3209?‘ i3 /flJ-‘ 000*717/ I70:4100='J.7J'
[’24: 75:00: lid 50 /?1‘(= 4200 = /2r.62. 1114; wow Ho? "ngzoouas‘r [flruwaw 83w If1(:‘/[I0"7.?I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- 163 -

ionary from 1921 thru 1924 except Mr. R. D. Bower who received an increase of
$200 in 1923.

The records fail to disclose any Special item or assessment of the
woodlot, but nevertheless Mr. Kern received a reduction in valuation of $1500
on his proPerty after making application under Act 86 of 1917, while the val-
uation of all the other land owners of this Section remained stationary or
were increased.

The Supervisor stated that Mr. Kern's application for tax reduction
had been granted.

Mr. Leonard Stallcamp applied for tax reduction on his 32 acre wood-
lot March 10, 1923. The woodlot is located in Ganges Township on the 8% of
the 3% of Section 31. The total area of the farm was 148 acres of which 100
acres were under cultivation. The woodlot is of a natural growth with the
trees 20 to 80 years of age. The Supervisor was notified March 16, 1923 by
the County Treasurer. Mr. Stallcamp stated that his valuation had not been
lowered, and the Supervisor told him that his woodlot would not classify under
this Act, and advised him to wait about three years until more young growth
started so as to satisfy the "1200 trees per acre" clause.

The Supervisor in an inquiry stated that he was out to see Mr. Stall-
camp last Spring and he had made no effort to meet the requirements of the Act.
He stated he might do so at sous later date. So Mr. Stallcanp's application
was rejected by the Supervisor, and a note placed 0n the originalaapplication
blank in the county Treasurer's office, not to notify the Supervisor in the
future on this applicauon.

Taxes on an 80 acre farm valued at $6400 in Section 4 of Monterey

Tswp., Allegan County for 1924.

State $14.55 Sch 001 $52.03
County 14.91 Highway Improvement20.92
Township 9.86 County Roads 14.91
Road Repair 20.92 Road District 5.82

TOInL $154.02

- 164 -

The school tax is two times the amount of any other single tax, but the
road tax when added tOgether is higher than the school tax. Thereal tax
burden of this Township is School and Road taxes voted by the peeple themselves.
TAXES ON AN 80 ACRE FARM; MONTEBEY TWP,¢ ALLEGAN COUNTY.

Section 14, $8000 — 1924.

State $18.32
County 18.64
Township 12.32
Road 26.16
School 39.76
Highway Improvement 26.16
County Road 18.64
Road District 7.28

TOTAL $157.28

TAXES RAISED FOR DIFFERENT BOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS IN

MONTEREY TOWNSHIP, ALLEGAN COUNTY., 1924.

State $2,962.41
County 3,012,15
County Road 3,012.15
Township 700.00
Township contingent 1,258.16
School 7,232.43
Highway repair 4,229.7?
Highway Improvement 4,229.77

TOTAL — — $26,535.84

 

x .95“

MUSkc 7017 CORI'I‘f—tf.
Ho/v‘on 75wr1 5791/47

Sec‘f-[On H
Anc/rcm/ 0/50/‘7 Fore-5']- Rosrruc I424

 

 

 

 

KFcfchon i‘ao. C. hclbfarcl 30a IRChurch 80*
21 is?” ”'2! - 5‘000 I721: ‘Ioao
2 = quao I422 = 5000 1722 : 000
3- WM [423 = 5000 H23 - 5'00
4;: foo /?24= 5000 1724- 7500
WI Cree/7911‘ 7064.
1‘72! 9,3360
l???: 3300
’72}: 3300
I724: 3300
h ..
G PaulSor-l S’OL fla’sd” 60“ F “(j/5W1??? fa
)V 172/: 35100 (12!: #000
I“! = 1500 I722: woo /422~ #000
{233‘ ”if: I123 4°” my :3"
= o ‘ 7 0 = 00
Tin-Ibrr Kestrv '-'—-
B-ArCher €00. Wr,Hc1-1Irz On The.
J wamsl—n')? Tax f?!car~(/s
’QZI 10000 For [421/
’z‘éié‘ ‘ °°
I 000‘
l??? 4 £000

 

 

 

 

 

_ 166 -

In MuskegOn County three woodlot owners have applied for tax reduc-
tion on their woodlots under Act 86 of 1917. Two are located in Bolton Township
and the other in Havana.

Mr. Andrew Olson applied for tax reduction on 9 acres of woodlot Dec-
ember 26, 1923. The total farm area consists of 80 acres of which 60 are under
cultivation. The woodlot is composed mostly of oak wdth an average of 40 years.
A few lOgs and cordwood are now merchantable. The woodlot is located on the NE%
of the 101% of the SE}; of Section 11, T. 12 H. R. 15 w.

The County Treasurer's records show that Mr. Olson's valuation on the
80 acres was $4000 in 1923, and after making application for relief under Act 86
the Assessor placed the valuation, in 1924, at $3900, but the Township Board of
EqualizatiOn again reduced the valuation to $3700. This gave Mr. Olson a reduc-
tion of $300 in valuation, or $33.33 per acre for the woodlot.

The Township records show no special valuation or assessmentfbr
the woodlot, but under the description of the preperty the words a "Nine acre
forest reserve" appears.

The valuation of all the other land owners of this section remained
stationary, Mr. Olson being the only one to receive a reduction. It is hard to
say what benefits Mr. Olson may receive in the future from the Act, but at the
start his valuation was reduced as intended by the law, and all indications point
that the Act will work satisfactorily in his case.

Mr. C. J. Olson of Holton Township applied for tax reduction upon
his 40 acre woodlot March 12, 1924. The total areatof the farm consists of 160
acres, of which 100 acres are under cultivation. The woodlot is located in the
NE} of the NW% of Section 35, and consists of 40 acres of virgin Oak of which
sOme is merchantable as logs.

The County Treasurer's records show that Mr. Olson's valuation
on the NE% of the NW% was $400 in 1923, and after applying for tax reduction in

March 1924 his valuation was placed as $200 for that year. The records fail to

 

 

— 167 —

show any special assessment of item for the woodlot. The 40 acres was reduced
$200 in valuation, but the Act states that the value of the reserve shall be
$1 per acre for tax purposes. So in this case the entire 40 acres should have
been assessed at $40 and not $300. Although application was in a little late,
it should have been granted for the year.

The valuatiOn of the other land owners of the Section remained station-
ary between 1923 and 1924.

The Act reduced Mr. Olson's valuation $200, or $5 per acre for the re-
serve, while the intent of the law should have reduced the valuation to $40
instead of $200. Mr. Olson is receiving some benefit from the Act, but not
nearly as much as he should.

Edgar and Alice Manning applied for tax reductiOn on their 40 acre wood“
lot in Havana Township, February 9, 1925. The woodlot was described as the SW%
of the SE% of Section 20 . The farm preper is located in Section 29 of this
Township. The total area of the farm is 200 acres.' The age of the trees aver-
age 25 to 40 years, some being merchantable at the present time.

The applicationzwas received too late to be effective in 1924 so it is
not possible to determine whether they received any benefit from listing the

woodlot.

 

 

‘/

00“!
0 .
awe“.
Zn,
1.

2 t r :
(23V.
2222
a]???

It],

200

ch h50n

 

M

 

 

2&8
Ca“ fr,
Twp-
jlcir'on 35.
CWT. O /50 I7
Fbrcs/ Wrsrr/t

Majkayon
Ha/fon

 

Far- Forts-l Keatruc
/60

“Q labecfa/.rfcrh

 

 

300.

Malonc‘]

 

oo
00
0000

8000000

: : .o :
2222
7477

III]

5W6” 50/7 Ifl-af

 

0000
0000

I3 333

.o o. .1.

(23d.
2.2.1.1

’ I],

 

 

Mus ke7a/7

M

coulfi 7L

Rat/4 r1“— Tow ['1 Ship

5:: I'I'on 2?

2:4. Man1‘7inrl Farts] fi’StrI/t

 

I

372%: 700

f? Weir? SC/‘l

80a.

ILA. Manhinq V0
”27.!‘00

N0 M‘fifian off/1s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

{‘5'ru< /'1 (7114
F.A.Manr1fnq ’70 TF‘“"“" 90" M. Hurley 6‘0
1731186400 [724:1f8oo I72V=>flloo
Fifirfen?“ {/66}. .— _ - ‘ P0 Ill/75 70
sf 1 7!
I724: [5’00 172?: lfoo 1924: I700 1724/: /600
’.WFSCI'ICS I M-CPOr‘rc'zd P Por‘ff/‘7CIO. H04 AKO/II'HS #04, 6’75th 905-.
out
1
1724:1300 )y2¢=’Goo /‘fzt(-:,/SO(J 2724/?00 172¥= ”00

 

 

 

 

/?0
Mu5k€7on [afln'll‘i

Ra'al‘? c1 70w/75A,./b
5cc7’r‘or7 .20

54 mar—vhf r17

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/ Tmannc‘ '17 800. Féornnzuc5f 80¢»
I727=J600 "24./V52”
VNas/v lag“ C. Gerndgkcsf 6’4;
H21: 2200 ”275,400
__ — A. Whl fC gag.

[724:1/5-00 1924:13000

TWu-nSe/y you E.A. ann/nc/ 40a 5.Aawf0f7 9‘0“
”24¢: ?00 1721/:1f00 [?2¢=’500

 

 

 

 

 

— 171 -

In Eaton County one woodlot owner has applied for tax reduction on her

   
 
 
  
   
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
 
  
  
  
  
  
  

woodlot under Act 86 of 1917. This woodlot is located in section 13 of FaltOn
Township and is owned by Minnie E. Gilbert.

Mrs. Gilbert applied for tax reduction on her 40 acre woodlot May 7, 1923.
The property is lecated in the SW% of the SW% Section 13 of Walton Township.
The total area or the farm was 200 acres with 150 acres under cultivation. The
woodlot was of a natural forest growth with trees over 18" in diameter removed.
The township tax records in the County Treasurer's office show that from
1923 thru 1925 the valuation of all the landowners in Section 13 remained stat-
ionary except Minnie Gilbert's. In 1923 Mrs. Gilbert's valuation on 40 acres
was $2000 with a tax of $72.30. The application for tax exemption on the 40 acre
woodlot was filed may 7, 1923. The valuation in 1924 remained the same, $2000
with a tax of $68.96. In an inquiry to the supervisor he stated that Mrs. Gil-
bert's application had been accepted and that she would be exempted in 1925.
The records show that a valuation of $2000 was placed against the 40 acre wood-
lot but no taxes were charged and a note was inserted to the effect that it was
exenpted under Act 86 of 1917.

The main part of the farm in located in the NE% of Section 24 of walton
Township. The valuation of all the landowners in Section 24 remained stationary
frOm 1923 thru 1925. The records thus show th at Mrs. Gilbert received a $2000
reduction in valuation and as far as actual taxes under the general property
tax she was totally exempt on the 40 acres of timber. The farm valuation re-
mained stationary during this period proving Mrs. Gilbert was being benefited

and the act was working exceptionally well in this case.

)72.

[4/0/7 Comm/1
W64 //0/7 7544/7577"
5:: fl‘on l3
G’f/bcr/S Farrs'ffirscrv/C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

id fihnscn :70“ Aurr’rr 77a Fres/ fl [OI-
lqzzfqoaaz’f/l/tuo Iq)3=)€oao=,¢ll31f.?’v’ 142395;” =/L/¢.
HUI: mm: 1&7.” I72‘/_‘ 4000‘ (59.70 Hz;- (foo ~' /L 1‘19
”25.— 7000: / 7.20 [725 ~ éouo- /2? f‘f I?) 1 ‘37”: l}?-
‘
Web/'nsofi Ma 5‘hern-ran 744,
l721=>f§000:)’)I2-4>’
I?! - food: /?f. 75’
[7; = food! [02.4’!
jl'léyf ‘Vél SlkffiWa/nr/ #0;
/‘72.3~ 209V 72 30 172}:
lflfi‘ 2m?a Li’fb [719:
[7415: 1000:,V0 fear fr "1] [713:
h(1c/..~flc~l?(af/r/f
Fa cbf
K55:r U:
401

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13%

Fafd/‘l Coup—1%?

Wa/fon nwr‘rSA’I/b
'-S¢c'/far‘7 2?

M. Gli/ber‘f ITOFC'S" Rage/rye.

 

 

 

 

9,, [Fob/r1301? /l0a M. G.'Ibcrf /60a.
xo,5oo. 244/07 Hay-"y -
a,fao= 236./(. I92‘/; 3:32: :33]???
0,500- 2/5?/(. /725: @0003 /¢3';1
1 3f I‘oa- 7, [Dan 649x177 lava.
7000:174 05’ ”23' 4500: ’6 3"”
700“ I57 y 1724: £500: 130.47
7000' [1.13 V /725.: 4500’ 123??
/ G’- Hcr'jlcv‘ 604..
’72]: 330°?)I82»7?
172$ 3;”1 7““
/72:= 3 00' £7.61

 

 

 

 

- 174 -

In Lake County onewoodlot owner has applied for tax reduction on his

   
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
 
  
  
   
 
  
  
   
 
  
  
  

-woodlot under Act 86 of 1917. This woodlot is located in Section 26 of Dover Town-
ship and owned by we. Clark Trowbridge. Mr. Trowbridge applied for tax reduc-
tion On his 20 acre woodlot April 1, 1925. The pr0perty is located in the Wfi

of Séof the E% of the NE% of section 26 of Dover Township. The total area of

the farm was 80 acres wdth 50 acres under cultivation. The woodlot is of a natu
ural forest growth with 1500 trees per acre ranging frOm 1 to 200 years in age.
It is a hardwood stand of Beech, Maple and Basswood with part of it merchantablo
as cordwood and logs. In an inquiry to Mr. Trowbridge he states the act was
working out all right in his case and he was satisfied.

The township tax records in the County Treasurer's office show that the
valuation of all the land owners in Section 26 remained stationary from 1924
thru 1925 except Mr. Sutton who received a reduction from $450 to $400 on a 40
acre farm, Mr. C. Glenn received an increase from $650 to $700 on 40 acres,

and Mr. Trowbridge who received a reduction from $1900 to $1500 on 80 acres.

Mr. Trowbridge's valuation on 80 acres in 1924 was $1900 with a tax of
$69.80. He applied for tax reduction under act 86 of 1917 April 1, 1925, and
his valuation for 1925 was $1500 with a tax of $50.84. The tax record has a note
inserted, 20 acre woodlot exempt under Act 86 of 1917 but has no special entry of
valuation or tax.

Thus Mr. Trowbridge received a reduction of $400 in valuation on his
twenty acre woodlot by aprlying for tax reduction under Act 86 of 1917. The Act
is working in Mr. Trowhridge's case as is shown by his own statement and the

township tax records.

I76

lat/‘C CDMrlfLr

Doufr‘ nouns/It'll;
58¢.fl‘on it

C. 7]”014/ Ar I. (/7 t. f—orcjf-

P¢6¢r~v<

 

 

 

 

 

 

1'7. 5..” on ‘70 W74 , I. Y 90. ch If. c ya. Cy."7—,.,‘..:’yb,.,-(/7c n
J"5°"“‘” "”"“’7”'=/~72-33 ”251* 3005757. 7/ I?)z:/7doe£¢30($’va)
: ‘IUD /3-55 [925: ’00: 30.4717 /72;:/5’do:30.71f ’9) .I;Oo:;0.f¢(‘°‘,

WJD’a/In/ 9L :7 M7}ve/1r 40 . 77“?!”53

:53? is? 53* at ,m
: o t :- 1 *
17);:No 7'4]
4 P' Va/uO/l'ifl
filtrrr f
h/rt'l/¢n/n
£2.7uy‘n‘l
rfi‘ X

C. @7d (/04 c. 5" TI” 46“: y F. I-fc o/ (/ page
2,740 . 32.?3 mph/250 . 2 3.70 1121.- Hoo~ #043
= 7’00 = 30-9‘? [7252 700 = 23.7! 1715‘ I100- 324’?

c. Flakfrfc/7c 46'“ C' ”C‘f‘F 71H
’“Z‘flwm "”1 luv-fie” =19.”
/71 ‘ ””0 3 ,3 3 I725: l‘fl/O .- 7. 1/5

 

 

 

 

- 176 -

In Gratiot County one woodlot owner has applied for tax reductionaon
his woodlot under Act 86 of 1917. This woodlot is located in Section 9 of
Elba Township and is owned by Chas. Kerr. Mr. Kerr applied for tax reduction
on his 39 acre woodlot march 22, 1924. The preperty is 85 rods East of quar-
ter post in Section 9, 111 rods East, south 56 rods and fleet lll rods. The
total area of the farm is 160 acres with 100 acres under cultivation. The
woodlot is of a natural forest growth with trees 8 to 20 years old and 500
per acre. It is a hardwood tract consisting of oahg maple, beech and papal
wdth some of the trees merchantable as cordwood,

In an.inquiny to ur. Kerr he states that he does not know whether he
is receiving any benefit from the act or not and that he thinks the law should
be more liberal as to the number of acres of woodlot in pr0pertion to the farm
land area.

In an inquiry to the supervisor he states that Mr. Kerr's woodlot was
accepted under Act 86 of 1917 but that he does not want any more as the Towns
ship is heavily bonded and needs all the taxable prOperty possible.

The township tax records in the County Treausrer's office show that
the valuation of all the land owners in Section 9 remained stationary from 1923
thru 1925 except Nb. Kerr's. Hr.IKerr's valuation on 800 acres in 1923 was
$16,700 with a tax of $711.92. He applied for tax reduction on the woodlot
March 22, 1924. The valuation was reduced to $15,200 with a tax of $574.23.
The valuation remained the same in 1925 with a tax of $556.92. A note was
inserted in 1924 and 1925 stating that Mr. Kerr was exempted on a 39 acre wood—
lot under Act 86 of 1917 but there was not special entry of valuation or tax.

On.the south of the NE%, Mr. Kerr's valuatizn was $1500 in 1923,

$1800 in 1924 and remained the same in 1925. This being an increase of $300
in valuation, while on the 300 acres Mr. Kerr received a reduction of $1500
in valuation or $38.46 per acre of woodlot. The township tax records prove
that Mr. Kerr was receiving 30:8 benefit and that Act 86 of 1917 was working

out quite satisfactorily in his case.

I7?-

gunner Caunf‘f

F/ba ”WHS/zflb
r5<<=71l|DI7 7

6515 /1’err Forrsf ifScer

 

 

 

 

 

 

”0 Djfiam #64 Par-hr 5’0 .L A5,? e 7rfr/ ?da.
I721$2po=fl¥3 I‘ll} ”0357.27 172}—}-‘[:.1—./,/u/L1nr/g, Cu /our-r “far A'e‘h
I?)I~/./2aa:‘/7f‘/ Iiz'bi’oo- 31.27 I‘u'r
MHz/noun.” ”17:700'2iy/ Iris. I, I/ n r u I. ,.

M04 )f C. /(¢ 1- 1- Fa
>9“
I72Jrlfoo: 7o.f‘/
/7I‘l: [gpoz 7}.3V
[74.5"~ /g«az/= 6.5176
.2!” f C. /K€rr 300
I 1335‘ 700.— 7//.71 .
.34:/5"200= INIJ} ‘ ffscl-vr an Towns hr T‘X/T’ec-wr/ns
l/EAJ-/I:Zao= .75L.?z}1‘/ F0P(’f ;¢jf<el|q/ Asjrsssn-y ,.-¢o,~y4/“,,c,

 

 

 

 

 

 

- 178 -

In.Newaygp County two woodlot owners have applied for tax reduction under
Act 86 of 1917. One is located in Section 10 of Everett Township and owned.by
Mr. Henry Hertzer.

Nb. Hertzer applied for tax reduction on his 35 acre woodlot in 1924.
The preperty is located in the NE% of SE% of section 10 Everett Township. The
total £arm.area is 160 acres with 70 acres under cultivation. The woodlot is
a hard wood tract with black and white second growth, sore is marshantable as
logs and cordwood.

The township tax records in the County Treasurer's office show that
the valuation of all the land Owners in the north half of the section remained
stationary except Mr. Lenholm who received a reduction from $2400 to $2100 on
80 acres in 1924 and remained the save in 1925.

In the south half Mr. Orengberg received an increase on the north 40
acres and a reduction on the south 40 acres. His valuation on the north half
in 1923 was $700, 1924 $1000 and 1925 $1100 while on the south half in 1923
the valuation was $1200 but was exempted on the taxes. In 1924 the valuation
was $1000 and taxes $30.78 Wllle in 1925 the valuation remained the same and
the tax was $28.57.

The Burton Estate of 40 acres remained stationary in valuation at $425
from 1923 thru 1925.

Mr. Sutherland's valuation in 1923 was $325 on 40 acres, in 1924 re-
mained the same and in 1925 it was reduced to $250.

Mr. Hertzer's valuation on the E% of SW% remained stationary at $2200
on 80 acres from 1923 thru 1925, while on the N5 of 35%,- the valuation was $800
on 80 acres in 1923. After applying for tax reduction on 35 acres under Act
86 of 1917 his Valuation in 1924 was reduced to $450 and remained the same in
1925. In 1924 a special tax entrf is found, 35 acre woodlot under act 86 of
1917 Valued fortax purposes at $35 and same in 1925. The tax on the 35 acres
in 1924 was $1.09 and in 1925 it was $.97.

Ilren the we find two other reductions in valuation in the south half of

17¢?

Neg/61.770 Coun’s/

EVCP‘N nouns/Inf

/0

Secfl.arr
H Htl‘ffcr Forfsf ”(SCI'VC-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n
A
w n a
L J
”nu , (M
C . . . A V7.6
. 239 z 57/
I ‘7‘ ”[317
7 : a .. 5 .. I ..
1.
n on” a 550
c d U: a 2.15
ab, 5 2
1.1222 .r ’33
C Jn .... n
: .... I 3U:
E 3dr.) 7 W. I...”
2.12 I; 0.77
01,”: f [I]
e s a
m H e y
Y K 1.
H .
7‘6 4! I
75‘ «.77 s
i n e t
m gs; 037 r al? fl 4’...)
nag/«.74 _.. .. F 1’ 11”,,
t = __ 000 P 0..
n 00W 055 n... u 55.:
.I 00 guru! .0 3““
L ”W“ t: .... {3 u 1
6". .-
fifils. 345 Jet 3?:
in "up 1” nun
2.42 [III ”H! II!
770/
A
0
7
_
02%
274 67.
e VII 7.7.2
h. 1L7. Ira/bl-
ofli; may
4! : ..1. 00 0
5 one :1:
MM” 22:
B 222 is .n c
I...... 3U];
Jul: 222
221. ale/all
410.7 III
I],
e
o I
8 5
at
...
e 4'
II
174 .0 691 my)?
R 27.2 .m 2.2.x _HMM
c sou/u. r 1!]... ,W
a O = = C I ‘3
r ::m . can 900
5 0M0 .J 000 060
a 5 700 260
. fr.- I’ . III.
Vi’,’ J z = p o
-. ...
. 545 JV...
”..wa 7.22 2.4“

 

 

 

- lUU-

   
  
   
  
   
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
   
  
  
  

Section 10 neither one was any where near as large as was Mr. Hertzer's. And,
as the valuation remained stationary on the E% of SW% and was reduced nearly
half on the N% of SE% it proves ur. Hertzer‘is receiving some benefit and the
Act seems to be wofiking out quite satisfactorily in his case.

The other woodlot in Newaggo County listed under Act 86 of 1917 is lo—
cated in Section 31 of Sherman Township and is owned by Mr. H. Steavens.

Mr. Steavens applied for tax reduction On his 12% acre woodlot after
the 1924 assessment was made. The property is located in the E% of E% of SE%
of Section 31, Sherman Township. The total farm area consists of 50 acres of
whidh 37.5 acres are under cultivation. The woodlot is described as 8% acres
off north end of the we of SW% and 4 acres off north end we of N% of E% of SW%.
The township tax records in the County Treasurer's office show that all
the land owners in Section 31 received a reduction in valuation between 1924
and 1925. This reduction in neaaly all cases is about a $100 per $1000 valua—
tion in 1924. While Mr. H. Steaven's valuation in 1924 was $7000 on 50 acres
and with htis stated rate of reduction should have been $6300 in 1925. He
applied for tax reduction in 1924 on a 12% acre woodlot and we find this valua-
tion for 1925 placed at $5500 a larger reduction than any other land owner in
the section. A note inserted in the records for 1925 states that he has a

13% acre woodlot exempted under Act 86 of 1917 but there is no special valuation
or tax on this entry.

There is little coubt after looking at the township tax records but
what Mr. Steavens‘ valuation has been reduced more due to the woodlot than has
the other land owners of the section and the Act seems to be doing seme good
tho it is inpOssible to state the exact amount in figures due to the general

reduction in valuation over the entire section.

 

[9|

Newac/ (j €014.an

S/ICrr-ryarv 7;wn$}1l'k
~5¢<'/r‘0v7 3/

H-SfOUcrr Foresf fieJcruc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E. Tm c/Q // “Q J, 1'?- D" r *5 a
[12‘fjgoaa-‘f/RJT3 HZ‘I: écooe/f406
,qzy: 40.: g )3? 07 I925: dooa: /5‘/)-3L
G-Dc/laSS‘ 6’0 5/5To;(n ‘74 "(EMS/1‘27 KW
/72{:%/500 3,3257. V12}: 2000=ll512 /?2¢=”5’410=‘°/‘g’4.72
I42.) ' fapo = /02.2? I42 -' /?00 = #640 H25: 75"” ‘ lf7- 75'
I—WC(C f" [004 "(ifCeu/ens 20 WS'lr-nrdns 40 5.5fla’fn J00 6'5100('1 1" 5'3“"“IF‘ [‘07 I,‘ 5fauC/7 5.0
a”
If} :flyaofaacz ,ml’flufim Hz'rg/Jalfia 4? "Hg/wag»? ”mania” ’72 1“ 70’0‘76‘"
I71 = 7550: Is’7./5’ lfl5’l1’oD:J5'oY larvae-‘77.“ H15" MID-'7”! "15:370017“ "2 -. 55'“"37-“

F0 rt, r /?'5fru¢

172-1:
”15': No a “.1!
Ya In a n' a H

 

 

 

r

- 182 -

In Mecosta County one woodlot owner has applied for tax reduction on
his woodlot under Act 86 of 1917. This woodlot is divided into many small
parts located at different parts on the farm.and found in Section 8 and9 and
17 of Big Rapids Township. The woodlots are owned by Harpy liddicomb of Grand
Rapids.

Mr. Widdicomb of Grand Rapids applied for tax reduction on his 100 acres
of woodlots Nov. 26, 1921 but was not allowed until 1924. These woodlots are
located as follows: 8% of SW% a strip of 20 acres along south side of section
8, Ni or 813-} Section 8, es} of NE},- of section 8, as} of NW9; of section 9, that
part of the Nfi-of NW% of Section.l7 south of the Pere Marquette Railroad right
of way, SE% of NI% Section 17 all of Big Rapids Township. The total area of
the farm is 324 acres with 170 acres under cultivation. The woodlot is of a
natural forest growth with trees from 15 to 150 years old and 1500 to 2000
per acre.

The township tax records in the County Treasurer's office show that
Er. WiddicOMb owns 40 acres in section 7 which is farm land. All the land
owners in this section received a decrease in valuation on a pr0portional
scale in 1924, all remained the same in 1925. Mr. Widdicomb received this
reduction as did his neighbors in 1923 the valuation was $2200 on the 40 acres
1924 it was $2000 and renicned the sane in 1925. In section 8 Mr. Widdiconb
owns three separate descriptions, two are farm lands and one is a reserved
woodlot. Between 1923 and 1924 all the land owners in Section 8 received a
reduction in valuation almost on the rate of $100 per $1000 valuation. The
north half of Mr. Widdicomb's prOperty in the SW% is not under the tax Act and
in 1923 his valuation was $2800 on 45 acres, 1924 it Was reduced to $2500 and
remained the same in 1925. This reduction was about in the same pr0pertion as
was the reduction of the other land owners of the section.

In the south half of the SW% he owns a woodlot of 20 acres. In 1923

the valuation was $4000 on the 40 acres. The woodlot was accepted under Act

- 183-

86 of 1917 in 1924 and his valuation was reduced to $2600 and remained the
same for 1925. The records ShOW'aISO an entry in.1924, 20 acre woodlot
valued at $20 also in 1925 but no tax is charged against the entny.
In sectidn 9 all the land owners received a reduction averaging
about a $100 per $1000 valuation. Mr. Widdicomb owns the W% of NW% and NW%
of the am}. On the we of NW}: the valuation in 1925 was placed at $3100. In
1924 a 15 acre woodlot was accepted under Act 86 of 1917. The valuation in
1924 was placed at $2600 or a reduction of $500 and remained the same in.1925.
While the valuation of Mr. Dunkle's property which is located south of Mr.
Widdicomb's was in 1923 $3000 or nearly equal to that of Mr. Widdicomb's,
in 1924 his valuation was placed at $2700 or a reduction of $300,,eh0wing
that Mr. Widdicomb received a larger preportionate reduction than the other
land owners of this section. In 1924 we find an insert in the records stat-
ing that Mr. Widdicomb was exempt on 15 acres of woodland under Act 86 of 1917.
Thus Hr. Widdicomb received a reduction of nearly one half in valua-

tion after listing his woodlot under Act 86 of 1917. This is by far a great-
er prOportionate reduction than any other land owner received in this section.
And the actual records show that Mr. Widdicomb was receiving a benefit from
Act 86 of 1917 and it seems to be working out real well in his case on this
woodlot.

In the SE% Mr. Widdicomb owned 120 acres in 1923 valued at $5000, in
1924 he evidehlyisold some of this as he was assessed only on 87 acres and the
valuation was placed at $3000 which remained the same for 1925, thnsrshowing
he received a reduction as had all the other land owners of this section,
and also a note to this effect in 1925. But the supervisor failed to place
a valuation or tax against the woodlot.

0n the NW% of SW} Mr. Widdicomb‘s valuation was placed at $1400 in

1923, reduced to $1300 in 1924 and remained the same for 1925. Thus it gave a

reduction at alnnst the average rate of $100 per $1000 valuation as was all
the other landowners of this section.

 

4747 - 184 - 7 , 7 7 7 ,,m4,,

In section 16 all the land owners received a reduction in valuation
averaging $100 per $1000 valuation between 1928 and 1924 and then all
remained stationary in 1925.

Mr. Widdiconh owns 30 acres in 313%; of NW}; and we of the 103%. The
valuation on the so}I of mi was placed at $2000 in 1923. In 1924 a five
acre woodlot was placed under Act. 86 of 1917 and the valuation was $1500
a reduction of $500, this valuation remined the same for 1925.

The other two land owners in the Section whose valuation was $2000 in
1928 but received the general reduction of $100 per $1000 valuation or was
reduced to $1800 in 1924 and remained the same in 1925, thus showing that
Mr. Widdicomb received a much larger properti nate reduction in valuation
than any other land owners in the Section on this piece of prOperty. A note
was also inserted in the tax records to the effect that in 1924 a 5 acre wood—
lot was exempt under Act 86 of l917.and also in 1925.

The records thus prove that Mr. Widdicomb received a higher proportion-
ate reduction in valuation than any other land owner in this section. There
is little coubt but what he was receiving a benefit free Act 86 of 1917 and
it was working very well in this case.

In the We of the NE% the part south of the Pere Marquette railroad
was vlaued at $8800 in 1928, reduced $100 per $1000 in valuation to $8000 in
1924 and remained the same in 1925. On this part Mr. Widdicomb received the‘
average rate of reductitn per $1000 valuation ttat all the landowners of this
section received.

The 24 acres north of the Pere Marquette Railroad was valued at
$1200 with a tax of $30.75 in 1923, in 1924 the words exempt under Act 86 of
1917 were inserted and the same for 1925. In 1924 there was no valuation or
tax On this 24 acres. Thus Act 86 of 1917 gave Mr. Widdicowb a reduction of

$1200 on his 24 acre woodlot and was working very satisfactorily.

In every case where Mr. Widdicomb had a listing of any land under

 

 

— 185 - 7

Act 86 of 1917 On his 824 acre farm that part received a larger preportionr
ate reduction in valuation showing that Act 86 of 1917 was working out very

satisfactorily in all his small woodlots.

 

 

I96

Mccas'l‘oe Cour; {ll

[3"] Warn/5 nourish; I/b
5<C1‘I0I’7 8

H.Wi(/(/:'camb Forrsf It’rsrruc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

inf/(Var, £52717] w- C jira+7 Izo. rm: 1a {517,1
l300’3;5‘ "7’3"70°-JY75 I723=i7000:’7$o.73 Ink‘wo {721IHJ=71¢./7.29
N0“ "57 /’ “/79“ "’ '0 NHL:: 4300- 1417; Hui- 710: IN: //)y=7.ro:/7.VL
I/(Jo- 22 L 111;:loav = J24 («725: (300 = [1,"; lflge7;o. If.” [nt-‘D‘oufu
W N’IaSSCA/ 20¢.
flea-2’12 7'7

{Or/427
no=//.1_7

;.f4raf‘! Roe A-Ccnfr: V0.1.

. . 1t sf“

$122537??? I723:/300:,§K00

=ILaa-‘3241 I‘ll'lf /290: /./L
. /725- [20012747
E/qnfltr Sal? rém
I743y37ao?‘;93 7'
l71¥z3500e
ms 3.50 o= 7/- Io
H.‘W:c//Com1) 774.
V
quz:€aoo=/g 745,1/2aa
Mu : 000: rd
l735: 7000: Z/727}77‘
H. W/ dd/curvvb 95“-
l‘713)=52 fan =7“ko
NH: 2500 = u/ U
”2.1" 2500 = 5/ «>7
i I
in; Mfr/(r Bros #04.
”1.5367on alitqyn Lace ‘L lqzjflgorll7 2,,
lfle 2.:60 ‘ 47"} 40“ [724: 759: [fit/c
I711“ “WWI” /7z::7;a=/;.32
I !=
luv/.20: /
”0"“ :‘}A/oVa/u./:an 6rTaromTDAJI1i/1/3FCC0PI5
21.57 1- 0 u s : 2m;
I735‘floaofo/jo7
I‘H‘r} (foo: 515.47
I44::/j-oo: 31.77

 

 

l8?-

MCCaS/m Caun/
817/7156 Ewnslif
f; on
fl-SM‘c/(fl (on—:fiForQSf/PSCI-uc

 

 

 

 

In so Wyn/n.7,, gm 4 Very gut/- in w. M455: 1/ t/oi
1723 .243ng: 717 ma: yaw = 770A M21 ’uoa .15-{77
[724: 2000: ,7 4 l7)‘/: 4400: ”7,2!“ /72Y:1 co.— EH19
P725- Rooo- ya a /725~ 1,400: 71.77 /7;5: 2%»: M7. 70%

'm
[7233710052100
H14: [200: 3,./
[7119: Izoo- R‘l. /
0. "lvn?’ rrfl 20
I72]:/200‘=—?J’. iv;
/74«{: Mac I 7.40
”4;: Hey e '2- Y6
ICa/eucr/‘L ISYa Wynn/on 5’0:- g-Pefrrsofl Van,
¢‘4:3~ 2s:— zt i; hr 2 “Mar;
1 e _ e a: .
m2 . 4 oo . 77. M Nu': 325mfin

W.‘ (It‘d’mbw.
:55.“ w:
1 : ‘ J
7” zuvu' .74

 

 

 

 

l8?
/wcc05¢a

(Zen/y

B"? Evils/5 fifth-2561f)

{fa/'7

9

H. M/.‘c/g/,'c'o rm b F—orcs /‘ Freezer/c

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

bw'dd’ can-1b €04 WJ/E/fiz'lc ’1’an W aha-17;”: 335 thrrman If Vat I'fc lb-o. C, Chris f,‘ c 9’4:
I923= 3/00= FILL-too: 52.87 "23: a 2 - .~ 3' ~ I" y - 5"
max: we: ms "1.4322: 2:: is ’,333=!%22;3é:§515§32§§3; 5- g; 92:23: 15:23: 159%;
[71,. gave) "19.-5'50: 11.23 [f15:l/00=o\)).‘-/6 [715: Had nude (“gay-9’0: 7,'/¢/ l725= (/000: gl/_'72
F'- Wrn‘I/antf “(‘4
Iq23f11°°~ 2.57876
17273 ”0"" 3i"
I725: //’0= 23.74
Forcsf Kescree le'a
1‘723 =4
)72‘1= l5= A/o 7‘4:
[719: I5 = No fax
”2351/0050“ H23 =fioaogc¢fr ”57}: if??? 5%???
[6123: [300:33 71 1724: 2700: 70.0/ ”25': 5700 -' [o 796
ML»: 130mm. 5? ((15~ 2700- 5516
c. via/low 5’07.
I713=>¢V600= 37.50
/71f= Hove = 90-30
“/13, : {(000 -‘- 70.52

 

 

 

/3-’r

. Mccosfau Cour-n1",
Bic, Kern/5 Teams/7,75
SecJIIon /7
H- W/'(/(//Con-[) Ffirrjffesrruc

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. 5rr0u5¢ .ra H. Wid(/I‘Can1b J‘lq
,, .4 y _4‘ e
72? bum; 677%.1240- .70 7s
a : r F
Iron. J6 77 ")5.- {”"P7
MU Vanni/Ian 0r 74K
4 I
(4).]? 31M: r747 77¢
I-It‘l: 1000‘ 87/5’
[425 Java 7% 1??
IF» cl w. ”/1 u/pg/i/mamb 30
#00— 511: 17!}: 2000 73.04,
zoo: ,';.ar ;('(‘r= I!“ .1791
2201:: git/7y #125: Ifuu - Jfl-L’l
Farre/ Fr‘Sztvc $5
[713‘
[7175 5 flow: ~10 VII/MN"?
/n;.— u .. I. .. ,.
7! WK 8. O’r/c f/ gas 2" foul La“
: 2200: 51.12 Huh 2 o=e‘//
: 2000:5g/I [727: Ihvsf)”
: 2000: 771a I725. ISooe4/2_;3
.T 5fa¢kW(// VJ. IT/F;c¢/ y“
Muflooo. 2:47 “infirm/o: 6/I/L ”2
I717: 00: Al! H29“: 22w~n v; ,1;
fill: 700: /.2r Inf: 22M f/Ii I71.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- 190 -

In Lenawee County three woodlot owners applied for tax reduction.on
their woodlots under Act 86 of 1917. These woodlots are located in Med-
ison, Adrian, Rollin and Franklin Townships and one is owned by mes.
Laura Shumway, one by S. N. Wiener, and two by Geo S. Cook.

Mrs. Shumway applied for tax reduction on her 15 acre woodlot Feb.
15, 1928. It is described as the south 15 acres of west 42% acres of the
Eé—of NW§ of section 85 of madison Township. The total area of the farm
was 162% acres with 100 acres under cultivation. The woodlot was of a
natural forest growth with.trees on 5 acres about 82 years old and on
10 acres 1 to 150 years of age. The stand is composed of black ohk,
white oak and hickory with same of it merchantable as cordwood and 1033.

In an inquiry to Mrs. Shumway she states that the Act reduced her
valuation and she has no fault to find.

The township tax records in the County Treasurer's office show
that all the landowners in section 85 received a reduction in valuation
in 1923 and all have remdaned stationary from 1923 thru 1925. In most
cases this reduction was about $100 per $1000 valuation but a few run a
little higher as in the case of A. Johnson and J. Vallentine.

mrs. Shumway's valuation in 1923 was placed at $2800 on 48 acres.

In 1928 she placed her 15 acre woodlot under Act 86 of 1917 and the value
tion was reduced $1000 or to $1800. From 1928 thru 1925 the valuation
remained stationary as was the case with all the other land owners of the
section.

Mr. A. Myners valuation in 1922 was just a little lower than
Mrs. Shummy's and in 1923 it was reduced just $200 which made it $2500.
From 1928 thru 1925 the valuation remained stationary on this pr0perty.

In 1928 a special entry appears on the tax records as follows:

L. Shumway's 15 acre forest reserve valued at $15 with a tax of $.34, 19%

and 1925 the valuation remains the same wittla tax of $.30 each year.

 

I40

Lenawcc Couflf‘j

Mas/1‘50” nwr‘IS/yl/D
sccffon .75—

1.A. 5/Ium M/ac/ Brrsf firscrv c

 

 

 

 

go LSIIumWaY 434 I” E II: C ¢ ‘1 yda A TOEFLSOI'I 53
.1 y _I r f‘ I
1722:2700.- 6056 Iq22~ 5300: [2547 [pint/300.. 93.01
In): [700: 7.55 /923: 53.90: 111,. 45 103‘3900- 73.97
I721: lead: a 2.! 172V: 5300: lot. 67 [719“ 3800: 76 4?
/7)i'/1’00= 31.6? MI.“ 5300‘ In. 13 [115-3”“ 73.2:
Farts f
Reétl‘uf
[722:1 I
[123: 15: .31
[724‘ [5' 30
[‘125-' I5: .30
m. Hans h was
Ivzz=’/F5'00=’33572f
[723: [4100.- 300-0,
”’24: /¢/,uoo: likrz.
[725': l‘fiooo: 267.77

 

 

3522

 

 

 

 

- 192 —

Mrs. Shumway received a greater proportional reduction in valuation than
any other land owners in this section after listing her woodlot under Act 86
of 1917. And as she states the Act reduced her valuation and was working very
satisfactorily. This is also shown by the township tax records that she is
receiving some benefit from Act 86 of 1917.

Mr. S. N. Wiener applied for tax reduction on his 20 acre woodlot

May 12, 1925. The pronerty is described as beginning in the center of section
11 of Franglin Township, north 80 rods, west 80 rods, south 110 rods, east 30
rods and north 80 rods. The total area of the farm is 204 acres with 180 across
under cultivation. The woodlot is of a natural forest growth with an average
age of 25 years and a stocking of 800 trees per acre. The tract consists of
oak, elm, basswood, hickory, beech and maple. From 7000 to 10,000 board feet
per acre is now merchantable.

The township tax records in the County Treasurer's office show that
half the land owners in Section 11 received a reduction in valuation between
1928 and 1925. The other half the valuation remained constant. Nb. P. Geiger
received a reduction of $200 on a valuation of $8400, Mr. M. Becket $100 on
$5600, Mr. G. Service $100 on $2700, and Mr. M. Lamkin $100 on $2100.

Mr. Wiener owns the NW7]; of NV&', 5%;- of NW§—, Sis-,- of sw-fi- and SW}; of SE%.
In 1928 the valuation of the NW% of NW% was placed at $2600 and remained cons
stant thru 1925. In the SW% of SW% the valuation was placed at $1700 in 1928
and remained constant thru 1925. In tle SW% of SE% the valuation was placed
at $1200 in 1928 and remained constant thru 1925.

In the 3%; of NW7} the valuation was placed at $8200 in 1923. Mr. Wis-
ner placed his woodlot of 20 acres under Act 86 of 1917 in 1925 and the val-
uation in 1925 was reduced to $6700, a much greater preportionate reduction th an
that of any other prOperty owner in this section. Also an entry appears on the
tax roll, S. N. Wisner's 20 acre forest reserve under Act 86 of 1917 valued at

$20 with a tax of $.59.

The records show that Mr. Wiener Was receiving some benefit and that

 

167.6

lcflkocc Cokmf'y

F/‘Ar’lk/I‘n final-155:];
5¢</r'dn I,

5377- Wr'Sner Farrel-[Reserve

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sn. Mfr/'snrr ‘Idn P Gcr'fer ya n7_ 5a;ke? 5a 6. 5er-w‘c< yo;
12600:L/-/0 [7232‘39003‘7270 )723=¢5400=/3/V40 [72‘35’37003‘3'4‘
l‘71‘/= IZ1‘/= l92¥=
2400.— ll): I715: 3200: 43? x3 / 25: y509=//7.27 [913: 1600: ‘2‘23
' 70... ‘—_z:=—. tap—(7., ("2' _7/71
I
’3200=’/‘%-05(”04J Iljfi?$=€?ooa=L/.Ia
L7oa=l3a5‘r(7ou H.152 7.409-524;
Fares“! WeSeru<
I
I115: 20 : ,J7
C~L4WFSHCF ‘fa I‘l. Mao/‘6 fol
[923: 172335090: #200
l‘fl‘l’l 4‘ _ /7l'f=
I710“ I200: 2:.” [725:2auoalfl.7lf
754
I123=Iéaoo~l€230 Jul/30¢.) '
1114/:
['1’— 200.: ‘7’} 30( 50“) ‘
I
S.Wr'snn- #0 E'. fl/Izn ‘foa ?.n. wusnrr 40 M- Kern/{fin ‘ro
{gig/h I7vu= 47“? I423: prov: 32.61- 17.13: l200= La 57 flit?) 1,“): H¢JL
" 72V: 1 :
I¢25:17ao= 33H his: Moo: 27.24 ’,;§}_ I200: 33,;0 ”21,-, 20M: Jen

 

 

 

 

 

bhe Act has reduced his valuation. Act 86 seems to be working out quite satis-
factorily in his case.

Mr. C. L. Wisner's valuation was $6000 on 130 acres in 1923 and reduced
to $2000 on 50 acres in 1925. Both the valuation and acreage were reduced
about on4-third so there is little change in actual valuation in his case.

mr. Geo. S. Cook:applied for tax reduction on this two woodlots March 21,
1923. The one is located in Section 5 of Rollin Township and consists of 20
acres. The other is located in Section 5 of Adrian Township and also consists
of 20 acres. The one in Rollin Township is described as 20 acres in the north
west corner of NE% section 5 of Rollin Township. The total area of the farm
is 159 acres with 125 acres uhder cultivation. The woodlot consists of a
natural forest growth with trees averaging about 25 years of age and about
250 per acre.

The Township tax records in the County Treasurer‘s office show that the
valuation of all the land Owners of section 5 remained stationary or advanced
between 1933 and 1923 except Mr. Cook's and his was reduced.

In 1924 Mr. J. Landson's valuation was reduced $300 on a $4600 valua-
tion on the 17;;— of NW—i— and $500 on a $8500 valuation on the E421 of m}, while
on East 60 acres of the Né-of the SE% it was reduced $100 on a $1500 valuation.
Mk. A. F. Degreen was reduced $100 on.a $1200 valuation and A. and C. Degreen's
was reduced $100 on a valuation of $2200.

Mr. Cook‘s valuation in 1922 was placed at $10,000. In 1923 he applied
under Act 86 of 1917 for tax reduction on 20 acres of woodland. In 1928 his
valuation was reduced to $9000, a reduction of $50 per acre of woodland. In
1924 his valuation remained statitnery. An item appears 0n the tax records in
1923, a 20 acre forest reserve under Act 86 of 1917 valued at $20 with a taxcf
$.55 This valuation remained stationary thru 1924 with a tax of $155 on the
20 acres. Mr. Cook‘s valuation was reduced and Act 86 of 1917 is working as

intended in his case.

I-

I“!

[Endwcc

5
Caum *7

[Pa l/in TOM-117561.}?
jecfv'dn 5—

G<a Cook Forrsv’ Essa-u:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TAfincfaI’r (on 6.0 Codk pm“ For,” fryerIC ’0
#:6600372; $4 /l‘12§ffib—po= 252,?7 I722 :Zowooa: 273.:0(/5o«/|;;12; :50 ,—
pa:/2._ 71 00:1 9. f? /fg_3: = :4);-
‘430’:/2¢‘50 I727: £590: 23%{3 [KW/r 7:000‘1V5’ 22 {17.21: 10 =._,’-_,-
.W/,' son .7"... F-Braflc‘h liq ECar—nfibc // 5’7« 5" f’kLar-urlan (5'1.
I112:/300:I/7u.[112:13L0:l/¢12 /717_=‘9'2;;/00!73/.)7 [72): [—09, W02
”13./Wm it?! 112;: moo: :/ HY/ Hz) = fovav: M .07 Hz: : /;pa = 43.22
l‘ffll Ino— ’I‘Iz Haw: I800 >7 42 luv : ffiao: I3 .70 /7M’: Hoe: W44
14- A. Dyé’pun an. 4* 5' 13¢ GNU" 37! B, 5, Int-non: elm C (3 a ma. 5 ’10
l
”21,2005”; 17212324055047 ”2235700917717 M22. 1 00.43.?
I ”run-Mn /723=2200= azw Way 3090: id”? 1.74;: 2 ,0: 77‘?
[727: 00133-0 /7¥'/= 2100 5110‘ [721‘ 3000: 3177 (71?: 27,5 = 75(1/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m.
Lenawcc Counf"

Ac/rian flourish/lb
5=<+£0n 5

Gea-COO/r Farrsf- Rescruc

 

 

 

 

 

 

{Weoe’k 13.; 6. Gad/P. 45'. 6’6 0a; a” If, ArnIT 30‘ K/(err a
I‘M-h és'o: /¢47’ ”1291100035114? H22 = 3100: mzm Mn!“ 392/ "22554031
I723: no: /‘/.67 H23: qaoo — 11.2. 77 Hz: 2 270:).- I/Jf 1123:2432: 72.9}; I723: ’Waulgg
[12‘]. :03: 212'! [7275 I/oao- I30. “I /72‘{= an!” 41./0 [72‘]: 2mm: nu 1724: H‘N‘MS‘I
"25‘ a - ”.4:, [929'- 4000: 7‘. 3c ”2:: 2800: 531; 1725:21/00‘0712 /72:'-/Wo.-2471
304 6. COO k ’10
mm... 9'54. 7.—

723? I700: 521/0
721x17“): LII-3'2
[725: 1700- 31?;
Farr: f
”CS/Cry;
A I‘c.’
[bpcr I47
I? 2 3
No [i7c:.¥c‘ot7
F0 1- f
¢9€ru<
0!] 7h:
lawns/1f
72” ftdorc 5
0+7? Ryan ‘fda. T [Flinn .252 1,, Hash 75'. ESmcac/ Ila C.quner Ila
’722=”‘/000:///7.‘/5’ ’72’=€:‘Oé=fl14-5’2 HZ). syLooor‘V/ .52 192214 a ’7 Y: Ihlfielaoflle
[12): #000: 77. 86 I123: lJoo= 3].?! I723: ‘1700: [£5354 [123: 3:93:13,qu "23'23002 72.15?
[121/1 #00:: No. IO I727: looo= 2573? I727: #700: 134.“ I124: Jam/“.73 "Hana-73.20
[1'25" WM = 76-3‘ I725: Izoo= 22-9/ 105: #700: 2’7 7V ”is: Jaw-“7, "annual“,
L.flndvr5an I/o. DfT. [ft/an 20
I722 12:00:6317 I722 {inane/2.9;
I723: 2600: “.6 I72 r moo: .2th
l‘fl‘l= 2mm: Lfifl [72']: Iowa, 32.27
[72;— 2600: Hi5” I725: 1000' "-0?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- 137-

In Montcalm County four woodlot owners have applied for tax reduction
on their woodlots under Act 86 of 1917. These woodlots are looated in Win-
field, Eureka and Bloemer Townships. They are owned by Rossman Bros., Geo.
B. King, Geo. L. Hermbecker and Char. B. Herrick.

Resemun Bros.applied for tax reduction On their 40 acre woodlot under
Act 86 of 1917 March 7, 1928. It is described as SW% of SE% of section 13
pf Winfield Township. The total darm area consists of 360 acres with 200 acres
under cultivation. The woodlot is of a natural forest grewth with trees rang—
ing from seedlings to maturity and has never been pastured. The woods consist
mOstly of beech and maple and has some cordwood now merchantable.

In an inquiry to Rossman Bros. they state Act 86 of 191? reduced

their valuation and taxes andzisrthereforegwonking out very satisfactorily in
their case.

The township tax records in the County Treasurer's office show that
in the north half of section 13 the valuations of all the landowners re-
mained stationery frOm 192a thru 1925 except Mr. J. Edgar's in the N% of the
NE% and ROSsman Bros.‘ in the NW%. Mr. Edgar received a $500 reduction on
$12,000 in 1925 and a $500 reduction on $11,500 in 1925. While Rossman Bros.‘
valuation in 1922 was $10,400, 1923 reduced to $10,000 remained stationary thru
n924 and in 1925 was reduced to $9,200.

In the south half of section 13, Mr. Larson's valuation was re—
duced from $4oo to $300 in 1924, Mr. Bird's valuation was $7000 in 1922, 1923
reduced to $6,800 and in 1925 reduced to $6,500. Mr. R. Edgar's valuation
renained stationery at $800 from 1922 thru 1925.

Rossman Bros.‘ valuation on the Efi of SW% was placed at $6,800 in
1922, $6,600 in 1923 and 1924 and reduced to $6,000 in 1925. While on the
we of are the valuation was placed at $7,000 in 1922, in 1923 Rossman Bros.
applied for tax reduction on a 40 acre woodlot under Act 86 of 1912 and the

valuation was reduced to $5000 or $50 per acre of woodland. The valuation

 

c

V

m

5

h

Ir

Vflbl 5

1r.m e

n s w

anJF

0 w / S

nde v w

% ..c

I m/lwv

/.H¢m

ace?

cr 7

f.[UD /

nn «H
oi

W o

M“ en

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 a
a
n f
I Fad/ 7
(Y
3479., EH94
2.2? ¢%££
1:? a, ”NM?
: t x l d I c I a
0000 i 0000
49,79 0 09.7.9.
1317...:sz .’7/.L(
2 t 3 : 5 so : s. 2
231—3 13"!
2212 2221
4477 7
r “£7 _m
0
a y??? _ r
a! . . . . 500/
y
I. zqfié 6?? 7077
6 097“; 1W . .0! 0760 .1
Ft 2/// 772# f¢¢L w
e :55 1:7.
. s. t = : 1 I/ e
f 000“ .swwto : ...... Iran
000 a 00 44
use; Wow/w paum M I...
zu,m e , our. . an“
(/lfl/ {7.333 17.2 r 190.0.
.s : 2.. n... .... s. a. so: a z .1:
23¢: 13#5 23Y5 F 1315
2222 1122 2221 1212
40.71 .422, 773. 71,17
III] [III [III ’l/’
a II
0
d
f
V.
d a
wrow
.L?
W10?
f/I/
\. as k :
0 0
S Meow
a $660
s, {dial/v14!
B : 2 2 t
2395
n 2222
a 7777
I,/’
m a
o
6 one / 4
S 300’
o ...
3767
P.#5¥V ?1$5
I'll/l urea”? #9370
:::. f 13”” 77¢?
I u . . .
0000 a’_/ 017674
00a” r221: “ ~ 2....
4,00 2 4 WW 0 0 r “00 0
0' I l I o d 00 o
i/MM? fikaff! 14. W433
3 2 3 : 3 2 .s : a t o. I
“my; 237; F 23¢;
17”“ “mun 22““
.I/l/ III/f "HI!

 

 

 

 

was again reduced in 1924 to $4,800 and again in 1925 to $4,500.

In 1923 we find an entry to the efifect that Rossman Bros. have a
40 acre forest reserve under Act 86 of 1917 valued for tax purposes at $40.
This entry appears in 1923, 1924 and 1925 with, of course, the same valuation
The tax in 1923 was $.58, 1924 .$.62, and 1925 was $.59 on 40 acres.

Bossman Bros in answer to an inquiry stated Act 86 of 1917 had re-
duced their valuation and taxes, also it was working out very satisfactorily
in their case. The t0wnehip tax records also show Rossman Bros.‘ valuation
and taxes were reduced, thus Act 86 of 1917 iw working out very satisfactorihy
in this case.

Mr. G. L. Hermbecker applied for tax reductiOn On his 36 acre wood-
lot under Act 86 of 1917, July 27, 1923. It is described as NE% of NE% sec-
tion 5 of Winfield Township. The tota1 farm area consists of 160 acres. The
woodlot is of a natural forest growth with trees of all ages and a stocking
of 500 trees per acre. The woodlot is cenpOsed of beech, maple and elm of which
some is now merchantable as logs and cordwood.

The township tax records in the County Treasurer's office show
that only three land owners in Section 5 received a reduction in valuation
in 1924. Mr. R. Carr received a $200 reduction on a valuation of $7000 on
his pr0perty in the Ng of SE%., Mr. H. H. Yankee received a $200 reduction on
a valuation of $5600 On his prOperty in the 5% of SW%.

Mn. Herbecker's valuation was placed at $14,500 on the NE;’; in 1923.
In 1924 he listed his woodlot under Act 86 of 1917 and his valuation was re-
duced to $10,840 or a reduction of $94 per acre of woodlot. In 1925 this
valuation was again reduced $10,640 or a reduction of $200. The township records
have an entry which states that Mr. Hormbecker has a 40 acre forest reserved
valued at $40 under Act 86 of 1917 in 1924 and 1925.

In 1925 Mr. A. waldo recieved a reduction of $400 on a valuation

of $5400 on his prOperty in the N% of NW% and $400 on a valuation of $5200

on the SE% of NW%. Mr. McManus received a reduction of $200 on a valuation

 

200

77
n A
M.)
o n
Cw
.0
WT
h/
C
a!
C...
f -
[I
nn
0.!
M.W

5!: {fan 5
6:1. Heir” bee/61*):orcsf.

[Pescrvn

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m . a m
a _ «do Y
u
.I
f
(I
.... q/
x ,4, _
f t o.
5 00
( 1*”.
r s. .a _.
o 315
2 22
F Gravel — F
"/ C
41: r 7.
a u r .
r 7 a
c I»
f. I
.fl U C L75 . Y1?
s can on 50,. L 5:?
c w .z no.5 7. .
b (We: 2’! A 2407“}
J
m 5% fly, 7,
H tyne. a o a a aw
. IMZM Haber) 005
1 I, A 0'91 .
6 CNN-“v ’1 as i r: x s.
2 22 31.0 34.5.
7,17 212..” 222
’l’
a
u _ w. .
0
/ — 01
00700
.0. 7.x. s nnn
330.. .2.— .
q. 5 c ..
f/UW chJJ
.3 .~ (JV 0.: 2
00 0 0M“
00 .0 . a
227 E 002
55“: €22 t
0 r: I . B“: t
. .
/ ””5 22:“ .R
x. 77” WW" n
I I” a
W ,5 5 N
. L
H.4/3 u w 215
. . . h 27?
074' 12“: . .
(«If a 9J1 /3/ 7%
f/// h OI." 430:. f0.
.. C : I y”“” fl” OI t : t
000 C a... : g: 4* 000
ope oeo .2. one
00 0
555 . 3““ 798 _Liéé
J T! 22: t
ss 3'3 2 : I. 3 : _-
fa s .:
Uzz unu ”do 2M...“
177 'I '94!
Ill NIH WHH Il/

 

 

 

 

of $3800 on his pr0perty in SW% of NW1. Mr. B. Carr received a reduction of
$300 on a valuation of $6800 on his property in the N% of SE%. Mr. L. Kezer
received a reduction of $500 on a valuation of $8000 on his pr0perty in the

3% of 82%. Mr. H. Yankee received a $400 reduction on a valuation of $5400 on
his prOperty in the 8% of SW%.

The records thus show that Mr. Hermbecker received a much larger re—
duction in valuation than any other land owner in section 5 and he also re-
ceived a reduction in 1925 on the W% of the NE%. Thus Act 86 of 1917 is work-
ing out very satisfactorily and Mr. Hermbecker is receiving a benefit from
listing his woodlot under this Act.

Mr. G. B. King applied for tax reduction on his 20 acre woodlot
March 20, 1923. It was described as the north 20 acres of the E% of NW% of
section 14 of Eureka township. The total farm area consists of 160 acres of
which 140 acres are under cultivation. The woodlot is of a natural hardwood
forest growth with trees averaging 25 years of age and 300 trees per acre.
About 50% of the stand is now merchantable.

In an inquiry to Mr. King he states that the Act reduced his
valuation and that it is working out very satisfactorily in his case.

The t0wnship tax records in the county treasurer's office show
that Mr. G. King was the only landowner in the section 14 to receive a re-
duction in valuation. Mr. King's valuation was placed at $16,800 in 1922.
After applying for tax reduction under Act 86 of 1917 the valuation was re-
duced to $14,500 a reduction of $2,300 or $115 per acre of woodlot. ma. King's
valuation was again reduced $2000 in 1924 and raised $1000 in 1925. An entry
appears on the tax records to the effect that a 20 acre woodlot valued at
$20 under Act 86 of 1917 is exempted. In 1925 we find the first taxes placed
against this valuation.

The other landowners of the section received reductions in val-
uation s between 1923 and 1925 but us. King also received the same reductions

besides the one in 1923, when he placed his woodlot under Act 86 of 1917.

405?.

”tori/Ca/I’f'] CDur-v fa/

Euros/r4 73w,v;/—yl'/7
~5¢¢'/r'orv /‘7‘

Q6. l(.‘.-. 7 Forrsf [Fascruc

 

 

 

 

 

; 76- G. /(.' n 75" 3a /¥.Wo rf<( 3'?“ ‘1
5:3 07 I721.— 5L/po- 730 fizz-L570 t
. 41.3
2.3 r . _
50/¢/ fa G/(an :32! 03/1??? =1/aigl722/We 1732;: {£33.- gig?!-
/72 I), all = 17a “5 Mo- 7i.” I
janf/vr Sal-l '
- I. alt; I
€,/}g/bk/¢ WC/I /‘0l ESfI‘U/PPS W D~Fl5hvr 5’0
’nayz I1223/010003’72f0 "21.-’70”.- 238-92
’3)?“ II???” @523: [/3203 ”27;: ”an. $21.20
/ ~ —‘. ' IJ.o 1 ‘ act a . a
II 7. 4‘0 /¢;’~ S}, 000-” I‘M/.80 I725“ 34¢!- /a 43L?”

 

 

 

 

 

 

VXL ’5‘. -

The records thus show that me. King‘s valuation was reduced after he
applied for tax reduction and the act is working out very satisfactorily as
Mr. King stated in the inquiry. Thus Mr. King is receiving a benefit from
listing his woodlot under Act 86 of 1917.

Mr. 0. R. Herrick applied for tax reduction on his 17 acre woodlot in
the spring of 1925. It is described as starting at NEcorner of the SW% of
section 19 of Bloomer township, 40 rods south, then west as rods, then north
40 rods and East 68 rods. The total farm area consists of 120 acres. The
woodlot is of a natural hardwood forest, wdth trees 1 to 100 years old and.
from 200 to 500 trees per acre. Part of it is now merchantable and the pro-
perty would make a wonderful sugar bush.

The township tax records show that between 1924 and 1925 every land
owner received a reduction in valuation but on careful study of the plot of
section 19 it reveals the fact that ur. Herrick after placing his woodlot
under Act 86 of 1917 received a much larger reduction in preportion to val—
uation than any other land owner of this section.

Mr. Herrick's valuation in 1924 was placed at $13,000 and in 1925
was reduced $2,800 to $10,200. But as the other oandowners also received
reductions all of this W;S not due to the woodlot. Taking the E% of NE% we *
find Mr. J. Moran‘s valuation is about one-half that of Mr. Herrick‘s. So
taking the $700 reduction on this valuation and multiplying by 2 we can get
an approxination as to what the reduction in valuation would have been with
out the exempped woodlot. This then would make a reduction of about $1,400
for the woodlot or about $80 per acre of woodlot.

An item appears on the tax records to the effect that Mr. Herrick
has a 17 acre woodlot valued at $17 under Act 86 of 1917. The records thus
show that Mr. Herrick's valuation was reduced after placing his woodlot under

this act and he is receiving a benefit frorndct 86 of 1917.

‘l

"/0

/7
CI? Harl‘t.d/¢ Fal‘t'e'l‘ Ifescr'ut

M
A/IOnIGa/n-r Cour];
72uuvi‘r

fi3<cffor1

g/OO ['7'7

 

 

fjhawarc/ f0.

 

#04

80¢
[20‘
404

/?cL

 

1/0

‘/
$0fl1
{194

/

IBuck/e
sf
’72 3 I
(71::311/002’ ‘

 

 

flcfi ?60f/7/2
V¢n$

Towns/1" TaxFo/lll7a 72¢)? Frvn’ 27‘
“hf/(Pk /

FDI‘esf {(‘rSCrc/t

 

 

 

 

In Jackson County three woodlot owners have applied for tax reductinn
on their woodlots under Act 86 of 1917. Theserare located in the Townships
of Norvell, Napoleon and Columbia.

Mr. L. Whittney Watkins applied for Tax reduction on his 195 acre
woodlot under Act 86 of 1917 on April 13, 1923. The prOperty is located in
Sections 11 and 14 of Norvell Township. It is described as the 5% of the
SE% of sectiOn 11,10 acres off the East end therefor containing 70 acres,
also that part of tle N% of section 14 lying north of the stream known as
Harsh Greek and north of the highway except the NW% of the NW% of said
section 14 containing about 125 acres,in all about 195 acres.

The total area of the farm is 1400 acres, with 1250 acres under cul-
tivation. The woodlot is of a natural forest gnowth, with 800 to 1200 seed-
lings and mature trees per acre.

The township tax records in the County Treasurer's office show that
from 1922 thru 1925 only two landowners in section 11 received a reduction in
valuation. The valuation of Mr.eWm. HoagliwhOse preperty is in the E% of NE%
was reduced from $4300 to $4000 in 1924 and remained stationary thru 1925.
The other reduction was granted to L. Whittney watkins on the Si of the SE%.
In 1922 Mr. watkims valuation was placed at $600 on 70 acres. In 1923 he
applied for tax reduction under act 86 of 1917 and his valuation was placed
at $100 a reduction of $500 on the 70 acres. This valuation remained stat-
ionery thru 1925.

The records show about the same condition in Section 14. Two

landowners received a reduction in valuation, Mr. 0. Heckerman in NW% of

l
l
\
\
NW% and L. Whithney watkins on the E% of the NW% and w% of NE%.
Mr. Heckerman's valuation was reduced in 1925 from $800 to
$600. Mr. watkins' valuation on 160 acres was placed at $1200 in 1922.

In 1923 he applied for tax reduction under Act 86 of 1917 and his val-

uation was placed at $300, a reduction of $900 on 90 acres of woodland.

 

 

-206-

Jackson Counf"

Nari/e ll 7}»Wns/71'lb
5ecfn'qn H

kWh/inn, M/a/K'in;
For-:5} (f‘earruc

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E~Marhl< 4"“ E. Mar/he 60.: F. Mar/he 7,, WW. ”4,67 to...
I722 3310031147 I912 Z’g‘yovTJéc 7o ”2.3!7aaat’flzgfl; Irzl=llf3pozl77loz
I IJ=3Loo_—5‘I.a7 [723:54100: 31./I “71;: 7ggot/aslln/ [713: 43a,” ‘45?
112% no“ ’17-“ firing-vac; 7’!»‘/7 I121]: 7450: 94. 5; {72% 194;: 551,;
(415‘ 1600 = 6/-7’ [#2535400 7.7-f7 (-125: 7cec = [20.1.10 ‘05" ow’ /r.io
F light/man ‘7’44 Ma ,0.
[1229;35003’6 2.7/ [7225’]an [411 790
I?21: 1.700: 52.57 [yarn-e [4057",
”24“ 3;“: IYK-Ji 1111- I100 mun,“
['25: .7540: 49‘2’ IVIFIIcn (’15zr‘0
IF- Mu” er IN .TF. Mal/er WW w No.7 “on
”32%200‘6/9-72 1711: /No=“’/7w 1422 jinn-3’21};
’12]: [20‘ = I‘D-2? [$1]: Ill/o ‘ /5‘.(\1 ’72}: on: La]
H24= 12w: “5.4/7 [mu Mao :- /3.79 (42¢: Am.- 53-2
I7l5= Izoa= 10‘.” (5)15; ,oao ~ [7.20 [4/19 = l/oa. (pi?
L W Wde'IW'vJ 704 Ilrnahfl.
i _
I712 :fltoo : ll. (0 In“ 300
_ _ III-Rare}! I
”$913,100: [{5} urn/n AH sea/.1111 {13:37:
1425': lo 9 a I 73 (11!: 1“;

 

 

 

 

 

 

— 207 -

This valuation remained the same in 1924 but was advanced to $700 in 1925.

Act 86 of 191? reduced Mr. watkins valuation as intended in both
sections and seems to be working out very satisfactorily in this case.

Mr. Clyde Cady applied for tax reduction on his 19 acre woodlot April
27, 1923. The property is located in Section 31 of Napoleon Township. It is
described as that part of the E% of Eé-of the SE% of Section 31 lying north of
the L. S. and M. S. Railroad.

The total area of farm is 140 acres of which 120 acres is under cul-
tivation. The woodlot is of a natural forest growth with trees ranging from
seedlingsto maturity with an average of 250 trees per acre. Some of this
timber is now merchantable as logs and pulpwood, In an inquiry to Mr. Cady
he stated that the Act was working out all right in his case and that he was
satisfied.

The township tax records in the County Treasurer's office show that
in 1922 Mr. Cady's valuation was placed at $900 on 19 acres. In 1923 after
applying under Act 86 of 1917 his valuation was reduced to $19 on 19 acres.
This remained stationary thru 1925. In 1922 a value of $2000 was placed on
Mr. Cady's 40 acres in Section 29 and this remained stationary thru 1925.

The descriptions of preperty in this section are so inaccurate it is impossible
to plot the owners and taxes. But there is little doubt but what Mr. Cady is
receiving a benefit from listing his woodlot under Act 86 of 1917 and as he
himself states it was working out quite satisfactorily in his case.

Mr. Geo. Cook applied for tax reduction on his 20 acre woodlot un—
der Act 86 of 1917 in 1923. The preoperty is located in Section 18 of Columbia
Township and described as the 8% of SE% of NE%. The total area of the farm
was 100 acres of which 80 acres are under cultivation. The woodlot is of a
natural forest growth wdth the trees averaging 25 years of age and 250 per acre.

In an inquiry to Mr. Cook he states that his valuation was reduced

and the Act was working out well in his case. The township tax records in the

 

- 208 -

County Treasurer's office show that Mr. Cook's valuation was placed at $600
on 40 acres. In 1923 he applied for tax reduction on 20 acres of woodland
and his valuation was reduced firom $600 to $320 on the 40 acres. This
valuation remained stationary thru 1925. While on 60 acres in section 60
the valuation was placed in 1922 at $1200 and remained statiznary thru 1995.
The descriptionson the Tax roll are so inaccurate it is impoasible
to plot the owners valuation and taxes in this case. But there is little
doubt but what Mr. Cook is receiving some benefit from listing his woodlot
under Act 86 of 1917 and as he sta+es himself he is very well satisfied

with Act 86 of 1917.

 

 

- 209 -
In Lapeer County two land owners have listed their woodlots under

Act 86 of 1917. Geo. Bristol owns 20 acres of non merchantable hard wood
in Almont Township. The other is owned by Wm. Bristol consisting of 25 acres
of non merchantable hardwood. Geo. Bristols woodlot was accepted in 1921 and
Wm. Bristols 1920. They both state that at first they received a little
benefit but at present it is doubtful if they are receiving much benefit.

In Calhoun County, four landowners have taken advantage of Act 86 of 1917.
Three are located in Lee Township and one in Lepawsha.

Mr. Chas. T. Vorhees applied for tax reduction on his 34 acre woodlots.
It is described as "5 acres on south side of the W 1/2 of N.E. 1/4 of the S.E.
1/4 Sec. 25. and 17 acres on E. side of the S.E. 1/4 of the N.E. 1/4 See. 25
and 12 acres in S.E.Cor. N.W.l/4 of N.E.l/4 Sec. 25 of lee Township“. The
woodlot consists of hardwoods with some merchantable as cord—wood, logs and
pulpwood. The owner states that the act reduced his taxes and that it was
working out satisfactorily in his case.

Mr. G.P.Glynn applied for tax reduction on his 10 acre woodlot in
1922. It was described as the "N.E.l/4 of N.W.lfl4 of S.E.l/4 of Section 7
of Lee Township". It is a hardwood stand with some merohantable as cord—
wood and logs. Mr. Glynn states that the Act did not reduce his taxes or
“ valuation on his woodlot as a gravel road was put thru in 1923 and road tax
was levied against the preperty.

Mr. Vern Vorhees applied for tax reduction on his 18 acre woodlot
located in Lee Township in 1921. The woodlot is a hardwood stand with some
merchantable as logs and cordwood. The owner states that his taxes and
valuation was lowered by taking advantage. Mr. Vorhees also states that
he is satisfied and the Act is working out very satisfactorily in his case.

Mr. Geo. S. Cook applied for tax reduction on his 40 acre woodlot located
in the N.W. 1/4 of S.E. 1/4 of Sec. 5 of Lekausha Township. In an inquiry
the Supervisor states that the woodlot is assessed on a valuation of a $1 per
a. or $40 a. of woodlot equals $40 in valuation and that it is placed on the

township tax records as 40 a - $40.00.

 

.. 210-

In Emmet County one landowner has applied for tax reduction on his seven
acre woodlot. Mr. Jacob Keldflisch's woodlot is located.in the S.W. corner of
the S.E. 1/4 of the S.E. 1/4 of the S.E. 1/4 of Sec. 28 in Carp Lake Township.
The woodlot consists of a national forest growth with the trees 10 to 15 years
old and 1200 to 14000 per acre. The total farm area consists of 80 acres
with 40 acres under cultivation.

Mr. Koldfleisch states that not 86 of 191? reduced his valuation and
the act is working out very satisfactorily in his case.

In Isabella County one landowner has applied for tax reduction on.his wood-
lot under Act 86 of 1917. Geo. and Orrie Marrihew applied for tax reduction
on their 20 acre woodlot in 1924. They estimate that they have 50,000 bd.
ft. hemlock, 2500 bd. ft. maple and 1000 cords of wood now merchantable.

The woodlot is located in Sherman Township. They state that Act 86 of 191?
reduced their taxes and is working out satisfactorily in their case.

In Alpena County one woodlot owner has applied for a tax reduction on his
woodlot. It belongs to J.B.Lunney and consists of 80 acres located in Ossineke
Township. It consists of a.natural growth of balsam.and peplar and sons is now
merchantable as pulp wood. Mr. Dunney states that the supervisor raised his
valuation rather than lowering it. The supervisor states that Mr. Lunney has
pastured the land all the time and has made no attempt to plant the cpen
spaces. So in this case it looks as tho the owner had not lived up to the
meaning of the Act and the Supervisor had ignored rather than refused the
application.

In Antrim.County three woodlot owners have applied for tax reduction on
their woodlots under Act 86 of 1917.

Mr. E.S.Mills applied for tax reduction on his 40 acre woodlot in 1919 and
was exempted until 1924 when it was found by the new supervisor that he had
misrepresented his property and was not entitled to an exemption. So it was
again placed in the tax roll at full value again. The woodlot is located in
S.E. 1/4 of S.E. 1/4 of Sec. 9 of Custer Township. The whole trouble lies in

the fact the farm and the woodlot are not contigeous. The Act evidently must

of been working out quite satisfactorily to Mr. Mills as he appealed to every

 

 

 

- all -
body from the Atty. General, Tax. Comm. and the State Board of Agri.

to be placed again under the Act.

Thos. and D.W.Buell applied for tax reduction on their 100 acre woodlot
in 1925. The county treasurer states that the exemptions are on file and will
be accepted. The woodlot is located in Warner Township and when the owners
answered the inquiry it was too early to know the results of placing the wood-
lot under the Act.

In Ottawa County two woodlot owners have applied for tax reduction on their
woodlots, Leon Ocoback and Gerrett TenBroke.

Mr. Osoback's woodlot is located in Sec. 22 of Jamestown Township and
consists of a 30 acre woodlot on a farm of 160 acres. The application was
made March 3, 1923 and the supervisor states that he told Mr. Osoback that
he would have to keep cattle out and etc. and that he said "Well let it go".
So the supervisor has been assessing it at full value.

Mr. Gerret TenBroke applied for tax reduction on his woodlot in Robbinson
Township last year but have so far been unable to receive a reply as to how
it was working out in his case.

In Leelanaw County two woodlot owners have applied for tax reduction
on their woodlots under Act 86 of 1917.

Mr. J.C.Kalchick applied for tax reduction on his 24 acre woodlot in
1925. The woodlot is located in Leelanaw Township and consists of a natural
hardwood stand with some of the trees now merchantable. Mr. Kalchick states
that the Act reduced his taxes and that he thinks it is working out satis-
factorily in his case.

The Francis H. Haserot Co. applied for tax reduction on their 40 acre
woodlot in 1925. The woodlot consists of a natural hardwood stand with about
50% non merchantable. At the time the inquiry was answered they did not know
how the Act was going to work out in their case.

In St. Joseph County one woodlot owner has applied for tax reduction
under Act. 86 of 1917. Mr. W.F.Wahl applied for tax reduction on his 20 acre

woodlot located in Florence Township. The woodlot consists of a natural lard.

wood stand and is mostly all young oak with very little merchantable. Mr. mm

.— ~_..,—

working out very satisfactorily in his case.

 

 

 

 

ALAEAMA L907
LAWS

That in order to encourage the practice of forest culture in this state
when the owner or owners of any land which has been denuded of trees, or any
other land the assessed Value of which shall not at the time of application
exceed the sum of Five Dollars per acre, shall contract in writing with the
Cemmission of Forestry to plant or grow upon the said land suitable and use- ‘
ful timber trees in such manner as they shall prescribe to protect the said - d
frOm fine and to maintain the trees so planted as grown upon it in a live
and thrifty condition for a period of ten years and to cut or remove frOm 1
the said land within that time no tree or trees except as permitted in the
said contract; it shall be lawful for the State Tax 00mm. and they are here.
by authorized upon recommendation of the conmission of Forestry to exempt
such land from taxation for the period of 10 years next thereafter in which
the said land is to be so maintained. At the end of said ten years or any
time within that period that the owner or owners of said land shall fail to
maintain it in all respects according to the written agreement entered into '
by him and upon which the said land is exempted from taxation, the said land
shall be restored to the tax roll and shall be taxed the same as other
similar lands.

RULES

the expiration of 5 years and must not use said land so that it will mititate
against the growth of the timber thereon. The owner must use reasonable
diligence to protect the timber growing on said lands against fire. He shall
not cut, mhm_ or otherwise utilize the standing timber on said lands
before the withdrawal of the same as auxiliary state forests, except in
accordance with the rules formulated by the State Commission of Forestry and
paying the privilege tax upon the value of the timber or timber products har-
vested.

The owner nay withdraw said land in whole or in part at any time after
The auxiliary State Forest shall not be taxed or assessed for taxation

- 214 -
directly or indirectly by any authority and that if said land is taxed or

assessed for taxation it shall be assessed and valued as if the ownership of

the timber had been severed from the land and that no taxes of any character

shall be assessed against said timber.

- 215 -
CONNECTICUT

Woodlands and lands suitable for forest planting may be classified
for purpose of taxation upon application.to the State Forester provided the land
is not worth more than $25 per acre. The State Forester has to examine the
land before it can be admitted under the Act. land with timber more than 10
years old is taxed at the local rate on a valuation not to exceed 10 mills.
The land and timber to be taxed separate as established by the assessor at tum
of classification.

After the woodlot has been classified for 50 years a revaluation is to be
made and subject to the same valuation of 10 mills the woodlot may remain
under the act for another 50 years. The harvested timber is subject to
a graduated yield tax. land classified - l - LO years shall pay a 2% yield
tax, from ll - 20 years A.3% tax.

From 21 .. 30 yrs. A 47.7 "

From.Sl - 4O " A 5% "

From 41-50 years A.6% tax.

and over 50 years 7% cuttingtax.

The owner must provide reasonable protection and nmet not graze.

The state forester may cancel classification when the owner fails to comply
with the Act and a forfeit must be paid. Timber for domestic use is free of
tax. The owner may appeal to the courts from the decisions of the State
Forester.

The State Forester states the law is not satisfactory because classifi—
cation is only made when applied for by the owner and it is not applicable

to all forest land.

 

 

-Z‘lb-

CANADA - omsmo
EXEMPTION or woonLors FROM TAXATION

The council of any township may by law exempt in whole or part from
municipal taxation including school rates, lands in the township being
“woodlands". But such by laws shall not exempt more than one acre in ten
and not more than twenty five shall be held under a single ownership.

Woodlands shall be lands having more than 400 trees per acre of all
sizes or 300 trees over 2" D.B.H. or 200 over 5" D.B.H. or 100 over 8"
D.B.H. of one or more of the following species: White or red pine, white or
Norway Spruce, hemlock, tamarac, oak, ash, elm, hickory, basswood, tulip,
black cherry, walnut, butternut, chestnut, hard maple, soft maple, cedar,
sycamore, beech, black locust or calalpa or other varieties as may be set apart
by the bylaws of the council. This land is to be used for the purpose of
growing trees and cannot be used for grazing.

The owner is required to make application to the clerk of the township
before the first day of February.

The township assessor is to personally examine the woodlot to see if
it meets the requirements. He can make the owner make a statutory declaration
to the effect said woodlot fills the requirements of the Act. The Assessor
then reports to the township clerk the name of the owner and area entitled
to exemption and the year it first goes into effect.

If at any time the council finds the woodlot is being grazed by live stock
or it is not being used for the sole purpose of growing trees they may direct
the exemption shall cease and it shall be put back on the assessment roll for
the next year for all taxes remitted during the five years immediately pre—
ceding the date it goes back on the assessment roll.

For fraudulent returns by owner or assessor knowingly made, a fine of
$300.00 or six months in jail or both at the discretion of the Court may be
made additional to any other punishment made by law. This also applies to
fraudulent declaration or application.

The forester in charge states he knows of no case in the last five years

 

-4L(—

while he has been in office of any owner availing themselves of the

advantages of this Act. The trouble lies in the first line and sixth

Word "May". It seems contrary to human nature to exempt taxes of any kind

and most of our municipalities are anxious to get all the revenue they can.

 

 

 

- 4L5 —
Iowa

The State of Iowa passed a bill in 19C6 entitled an "Act to Encourage
Planting of Forest and Fruit Trees".

A tract of land of not less than one acre and not more than five acres may
be set aside as a permanent forest reservation.

This tract of land must contain 200 planted or natural forest trees per
acre. This number of trees must of been upon the area two years before the
listing of forest. Ground with farm buildings shall not be recognized as part
of any such reservation.

The owner shall not remove more than one fifth of the total number of trees
on the reservation in any one year except where the trees die naturally.

Forest trees shall consist of the following species: ash, black cherry,
walnut, butternut, catalpa, coffee tree, elm, blackberry, hickory, honey loctus,
mulberry, oak, sugar maple, larch and other coniferous trees and all other forest
trees intoduced into the state for experimental purposes. In artificsl groves,
willow, bolelder, soft maple, cottonwood and other popals shall constitute forest
trees when used for protection borders if they do not exceed two rows around
the plantation. Soft maple and box elder may also be used as nurse trees if they
do not exceed 100 per acre.

The trees of a forest reservation shall be in groves not less than four rods
wide. When the trees of a forest reserve are removed or die the owner must plant
within one year enough trees to fullfill the requirements of this Act.

The owner ishall not graze the forest reservation.

If the forest reservation fulfills the conditions of this Act shall be
assessed at one dollar per acre. In all other oases where trees are planted with
out regards to area for forest, fruit, shade, orndmental or windbrake purposes
the assessor shall not increase the valuation of the prOperty because of such im.
provements.

If the owner of a reservation violates any of the provisions of this Act within
the two years preceding the making of an assessment the assessor shall not list
any tract belonging to the owner for the ensuing two years.

The Assessor shall make the owner give a sworn statement of the facts when

 

- zls -
making application for a forest reservation. The assessor shall make a
special report to the County Auditor of all reservations made in the county.
The county auditor is to keep a record of all reservations and report before
the 18th day of November to the State Horticultural Society.

The secretary of the State Horticultural Society shall be the State Forestry
Commissioner without salary. He can appoint deputies for each county who shall
serve without pay. They shall make an annual report on forestry matters and ap-
eration of this Act.

In 1924 there was 19 ,120 acres of original forest and 126 acres' of artificial
forest under this Act. Mr. G.F.1vb.cDonald, Prof. of Forestry, Iowa State
College states this Act is very faulty in many respects but is however better

than no law at all.

 

 

The state of Indiana passed an Act in 1921 entitled "An Act to Encourage
Timber production and to protect water sheds by classifying certain Lands as
Forest Lands, and prescribing a method Appraising Funds thus classified for
purposes of taxation".

Under this Act the stocking of trees per acre is prescribed by law
according to the age of the trees. Trees of different age are credited with
occupying different square feet of Space in the forest. There shall be no
open spaces in the forest. If a tree dies or is removed the vacancy shall be
filled by planting and it shall be fully stocked. A plantation may beqmeed
8' by 8' and a nurse crop used for two years. The State Forester may author—
ize the planting of additional trees and indicate where and how they shall
be planted. The owner has three years to plant the area after it has been
classified under the Act. Native forest land shall be deemed to be fully
stocked when it contains 1000 timber trees per acre, exclusive of ponneeous
trees. If coppice shoots are counted only one shall be counted per stump.
The following trees are excluded as forest trees, dogwood, water—beech,

ironwood, red ng, sassafras, persimmon, pawpaw, blackltuq'and Willow. The

 

State Forester shall be the final authority on what constitutes a stand of
trees.

All tracts of forests classified under this Act shall be assessed at $1
per acre.

Any one wishing to make application shall apply to the State Forester
for two blanks. The land is to be surveyed by Metis and bounds and located
by an established corner. Two plots of the survey shall be made in ink on a
scale of 103' to the inch. One plot and application blank is filed with the
State Forester, the others with the County Auditor, The township assessor
shall appraise the land and this shall be forwarded with the applications when
signed by the assessor. There shall be three signatures on the application,
the owner, the surveyor and assassor, and witnessed by two legal voters.

If the area is accepted by the State Forester he shall notify the County

Auditor at once and it shall then be entered upon his books as a classified

 

- 221 _
forest.

The surveyor shall not charge more than the legal rate for land surveys
of similar character.

The land classified under this act shall be appraised at the time
cash value including any mineral, stone, oil or gas value it may have. The
timber shall not be considered in making an appraisal for tax purposes.

All the land in the section of which the classified land is a part shall be
also be appraised at this time at true cash value exclusive of buildings and
other improvements. Each quarter section is to be appraised separately and
so designated. These assessments are to be entered upon the application
blank. If the appraisal of the township assessor is not satisfactory to the
owner he may appeal.to a board consisting of the assessor, auditor and
treasurer of the county whose decision shall be final.

The expense of the survey is borne by the owner of the land, while the
expense of the appraisals is borne by the county.

The only limit on area is that the land to be classified must contain
over three acres.

The land to be classified cannot contain any dwellings or other build-
ings except sugar camp or a saw mill. The woodlot cannot be grazed except
by domestic fowls.

If the classified land is sold the purchaser is not released from this
Act.

The boundaries of this tract of land shall be marked by four signs to
be furnished by the state department of conservation.

If after the land has been classified any oil, gas, stone, coal or mineral
is obtained it is to be assessed at once and placed on the tax duplicate.

Special permits for special managenent not inconsistent with the pro.
visions of the act shall be granted by the State Forester and filed with the
County Recorder. ' .

The State Forester shall inspect the classified land at any time and
shall when possible have the owner go with him. He shall at this time point

out any improvements needed and give the owner a written report. A reconi V__J

 

shall be kept in the officegi?‘ .the State Forester of all inspections.

The owner may withdraw his land frOm classification at any time by
writing to the State Forester for withdrawal blanks. The prOperty is again
appraised in the same manner as when making application. The standing
timber shall not be assessed. If the assessment by the township assessor
is not satisfactory to the owner he may appeal to the board as in making
application.

Upon withdrawal the owner pay an unearned increment tax. This shall be
the last appraisal less the first appraisal. Twenty five per cent goes to
the state, fifty percent to the County and twenty five percent to the
township.

If the State Forester finds the provisions of the Act are not being
carried out and the owner refuses to do so he shall file withdrawal
proceedings against the owner.

The owners of classified tracts are required to report once a year
to the State Forester on specified blanks. Any false statements upon
this report shall be deemed a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine of not
more than $250 to which nay be added 6 months imprisonment.

Up to Oct. 1, 1925 - 241 land owners with 13,133 acres have

classified under this Act in Indiana.

 

- 3‘0-
LOUISIANA
The law permits the owner of land valued at not less than $3 or more

than $8 to enter into a contract with the Dept. of Conservation for the
purposes of taxation. The contract requires the owner to plant, protect and
practice forestry on this land.

The owner must make application,furnish a description and plot off the
land to the Conservation Dept. and the Police Jury in which the land is lo—
cated. The land is inspected and the Police Jury sets a Value on the land

which shall for tax purpose remain the same for 10 years. It is then re—
assessed for another 5 years and at the and may again be re—assessed for

another 5 years. At the end of this period it is returned to the regular
tax roll at a value similarto like lands of the district.
On Jan. 1, 1924 - 12 contracts had been entered into with a total

of 141,845 acres. Three of the contracts were with large land owners —

Urania Lumber Co. - 28,000 A.
Great Southern Lbr.Co. I- 53,000 A.
Crossett " " 57,691 A.

and the rest was small landowners of 80 acres or more.

 

 

 

The Auxiliary State Forests includes all areas owned by corporations
or individuals either planted or covered by natural tree growth and listed
with the state land agent. Plans or description must be filed with the appli—
cation. Provided however that in any one year not more than 10% of the
area of the township can be admitted as part of the auxiliary state forests
if the assessors of said township file a protest with the landagent withdn
10 days from date of application. If this listed land in while or part becomes
more valuable for other purposes it may be withdrawn by paying back taxes
frOm date of listing for full value of the timber and the expense of
administration.

Any plans for cutting or cultivation prepared by the owner and approved by
the State Land Office may be pursued by the OWner.

If the owner desires to out he shall file an application with the state
land agent giving location of tract; who is going to cut, stumpage price per
thousand board feet. A permit is then granted good for one year from date
unless the owner desires to use the products for use upon hisown farm in the
ordinary course of good husbandry. If any of the land has been cleared for
agricultural purposes it is to be reported before April fifteenth and from
then on it is to be taxed as other farm land unless planted again to trees.

No white pine under 10" DBH shall be out unless necessary for clearing of
roads or yards or too thick for profitable growth. At least three pine seed
trees must be left on each acre.

The assessor for the purpose of taxation shall appraise only the land,
and the pine trees more than 16" D33 hemlock, spruce and cedar more than 12"
DBH and all other species irrespective of size provided the land is not
appraised at a value to exceed $5.00 per acre, independent of any great ponds
therein.

The owner when the products are not used on his own farm shall pay a tax
to the State Treasurer if the reserve is located in an unencorporated place
and to the city and township if in an incorporated place. The tax is graduated

and if cut:

 

»- 225 -

First year _ 1/2%

Second " - 1%

Third " - 1-1/2%

Fourth - 2%

Fifth - 2-1/2%

Sixth -'3%

Seventh - 3-1/2%

Eighth - 4%

Ninth - 4-1/2%

Tenth - 5% and there after.

0n the stumpage value before the first day of April. The value of the I
stunpage is to be determined by the assessor. A lien is automatically
pladed on the logs and lumber until the tax is paid.

If the owner fails to make returns of the amount harvested it shall be
certified by the State Land Agent to the assessor. The assessor estimates
the amount cut and assesses it. The owner is barred of his right of appeai
unless he can satisfy the court that he Was unable to make such returns.

The state credits the county with an amount which shall bear the same
ratio as the rate of the county tax bears to the rate of the state tax.

Any person, firm or corporation making false returns knowingly shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars.

The State Forest Commissioner states this Act was passed in 1921 after
considerable discussion. But for some unknown reason only four or fife land
owners have taken advantage of this law. It is doubtful whether any very large
acreages will be set aside as auxiliary forests. |

The old Maine law provided that land from which the primitive forest had
been removed and which was successfully reforested for three years with no less
than 640 trees to the acre shall be exempt from taxation for 20 years providing
the stand is kept alive and in a thriving condition during this period. The
law is practically a dead letter. Up to Oct. 22, 1924 only five land owners

had taken advantage of this Act.

 

 

13¢
MASSACHUSETTS 1922
I.
land and growth not over $25 per A.
Contain not more than 20 chds. per A.
Stocked with young growth so that the yield will be 20,000 bd. ft. soft wood
or 8,000 bd. wood.
Apply to assessor to be classified.
Application to have disc. of land so as to be able to accurately identify.
II.
In 80 days assessor to decide if tract fulfills law and notify owner.
value tract as to land
Owner to accept or reject in 10 days.
Then a certifidate which is to be issued by assessor to owner.
Owner records this with Reg. of Deeds.
Land to appear on Tax roll under classified forest land.
valuation and tax annually shall not include value of forest trees growing
thereon.
When area sold the obligations pass on to new owner.
III.
Standing timber not taxed.
Products tax 6% on stumpage value.
1/10 of this to state.
Owner can out each year $25 stumpage. Value if for own use or tenants.
Buildings on tract taxed as real estate.
Subject to special assessments.
Owner to make sworn statement each year as to wood cut.
IV.
When assessor thinks there is 25,000 bd. ft. soft, l0,000 of hd.wood he
notified owner that in two years he has to pay 6% cutting tax and goes hack
to Gen. Preperty Tax.

Owner can reduce in this two years to below amt. and stay under act. for

5 yrs. then if req. of Act not fulfilled can collect back taxes.

- 227 _
Withdraw by paying tend tax and. 6% cutting tax, this to be decided in 30
days by assessor.
When land becomes too valuable for forest assessor can withdraw land on
30 day notice, owner can protest to State Tax. Comm.

V.

State Forester to settle diSpute as to volume and elgibility of law.

I v1.

Fine of $10 to $500 and be withdrawn from Act.

 

FORESTRY ALMANAC
MASSACHUSETTS

This law provides that any owner of forest land valued on the tax
list for the preceding year at not more than $25 per adre, containing not
more than 20 chds. per acre, but promising a yield of 20,C00 bd. ft. for soft
woods and 8,000 bd. ft. for hardwoods per acre, may apply for classification
by the assessors. The assessors inspect the land, value it as land alone and
certify their findings. The standing growth on the land is not taxed, but
it shall pay a tax of 6% on the stumpage value of all timber cut from it,
except that the owner may cut up to $25 worth annually for his own use
without taxation.

When the classified land has attained an average growth per acre of
25,600 bd. ft. for soft woods and 10,000 bd. ft. for hardwoods, the owner
is notified that at the end of two years it will be subject to the 6% tax.
The owner may reduce the stand, but at the end of 5 years from date of cul-
tivating the land must meet the cringinal requirements for classification.
Land may be withdrawn frOm classification on payment of the 6% products tax.
Appeal on questions of elgibility for chassification to the state forester
is allowed and fine is imposed for failure to comply with terms of this
Act.

Up to Dec. 1923, 60 woodlots with 6500 acres had been accepted.

 

 

- 228 -
NEW HAMPSHIRE

The forest tax act is limited to woodlots not exceeding 50 acres.
Owners of forest land not exceeding in value $25 per acre premising a yield
of 25,C00 board feet per acre may apply for classification. When the
application is approved the land alone is taxed regardless of the timber
growth. The obligations of classification pass with the title of the land.
The owner can harvest up to $50 worth of stumpage each year for his own use
without being taxed. When the stand has reached 25,003 bd. feet per acre the
owner is notifed that he will be taxed at the local property rate at the
end of 2 years. The owner can reduce the stand if he so desires. An appeal
can be made to the state forester by either the owner or assessor .

MASSACHUSETTS ‘

The owner of forest land valued at not more than 20 cords per acre,
but promising a yield of 20,000 bd. ft. of soft woods or 8000 bd. feet of bani
woods per acre, may apply for classification to the assessors. The assessor
must inspect the land, value it as land alone and certify their findings.
The timber is not taxed but pays a 6% cutting tax when harvested except the
cwner may cut up to $25 worth each year for his own use without being taxed.

When the average growth reaches the promised returns the owner is
notified that within 2 years it will be subject to a 6% tax. The owner
may reduce the stand but at the end of five years the land must meet the

original requirements for classification.

 

- 229 —

' NEW YORK

New York state has three forest tax acts, two of them relate to reforested
lands and one to woodlots. These laws either exempt the land and crOp from
assessment and taxation until such a time as a revenue is available or
reduce the assessment to the value of the land only for a period of years.

The conservation law section 57 applies to any waste denuded or wildlands
of 5 acres or more not suitable for agricultural craps and not assessed at

more than $5 per acre.

The owner must apply to the Conservation Commission upon receipt they
examine said land. The applicant must give a definite description of the land
he desires to place under the Act along with a certificate frOm the township
assessor.

The conservation Comndssion submits an agreement to the owner for re.
foresting which specifies the number and kind of trees that should be planted.
The owner shall plant said trees within one year and file an affidavit to this

effect as proff of the planting.

The Conservation Cemmission then cause an inspection and if satisfied shall i

execute a certificate to the County Treasurer to the effect that this land is
entitled to.the benefits of this Act. I

Lands so selected are to be assessed at the same valuation as they were
before planting. The purpose is to prevent the raising of the assessment due
to the planting of trees on this land. The growing stock is exempt from taxatialy
but the land is assessed at its original value. The contract becomes on

obligation on the part of the State as long as the owner complies with the law

and become inevocable during the 35 year period.

 

 

— 230 -
TAXATION OF PLFORESTED LANDS

The purpose of this law is to encourage reforesting of waste and denuded
lands. The law applies to tracts of not less than 1 or more than 100 acres of
land, which shall be planted for forestry purposes. If land is bars 800 trees
must be planted per acre, if covered with brush or forest growth 300 may be
under planted per acre. This Act applies to forest planted since Apr. 10,1909
and applied for before Apr. 10,1913. The land must be more than 20 miles from
a city of the first class, 10 miles from a city of the second class, 5 miles
from a city of the third class and 1 mile frOm a city of the fourth class. If
the land ceases at any time to be used exclusively for forestry purposes the
benefits of this Act shall no longer apply.

The owner must file proof of the planting with the township assessor
and also one with the conservation dept. of the state. If the Conservation
Dept. is satisfied this land meets the requirements, they notify the township
treasurer who places it on the tax roll for reduction on exemption of taxes.
On Open land planted the owner receives an absolute exemption for a period of
so years from time of planting. 0n existing forests of brush under planted
the owner shall be assetsed at 50% of the assessed value of such land exclusive
of any forest growth for a period of so years from time of under planting.
Ifter 85 years the land shall be assessed at its true value and taxes paid for
five years but the timber shall be exempt until harvested. Then a cutting is
made the onner has to pay a bi cutting tax with a penalty of 3 the tax if owner

fails to pay in a certain time.

 

- 231 —
TAXATION OF EOODLOTS

The purpose of this Act is to encourage the maintenance of woodlots
and initiate the practice of forestry be private owners. The Act applies
to any tract not over 50 acres covered by forest growth, if 20 miles from
a city of the first class, 10 miles fun a city of the second class, 5 mile
from a city of the third class and 1 mile frOm a city of the fourth class.

The owner must make application to the Conservation Cowmission, supple-
mented with plot and description of the woodlot. The woodlot is then
inspected and a plan of management is submitted to the owner if he agrees
to carry out the provisions of the Act and the management plan the Act
provides that the growing stock is exempt frOm the annual tax. The assessment
in no case shall exceed $10 per acre on the land.

The reduction applies as long as the owner fulfills the agreement. When
cutting of live trees is to be made except for domestic use an agent of the
Conservation shall designate the trees that should be removed. when timber
is harvested the owner must pay a 5% cutting tax, with a penalty of 3 times

the tax for failure to do so within a certain time.

 

 

— 232 -
OHIO (1925)

"An Act to provide for the taxation of forest lands, to prOmote the
production of timber, provide for the utilization of idle and low grade
Agricultural lands, and to encourage the gueral practice of forestry among
private owners".

Forest land shall consist of areas of land with mature, second growth,
sprout or planted forests. The area shall not be less than three acres. The
stand must be fully stocked and if planted it shall be space at least 8' by
8'. The following species are classed as forest trees, ash, basswood, birch,
catalpa, chestnut, elm, locust, maple, pOpal, oak, tulip, pine, Spruce, larch,
hemlock and other species approved by the State Forester. The State Forester
shall be judge of the stocking.

Forest land which the owner declares devoted exclusively to timber grow-
ing under this Act shall be taxed at 1/2 the local rate upon the time and ac-
tual value of the land as determined by the assessor. In filing the value of
this land it must be the same as similar land in the vicinity and the value
of the timber shall not be considered. All improvements and Values other than
agriculture shall be assessed and taxed at full rate and full value.

The owners declaration of forest land has to be approved and certified by
the state forester and a copy filed with the County Auditor. The application
does not become effective for six months after application and the state
forester has to act upon it in this time.

Ehrest land listed under this Act may be withdrawn by certification to the
County Auditor by the owner. The auditor computes the difference in the
amount of tax which would have been due at the rates for the years for which
the recovery is sought together with legal interest had such land been taxed
at full rate. These taxes shall not be cOmputed for more than 10 years pre-
ceding the date of withdrawal, and no tax shall be applical because of with,
drawal on land which has been classified for twenty five years or more.

If the owner does not exercise reasonable care in protection or violates

- ago -
the rules of the State Forester he he liable for recovery of taxes and removal
from classification.

All products removed and used by the owner on his own land in the same
taxing district and used in an improvement having a taxable value shall.not
be subject to a stumpage tax. All other material harvested shall pay a.3%
cutting tax on the gross stumpage value. The owner shall be for May 1 make a
statement on blanks furnished by the state tax commission as to the stumpage
removed and value. The blank.and the tax shall be sent to the County Auditor.
One half this tax goes to the county the other half to the state to be used
by the division of forestry of the Ohio Experiment Station. A fine of $50 to
$500 or imprisonment of 30 days to six months or both is imposed for failure
to report the gross stumpage out each year.

All rules regulations, forms and blanks shall be prepared by the State

Forester and approved by the tax commission.

 

— 234 -
PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania has 3 laws relating to forest taxation. One law creates
auxiliary forest reserves and the owners of forest lands may apply to a com—
mission for exemption under this Act. The Commission may examine this land and
certify it to the county. The county may place the land in the reserve if the
owner agrees to care for the trees and obligate him self by filing bonds to
cover recovering of the last tax in event of failure to comply with provisions
of the Act. When the trees become merchantable the ones that are suitable
to out are marked. If the owner follows the rules and replants the open place
the woodlot remains under the Act.

The tax on this is provided for in another law. The land is rated in
value at not more than $1 per acre unless there is underlying assets which are
rated separately.

When the timber is harvested the owner must funnish a. bond to 20% of
the estimated Value of the timber and pay a 10% cutting tax within 90 days.
The reserves are subjected to an annual tax per acre of 2 cents for schools
2 cents for roads and charges made payable by the state.

Up to Oct. 28, 1924 about 25 landowners with 20,000 acres have taken
advantage of these acts due to the fact forests are not excessively taxed

in Pennsylvania.

 

FOREST WORKER OCT. 1925.
POBTO RICO

In 1925 the legislature enacted an Act for the reduction of taxation
on lands being held for reforestation. In order to secure the benefits of
this law the owner must plant at least two acres of bare land before July 1,
1930. Tmreshall at least be 1500 trees per acre and correctly distributed.
The owner must agree to care and cultivate the plantation for a period of
5 years. Lands classified must‘be inspected by the forest service at least
once a year. If the plantation is accepted it shall be assessed at $250 per

acre for five years.

— '.II—v —

RHODE ISLAND
PLANTATIONS

Whenever there shall have been planted one or more acres of land worth
$25 per acre or less to trees of the following species — chestnut, hickory, oak,
maple, larch, pine, ash, catalpa, locust, basswood, beech, hemlock, spruce,

tulip, cedar, sycamore or walnut with five hundred trees per acre the owner may
file an affidavit. This is filed with the tax assessor of the township. The

plantation trees and land if in good condition shall be exempt from all taxation
for fifteen years. The plantation is to be managed under a forest working plan
approved by the state commissioner of forestry while it is tax exempt. This
Act is limited to 300 acres owned by one person or corporation.

The State Forester states there are very few who have availed themselves
I of the provisions of this Act. The Governor recommended a revisal tax system
in message of Jan. 7, 1913 but nothing was ever done.

A very few land owners have taken advantage of this special Act.

r - 25" -

SOUTH DAKOTA
Land owners who have planted not less than 8C0 trees per acre with
at least 200 alive may apply to the county with a description of the land
for a tree bounty. This bounty is $5 per acre on not over 12 acres.

This bounty may be collected each year for 10 years.

 

 

vsniaofia '- 1923

The State of Vermont in 1923 passed a bill entitled, An Act to Encourage
Reforestation. This bill states that all immature timber grown from trans-
planted seedlings shall be exempt frOm taxation for thirty years from time
of hansplanting. The owner must not cut such timber before the thirty years
has expired. The owner must file a sworn statement of the location and acre—
age of the tract with the town clerk for public record. If the owner cuts any
of the timber before the expiration of the thirty years he is to pay the town
treasure a sum equivalent to an assessment of taxes at the rate in force for
that year in the township where the timber is located based on the market value
on the stump.

Land on which plantations are growing shall be taxed on its value as land
alone.

The state foresters of Vermont states that very few people have taken
advantage of this Act and he estimates the number would be about 15 with a total
of about 30 acres. The law is not popular and will not work because the
listers simply shift the value of the plantation to the pasture land or other

property which the owner might own.

In 1912 two forest taxation acts were enacted in Vermont. One is entitled
an "Act Relating to the Taxation of Young Timber", the other, "An Act to Exempt
Reforested Lands from Taxation and to Promde the Growth and Maintenance of
Wood and Timber Lots".

The Act relating to taxation of young timber contains the following pro-
visions. The owner must make application to the state forester. This applica—
tion must be accompanied by such descriptions of the land as the State Forester
may require. The State Forester is to examine the land and if it is accepted
he files a certificate of classification in his own office, one with the town
clerk and one with the owner.

Land fully stocked with forest trees not over 15 years old except a few
‘scattered old trees areas partially stocked and planted to assure a 6' by 6i

spacing over the entire area and open land planted to forest trees of at least

 

 

- 239 -
1000 per acre may be classified under this act. The trees planted must

be of the following species: Ash, basswood, oak, maple, white Scotch or
Norway pine, European larch, white or Norway Spruce or other species approved
by the State Forester. The State Forester has to approve the manner in
which the trees are planted. This land must be outside of limits of a city
or village.

If the land is accepted for classification it shall be taxed annually at
the local rate on the land value only which is established at the time of list-
ing and not to exceed $3 per acre. This valuation is to be maintained until
the year 1950. In 1950 the bare land is again re—valued and taxes levied each
year at the local rate for 50 years on this valuation. When a cutting is made
a tax of 10% is levied on the gross stempage cut.

Classification as forest land for the purpose of taxation can continue
as long as proper forest conditions are maintained. Use of the land for pasture,
destruction by fire and failure to plant, removal of trees and use of land
for other purp0ses in the Opinion of the State Forester shall be grounds
for the cancellation of classification. When requested by the town listers
or on when he deems it necessary the State Forester can examine the land and
if it is not full filling the provisions of the law he may cancel the classi-'
fication by sending notice to the owner and the town clerk. Whenever the
classification is cancelled the owner shall pay a tax on the stempage value
amounting to 1/2 of one percent per year for the entire number of years the
land has been classified. This tax is in addition to any annual or field tax
which may have been paid.

All products used for demestic use, thinings to improve the stand whose
stumpage value does not exceed the cost of removal are not subject to the
yield tax. When any commercial products are to be cut the owner must file a
sworn statenmnt with the State Forester and Town lister a statement of the
quantity and stumpage value which has been out. If the stumpage value seems
too low the State Forester shall determine the value. If the owner is not

e
satisfied with the value place by the State Forester he may refxis it to e

 

iconmaittee consisting of the-gigs; selectmen, the town clerk and State Fores—
ter whose decision shall be final.
This Act applies only to land planted to forest trees prior to Jan.l,1913.
The State Forester states that probably 100 acres have been classified

under this Act in the past nine years.

 

- 241 _
Also in 1912 "An Act to Exempt Reforested Lands from Taxation and to

Promote the Growth and Maintenance of Wood and Timber Lots".

The owner of over five acres of wild, watte or partially dggggigfi
land outside of village or city limits on which there is some trees, the trees
to be over 15 years old may apply to the town lister for separate classifica—
tion for taxation provided the land is unsuitable for cultivation.

The application shall be made in duplicate giving a brief description of
the land, its area, character, location and any other information the State
Forester may require. The application is filed with the town lister who
makes a personal inspection of this land. If the lister is satisfied that
such land is suitable for growing forest trees he shall designate such lands
as forest lands and set them in the grand list at the valuation fixed at the
last quadrennial appraisal. This is to continue as long as the land is main-
tained as a wood and timber lot and be taxed at this rate until 1950. In 1950 a
revaluation of both land and timber shall be made and this subject to an annual
tax at the local rate for a period of 50 years from the date of revaluation.

If the owner desires to cut live trees from this listed land except for
his own buildings, demestic use or for his tenant he shall notify the townslister
at least 80 days before he desires to harvest. After the trees are harvested
and before they are removed the owner must make an measurement and file this
together with a description of the Variety and value of such trees in the town
clerks office. The listers shall appraise the stumpage value of the tinber cut.
The owner before the timber is removed shall pay the town treasurer 1/10
of 1% of this value for each year his land has been classified but in no case
shall the tax exceed 7% of such valuation. If the owner fails to give
notice or fails to pay the tax he shall be liable to a penalty of three times
the amount of tax to be recovered by action on this statute.

When in the opinion of the lister the trees are mature or if the land
is not being used as a wood or timber lot, he shall notify the owner. If the
owner does not out such trees in three months and pay the town treasurer the
amount of tax, the town may recover it by legal action. There after the land

shall again be taxed under the general property tax.

 

- 242 -

If the listerand.the owner cannot agree on the different phases of this
law the question shall be submitted to a special board consisting of the chair-
man of the board of selectmen, townclerk and the State Forester whose decision
shall be final. This Act shall take effect Jan. 1, 1915. '

This Act and the other 1912 Act are nearly alike in that they both try to
shift some of the burden of taxation in point of time, from a yearly to a
periodic stipend. The wild or waste land act provides for no increase in.assesa.
ed values until 1950 and provide for a harvest tax of 1/10 of 1% but never to
exceed 7%. The State Forester states that perhaps 20,000 acres have recently

been classified under this Act.

 

 

- 24s - "W’*”“”’n

The State of Wisconsin passed a tax exemption Act in 1915 which applies to
forest tree plantations.

The owner of any tract of land who will set apart a certain portion not to
exceed 40 acres for forest culture and plant at least 1200 forest trees per acre
shall be exempt from taxation for a period of 30 years. The trees are to be
kept alive and in a healthy condition. A statement of such plantings shall be
made to the assessor, which shall be verified by him at the annual assessment.
After the trees have been planted 10 years the owner may thin the plantation to
600 trees per acre.

The owner in making application for exemption should give a description
and plot of the land in the plantation. A capy is to be filed with the town
clerk and the other with the State Conservation Conmnssion at _gflflidisorw
yon or before the first day of May.

The Conservation Commission upon a written complaint may determine whether
the plantation conforms with the rules and regulations. If it does not the comé
mission is to file a statement to that effect with the town clerk and the
plantation shall cease to be exempt until the conditions are brought within the
conditions of this Act.

The Exemption shall not apply to land within two miles of an incorporated
city or village except upon the written approval of the Conservation Commission.

In consideration of the public benefit to be derived from the planting, cul-
tivation and growth of such trees, the exemption of such land from taxation as
herein provided shall be continued and is hereby assured and the right to such
exemption shall be inviolahle and inevocable as a contract obligation of the
state as long as the owner fully complies wdth this Act, not exceeding a period
of 80 years.

The owner who intends to plant a tract of land so as to secure the exemption
privileges may have the value determined in advance of such planting by township
board of review. To procure such a determination the owner shall file an
application with the township clerk, declaring his intentions, a description
of the land and a request that the valuation be determined. The Board of

Pen-ta... 35-11 Aasa..-a...a ‘Ln mans. ..c‘ +1.:- 1......a _e. sum:— on“; ...-.-.“..- rm“...

 

 

- 244.
may summon witnesses and take testimony under oath. They may visit such lands
and may adjoin the matter such time as may be necessary in order to secure
needful information in regards to the value of such tracts. If the determina—
tion of value is $10 per acre or less, it shall be final for all purposes of
the Act provided the land is planted within two years. If the board determines
the value to be over $10 per acre the owner may again make application in
subsequent years.

If the owner desires to have the Valuation determined without delay he may
do so by stating this in his application and depositing enough money to pay for
one days compensation for the board of review. 0

The townclerk shall record the determination of the board of reveiw along
with a description of the land.

If the owner fails to have his Valuation determined first but plants forest
trees and then applies and his land is valued over $10 per acre by the board of
review he may appeal to the State Dept. of Conservation in writing. The Con—
servation Commission is to hold hearings in the township at certain date and the
expense to be paid by the owner of the plantation. Notice of these hearings must
be posted 10 days before hearings. The findings of the Commission and written
apprOVal of the State Tax Commission shall be final. The owner may apply again
in subsequent years.

After the exemption is granted it is to run for 30 years provided the
owner keeps the plantation within the requirements of the Act. This Act applies
to corporations, co—partnerships and association of persons as well as to

individuals.

- 245 -

CONCLUSION.

In young immature stands of gimber, where‘it is impossible to obtain an
annual return the general preperty tax works a great hardship on the owner.
This is due to the fact that taxes and carrying costs mount up at a rappid
stride when charged against the investment at compound interest. The same is
true of any long time investment that does not return a yearly revenue.

In old stands of timber where some of it is merchantable, a yearly
revenue may be obtained by removal of part of the mature timber. Tn this
case taxes and carrying charges my be charged off each year, thus eliminating
heavy cast of compound interest. In such cases, providing a market is available
the general property tax does not work such a great hardhhip as a great many
owners believe. Even with Michigan producing less forest products than we con-
sume it is very often a difficult matter ot find a ready market for woodlands
When this cendition exists for a number of years it, of course, puts this type
of woodlands in the same class as far as compound interest on taxes and carry-
ing costs are concerned.

The real tax burden on all property in the state is due to the extra

activities of the local governments as school, roads, county and township.
In most of the countries of the state the state pays back thru the Primary
School fund more or as much as it receives frOm the county in state taxes.
The school, township, and a large percent of the road expenses are voted
directly by the residents themselves. The county expenses are voted by the
County Board of Supervisors, elected directly by the tax payers themselves.
The state tax is but a very small portion of the total tax levied; Yet the
people themselves complain about the high taxes and want the state legislature
to do something to relieve them, while, in reality, they are the only ones who
can relieve the burden. Any great relief from the tax burden must come than
a reduction in expenses of the local governments and it is highly improbable

that they can materially reduce their expenses in the near future.

 

In nearly every case Act 86 of 1917, known as the woodlot Act was work-
ing out quite satisfactorily and in the few cases where it was not, it was
due to a misunderstanding either on the part of the owner or the supervisor.
Very few woodlot owners who are eligible have taken advantage of it. This is,
of course, likely due to a good many reasons but as this study shows a great
many of them are unfounded. The Act is of course weak in some points. Pre-
bably the foremost weakness is the lack of power on the part of some responsi—
ble person or board to force the supervisor to accept a woodlot that fulfills
the provisions of the Act. The Act is also weak in the fact that it calls onhy
for an inspection by the 10cal supervisor when out flaking the assessment. In
Vmost of cases the supervisor calls at'tka hone, aSks a few questions and never
gets out of his car. This is, of course, far from an inspection. The inspect-
ion should be conducted by a man who is familiar with woodlot management and
able to give expert advice as to future care. Also there is nothing to pre-
vent the supervisor from lowering the valuation on the woodlot and just add—
ing that much more on the rest of the farm. But with these weaknesses, I
believe Act 86 of 19h? is working out as satisfactorily as most any such Acts
in other states to-day and deserves to be used more by the farmers of this
state.

By far the larger percentage of the woodlots of the state are mature or
all age stands with some mature merchantable timber. In such cases, with pro-
per fire protection, proper management and the sale of the annual growth each
year or two, the general preperty tax does not work the hardship as pictured
in many cases. The real burden falls on the young growing non-merchantable
stands. There is, of course, no doubt but what the general preperty tax is
faulty and obsolete in may respects but I believe that in many cases in wood-
land taxation the burden is over-rated. In the young immature stands the
whole problem hinges on a few cardianl princinles of Economics. When the
supply basemes scarce the demand will increase, with the increase in demand

comes an.increase in price and when the price reaches such a level that it is

 

 

- 248 —

economically pessible to grow a cr0p of timber and receive a fair margin of
profit the people will then start to plant and care for the young growth.
There are of course other factors entering in as land utilization, bequty
and increased selling price of the land but the whole thing hinges on the
lucrativeness of the investment. Then at this time will come a demand for

better protection and management of existing woodlands.

- 249 L
BIBLIOGRAPHY

TAXES IN GENERAL

 

Adams — Public Debt
Dovel - History of Taxation in England
. Eastman — Taxation for State Purposes in Pennsylvania
. Ely — Taxation in American States and Cities
" - Outline of Economics
. Hall — Who pays your taxes.
7. Millan — Taxation the peOplss business
8. Smith Adam - Wealth of Nations
9. Seligman — Essayes on Taxation
10. Wells - Theory and Practice of Taxation

Bibliography On Forest Taxation

Aherman, A. An objective point in the taxation of forest lands. (Southern
woodlands, June 1908, v.2, no.2:31-40.)

Allen, E.T. Practical yield tax System in connection with timber ownship
urged. (Timberuan, July 1914,v.l5, no.9: 32.)

...... Taxation of tinher land. (Mississippi valley lumberman,
Oct. 21, 1910, v.41,no.42: 59—40).

...... Taxation of timber lands. (American lumberman, July 30,1910,no.
1836: 49-50).

The all—important tax question. (Lumber trade journal, May lb, 1908, v.53,
no.10: ll—lZ).

American forestry association; 28th annual meeting; forest taxation. (Con.
servation, 1909, v.15: 152-5).

Ames, E.G. Taxation of standing timber. (Pioneer western lumberman,
Dec. 15, 1912: ll—lS).

---- Unjust land taxation. (Forest leaves, April 19CB, v.11: 124—6).

Barrus, George latte. State policy and taxation. (New York state forestry
association. Bulletin, Jan.1915, v.2: 21.6).

Bissell, J.H. Notes on forest taxation. (Michigan - Forestry commission.
Report, 1905—6, p.80—2 .

Blair, C.B. The state's problem concerning its holdings of land forfeited for
taxes. (Michigan - Forestry commission. Report, 1907—08, p.52-4).

Bonner, B.F. Raps taxation System. (American lumberman, April 17, 1915, no.
2083: 47.)

Brinsmade, R.B. The natural taxation of timbered mining land. (Conservation,
July 1909, v.15, no.7: 408-11).

- 250 -

Bronson, Leonard. Forest taxation and the preservation and perpetuation of
our woodlands. (Southern lumber journal, Oct.15,l912, v.30, no.8: 42).

Bruncken, Ernest. Private forestry and taxation. (Forestry and irrigation,
Oct.l903, v.9: 509-12 .

Buckwalter, J,R. Taxation of timber lands in Mississippi. Lumber trade
journal, may 1, 1908, v.58, no.9: 18).

Bullock, Charles J. Taxation of forests in Massachusetts. (Forestry quarterly,
Dec. 1914, v.12: 544—5).

California conservation commission and timber taxation. (Pioneer western
lumbernan, April 1, 1912, v.57, no.7,21_5).

California forest protective association. Being a presentation of the principles
of a yield tax on timber, by authctties on taxation and forestry. 8 p.
San Francisco, 1914. (Bulletin 4).

Cary, A. Maine forests, their preservation, taxation and value. (Maine -
Bureau of industrial and labor statistics. 20th annual report, 1906 p.
180s93).

--—- and others. State regulation of timber cutting. (American forestry,
May 1910, v.16: 280—90).

Chapman, c.s. Forest taxation. (American lumberman, Dec.17,1910, no. 1856: 58).

Chapman, Herman H. The recent Connecticut law for taxation of forest lands.
(American forestry, Sept. 1915, v.19: 593—9).

Cheyney, E.G. Taxation of woodlands. (Farm students review, Dec.1907,
v. 13, no.12: 238).

Chittenden, Alfred K. and Irion, Harry. The taxation of forest lands in
Wisconsin. 80 p. Madison, Wis. 1911. (Wisconsin — State board of forestry.
Publication.) '

Clark, Judson F. Woodland taxation. pl. (Canadian forestry journal, Oct.
1905, v. 1: 159-72).

Classifioation of Louisiana timber land for taxation. (St. Louis lumberman,
Sept. 15, 1907, v.40, no.6: 65).

Comment on the new system of taxing timber preposed by the Timberman.
(Timberman, Feb. 1912, v. 13, no.4: 19).

Compton, Wilson. Recent reform on forest taxation in the United States.
(American lunnerunn, Dec. 18-25, 1915, no.2118: 34-5, no.2119:
36-7,75).

Connecticut - Agricultural experiment station. Connecticut's forest taxation
law, something new in taxation. 8p. New Haven, Conn., 1913. (For-
estry publication no.9).

Connecticut — Special commission on taxation of woodland. Report. 53 p.
maps. Hartford, Conn., 1912.

Cornwall, G.M. Taxation of timber land. (Timberman, Apr.l912, v.13, no.6:
26-7).

 

- 251 - ’"”

Correct way to tax timber; Seattle concern claims plan will overcome evils
if properly used. (American luwberman, May 29, 1915, no.2089z45).

Damberg, E. Appraising forests for the purpose of taxation in Russia.
(Lyesnoi zhurnal, March - April, 1902).

Darling, D.H. Arguments for just taxation of standing timber. (American
lumbernan, June 22, 1907, no.1674: 40).

_--_ Timberland taxes: land vs. income tax. (Forest leaves, Oct.1907, v.
11: 68-70).

The devastating influence of fire and taxes. (Mississippi Valley lumberman,
May 15, 1907, v. 39, no.2o: 26-7).

Discusses Cdlifornia timberland tax situation. (American lumbermen, Sept.
4, 1915, no.2103: 30-1).

Discussion on forest taxation. (International tax association. 2d inter—
national conference, 1909, p.99-110).

Donne, C.H. and Anderson, R. Taxation of woodland. (Quarterly journal of
forestry, Jan. 1908, v.2: 4-24).

Drinker, Henry Sturgis. An analysis and summary of modern Opinions on the
taxation of our woodlands and forests; an address delivered at the
State forest academy, Mont Alto, Pa., Aug.l4, 1912. 18 p.n.p.,1912.

Duchesne, M.C. Income tax on woodlands. (Quarterly journal of forestry,
Oct. 1916, v.10, no.4: 314-18).

Earles, M. Burden of iniquities in the taxation of standing timber. (American
lumbermen, April 15, 1909, no.1769: 45).

The economic problem of forest taxation. (Minnesota forester, March 1909
v. 2, no.3: 32.5).

Elliott, S.E. How should our future forest lands be taxed? (Forest leaves,
Feb. 1906, v.10: 104-7).

Fairchild, Fred Rogers. The economic problem of forest taxation (Southern
lumberman, Feb. 27, 1909, v.58, no.701: 28-30).

-..— Shaw, A.C. and Fernow, 13.3. Forest taxation. 42;). Columbus, 0.19m.

——— The present state of forest tax legislation. (American forestry, Oct.
1912, v.18; 653-5).

_-- The relation of taxation to forest conserVation. (Lumber review,
Aug. 1, 1909, v.19, no.15: 42.6).

--- Suggestions for a practical plan of forest taxation. 31 p. New Haven,
Conn., 1912.

--- The taxation of timber lands. (Forestry quarterly, Dec. 1908, v.6:
383—6).

--- The taxation of timber lands. (National conservation commission.
Report, 1909, v.2: 581—632).

_.. The taxation of timber lands. (Pacific lumber trade journal, June 1910,
v. 16, no.2: 36—42).

 

 

- 252 - *'*4*W

---- The taxation of timber lands. (Southern lumberman, July 20, 1912,
no. 878: 28.)

---- The taxation of timber lands in the United States. (International tax
association. 2d international conference, 1909, p.69—82.) I

-___ Timber taxation. (Pacific coast wood and iron, Aug. 1, 1909, v.52,
no. 3: 7‘11.)

_..- Timberland taxation. (Southern lumbermsn, April 23, 1910, v.63,
no. 761: 33-4).
Fernow, B.E. Forest taxation and conservation as practiced in Canada.
(International tax association. 2d international cenference, 1909, p.
93—8.)

_--- Forest taxation and conservation as practiced in Canada. (Forestry
quarterly, Dec. 1903, v.6: 387-92.)

__-- Taxation of woodlands. (Forestry quarterly, Dec. 1907, v.5: 373—84).

-_—_ Taxation of woodlands. (In his Economics of forestry, 1902, p.245-
53, 878, 465—7.) . .

Forcing destruction of forests. (Forestry and irrigation, l9CB, v.14:8.)
Forest taxation. (Forestry and irrigation, 1907, v.13: 275—276.)
Forest taxation. (Conservation, 1909, v.15: 298-299.)

Forest taxatgon. (Idaho - Tax commission. lst biennial report, 1913—14,p.
53—40 .

Forest taxation. (American forestry, Nov. 1913, v.19: 885-91).
Forest taxation. (Minnesota forester, Aug. 1907, v.2, no.8: 86-8).
Forest taxation. (Woodland and roadside, May 19C8, v.7, no.2: 20—2).
Forest taxation. (Outlook, Feb. 12, 1910, v.94: 322).

Forest taxation in PennsylVania; prOposed legislation. (Forest leaves, Aug.
1912, v.13: 153-5).

Forest taxation in Wisconsin. (American forestry, 1910, v.16: 379—80).

Forest taxation system in Washington discussed at Seattle conference. (Tina
barman, June 1914, v.15, no. 8: 25—7).

Forestry and revenue. (Boston herald, Sept. 18, 1901).

Forests should be taxed on yield. (Southern lumberman, Dec. 26, 1908, v.56,
no. 692: 45-6).

Foster, J.H. The present forest tax situation in New Hampshire. (Forestry
quarterly, Dec. 1915, v.13, no.4: 474-80).

---- Taxation of forest prOperty in New Hampshire. (American forestry,
July 1912, v.18: 470—3).

———_ The taxation of forest lands and the efficiency of the fire laws in new
Hampshire. (N.H.— Forestry cemmission. Biennial report, 1907—8 p.47—119).

 

r’fggggggggi — 253 — ' ' 7’

Galloway, Robert. Death duties on weeds. (Royal Scottish arboricultural
society. Transactions, Jan. 1915, v.27: 36-40).

Gardiner, G.S. The states and the timber supply. (St. Louis lumberman,
Mar. 15, 1908, v.14, no.6: 27).

Gaskill, Alfred. How shall forests be taxed. (Society of American foresters.
Proceedings, Apr. 1906, v.1: 115-31).

Goadby, Arthur. Graded assessment of reforested lands. (American forestry,
May 1913, v.19: 331—2).

---- The solution of the forestry tax problem. (American forestry, Oct.
1912, v.18: 663—6).

 

Goetz, C.H. Lumbermen's views on reforestation. (Forestry and irrigation,
Jan. 19%, v.14: 35—8).

____ Taxation of our forests and forest lands. (American lumberman, July
13, 1912, no. 1930: so).

__—— Why Americans cut dewn their forests. (Forestry and irrigation, July
1907, v. 13: 382—3).

Goldsbury, P.W. Taxation and forestry; diagnosis of a New England town.
(Forestry quarterly, 1913, v.11: 385—387).

Green, G. Taxation of woodlands. (Quarterly journal of forestry, July 1909,
v. 3, no. 3: 264-73).

Green, W.J. Tax exemption of forest lands. (Ohio forester, Oct. 1909, v.1,
no. 3: 6—7.)

Harvey, B.T. Wild land taxation; its relation to forestry in Main. (Paper
mill, June 6-30, 19C8, v.31, no.28: 16, 36: no.24: 7; no.25: 36.)

Hawley, Ralph C. The question of forest taxation in Massachusetts. (Connec—
ticut forestry association. Proceedings, 1907, p. 18—20).

Hollis, A. Taxation of forests. (Society for protection of New Hampshire
forests. Forest conference, 1909, p. 28—35).

Holt, W.A. Taxation of timber lands. ( Miss. Valley lumberman, Jan. 29, 1915,
v. 46, no.5: 33-4).

Homans, G.M. Taxation of timber lands. (Timberman, April 1912, v.18, no.6:
23_4).

'Hoover, E.M. Influence of taxation on forest distribution. (Conservation,
Aug. 1909, v.15, no.8: 469-70).

How Washington thmber is taxed. (West Coast lumberman, Mar. 15, 1916, v.29,
no. 347: 43).

Hutton, G.W. and Harpham, E.E. Forest taxation as a factor in forest manage-
ment. (Society of American foresters. Proceedings, July 1916, v.11,
no. 3: 330—5).

The imperative necessity of a yield tax on timber proven by timber land tax
Valuations in Louisiana. (Pioneer western lumberman, Aug. 15, 1914,
v. 62, no.4: 24-5).

- 234 1

Imperative need of reform legislation on question of timber taxation. (Time
barman, Jan. 1913, v.13, no.3: 36—7).

Income tax and timber. (American lumbernan, March 14, 1914, no.2026: 32).

Indiana forestry legislation. (Forest leaves, Apr. 1903, v.9, no.2: 25).

Inequality of taxation of Mississippi timber holders. (Industrial record,
Mar. 7, 1908, v.16, no.10: 9).

Inequitable taxation of standing timber. (Forest leaves, Dec. lBCB, vull, no.
12: 181—2.)

Irwin, B. An unconstitutional timber tax. (Timberman, mar.1909, v.10,
no. 5: 24.5).

---- Taxation and forest conservation. (Southern industrial and lumber
review, Sept. 1909, v.17, no. 2: 36).

Ivy, T.P. Timberland taxation in New Hampshire and in general. (American
lumberman, Nov. 13, 1909, no. 1799: 33).

James, H. and others. Taxation of forests land. (American Forestry, May
1910, v. 16; 314-15).

Jarvis, Clarence E. The taxation of timber. (Grizzly bear, Dec. 1909, v.6,
no. 2: 1.2).

Jones, John C. Forest taxation. (American lumberman, Nov. 23, 1912, no.
1958: 50).

Judd, J.W. Timber land taxation. (Southern lumberman, Sept. 26, 1908, v.57,
no. 679: 25.32).

Lake states forestry convention. (Mississippi valley lumberman, Dec. 18,
1908, v.39, no.5l: 36—7).

Langille, H.D. Unjust taxation of timberlands. (Timberman, Apr. 1908, v.9,
no.6:423).

Louisiana timber conservation tax. (Mississippi Valley lumberman, Nov. 1,
1912, v.43, no.44: 3Csl).

Louisiana timber tax placed at one half of one per cent on gross value. (Lump
ber trade journal, July 15, 1912, v. 62, no.2: 16).

Louisiana timber valuation raised. (Lumber trade journal, Sept. 15, 1915 v.
68, no.6: 11,14,19—25).

Lumbermen‘s basis on conservation tax accepted by conservation commission.
(Lumber trade journal, Nov. 15, 1912, v.62, no.10: 44).

Lyons, Thos. E. Taxation of forest and timberland. (American lumberman,
May 1, 1915, no. 2085: 33,52).

Mackenzie, K. Afforestation and local taxation. (Royal Scottish arboricul-
tural society. Transactions, Jan. 1910, v.23: 3-7).

McNeal, J.E. Forest taxation. (Forest leafes, Apr. 1910, v.12, no.8: 120—1).

McVey, F.L. Rational system of taxation of natural resources. (American lumber.
man, Sept. 10, 1910, no.1842: 51).

L . , ,Wlii

Maine's object lesson in the taxation of timber lends. (American lumbermen,
Sept. 22, 1906, no.1635: 26). '

Massachusetts - Commission on the taxation of wild or forest lands. Report,
Jan. 1914. 98 p. Boston, Wright & Potter printing Co. 1914.

Massachusetts _ State forester. The new Mass. forest taxation law explained
and printed in full. 35 p. pl. Boston, 1914.

Massachusetts - State forester. Report of the committee of 1905 to consider
the laws relative to the taxation of forest lands. 28 p. Boston, 1906
(Bulletin — 3).

Michigan - Commission on inquiry, tax lands and forestry. Report. 146 p.
Lansing, Mich. 1908.

Miles, Herbert J. Forest taxation activity in Mass. (Forestry quarterly,
March 1914, v.12: 41—3). .

The mill tax for forestry. (Conservation, 1909, v.15: 498).

Miller, Frank G. Forest taxation in Washington, (Society of American Fbrestere.
Proceedings, July 1914, v.9: 407-47).

-_—_ Forest taxation in washington. (Washington — State tax conference,
1914, p.45—68).

_--- Timber taxation. (American lumberuan, Dec. 17, 1910, no.1856: 58).
_-_- Scientific taxation of timber. (Timberman, Oct. 1910, v.11, no.12:19).

Minnesota on the taxation of timber lands. (Forest leaves, Apr. 1909, v.12,
no. 2: 24-5).

Mississippi's freak land taxation measure. (Lumber trade journal, Apr.l,1912,
v.61, no.7:36.)

Mr. Weyerhaeuser on forest taxation. (Conservation, 1909, v.15: 440).

Mowry, Jesse B. Forest taxation. 5 p. Providence, R.I. 1911. (R.I. —
Commissioner of forestry. Leaflet no.3).

Mulkey, F.W. Relation of timber taxation to conservation. (Pacific lumber
trade journal, Sept. 1909, v.15,5: l9).

---- Taxation of forest land as affecting conservation. (American lumbermsn
Oct. 30, 1909, no.1797: 37.)

---- Taxation of timber lands. (Timberman April 1909, v.10, no.6: 19).

Murphy, Louis S. Forest taxation and the single tax. (Forestry quarterly,
Dec. 1914, v.12: 546—7).

-_-— The single tax in relation to forestry. (The Public, Feb. 26, 1915, v.18:
217-24).

National conservation congress - Forestry committee. Advance cepy of paper
on forest taxation, by the sub-committee on forest taxation: Chairman,
Gifford Pinchot. 32 p. Wash., D.C. 1913.

New Hampshire — Tax commission. Forest taxation. (In its Report, 1908,
p. 175—200, 306-10).

 

-356 .. ’—”’ ——I
' Nickey, 3.x. Timberland taxation. (Southern lumberman, nov. 4, 1916,

 

no. 1102: 28). j
A Norway town without taxes. (Forestry and irrigation, 1907, v.13: 446—447).

Objective point in taxation of forest lands. (Southern lumberman, July 4,
19GB, p.26.)

Oppose taxing timber. (American forestry, 1913, v.19: 130).

0rdway, Samuel H. Forest taxation. (Paper mill and wood pep news, Feb. .
21, 1914, p. 76—80).

Pack, C.L. Forest conservation and taxation. (American forestry, May
1910, v.16: 291-2)

Patterson, W.I. British Columbia timberland taxation policy encourages
destruction. (Timberman, July 1911, v.12, no.9: 62-3).
(

_--- Timber land taxation in British Columbia. (Canada lumberman, Aug.l ,
1913, v.33, no.15: 31-2).

Pennsylvania forestry taxation legislation. (Forest leaves, Aug. 1913, v.14:
59—62).

Pennsylvania's tree growing bounty; news and notes. (Forestry and irrigation,
1907, v.13: 464).

Pettis, Clifford R. Forest taxation. 19 p. Albany, N. Y. , 1912. (New
York — Conservation cemmission — Division of lands and forests. Bulletih 8)

A phase of forest conservation. (American lumberman, Apr. 6, 1901, no. 1350. 14-15)

Plumb, F. H. Assessing the forests. (American cultivator, Jan. 23, 1909, v.71,
no. 4: 2

Pollock, E.W. The Pollock plan for equitably assessing timber and mill hold-
ings. (West Coast lumberman July 1, 1915, v.28, no.330: 21,33).

Proposed forest taxation in PennsylVania. (Forest leaves, Apr. 1909, v.12: 21—2).

fireposed forestry taxation legislation in Pennsylvania. (Forest leaves, Feb.
1913, v.14: 2-5).

The question of forest taxation. (Lumber trade journal, Mar.l, 1909, v.55, no.5:
11-12).

Recommended taxation policy for the timber lands of Washington. (American
lumberman, Mar. 27, 1909, no. 1766: 32-3).

Relief frOm taxation in Indiana. (Forestry and irrigation, 1907, v.13:353).

Report of the Minnesota tax commission as it relates to timber. (Mississippi
Valley lumberman, Mar. 10, 1911, v.42, no.10: 28).

Report of the Minnesota tax commission on log and timber taxation. (American
lumberman, Feb. 6, 1909, no.1759: 54-5).

Reynolds, Harris A. A citizen's movement to reduce the tax rate. 8 p.
Boston, Mass., 1913. (Mass. forestry association, Bulletin 104).

Rhodes, J.E.Forestry, fires and taxation. (Southern lumberman, Jan. 30,
1909, v.58, no.697: 32-3).

' - zcv -
Robinson, C.F. State taxation and forest lands. (Political science quarterly
Dec. 1909, v.24: 515-cz). -

Rothrcck, J.T. Pennsylvania's timber taxation bill. (American forestry,
July 1913, v.19: 477—82).

Ruddle, J. Taxing land held for reforestation. (Forest leaves, Oct. 1909, v.
12, no.5: 73—5).

Scammon, E.G. Taxation of timber lands and the future lumber supply.
19 p. n.p., 1909. '

Schrenek, C.A. Forest taxation. (New York - Fisheries, ~ame and forestry
commission, 5th annual report, 1899, p.895—400).

Schrenk, H. van. Practical problems in state forestry. (Lumber trade journal,
Nov. 1, 1909, v.56, no.9: 41 .

Shaw, A.C. Ineguitable taxation of standing timber. (American lumbernan, May
9, 19%, no. 1720: 4'7).

_--- Taxation of forest lands. (International tax association. 2d inter-
national conference, 1909, p. 83—91).

Shippen, W.H. Taxation of timberland holdings. (American lumberman,
Oct. 12, 1912, no. 1992: 39).

Shortsightod policy which hastmis denudation of timber lands. (Mississippi
Valley lunberuan, Mar. 6, 1908, v.39, no.10: ZO—l).

Smith, C.A. Reforestation of cut over lands and the probleus of taxation.
(Timberuan, Dec. 1909, v.11, no.2: 30).

Society for the protection of New Hampshire forests. Taxation of forests:
papers and discussion at a forest conference in the White Mts., July 12,
1912, 80 p. Concord, N.E. 1913.

Solving timber taxation problems; how lunbermen and farmers of the far northwest
have cooperated. (American lumbernan, Feb. 18, 1915, no.2074: 40—1).

Start, Edwin A. Taxation of forest lands; a review of recent studies in New
Hampshire and Wisconsin. (American forestry, 1911, v.17: 256—64).

gtudy of forest taxation. (Forestry and irrigation, 19C8, v.14: 224-5).

Take off the taxes. (Forestry and irrigation, 1908, v.14: 122—128).

Tax reform in New York. (Forestry and irrigation, 19C8, v.142129).

Tax sale land for forests in Wisconsin. (Forestry and irrigation, 1907, v.13: 392)

Tax supervisor, preposed creation of a new officer of the state. (Albany
times union, Mar. 26, 19CO).

Taxation and tax lands. (Michigan forestry commission. Report, 1905—6, p.
155-5).

Taxation of cut over lands. (American lumberman, Nov. 29, 1932, no.1436: 11—12).

Taxation of forest lands. (Oregon forester, Mar. — Apr. 19C8, v.1, no.1:
1-7; n02: 5—7.)

 

, _ 258 - “4’4444”4’44444444444f444n
Taxation of forest lands. (Southern lumber journal, Apr. 15, 1906, v.18, no.
8: 26).
Taxation of Forests - Society for Protection of New Hampshire Forests, July 1912.

The taxation of forests. (Lumber trade journal, Jan. 1909, v.55, no.1: 12-13).

Taxation of southern woodlands. (Lumber trade journal, New Or¢leans, May
1, 1903, v.42, no.9: 12.) ‘

Taxation of timber holdings. Southern lumber journal, Nov. 1, 1912, v.30,
no.9:236).

Taxation of timber land. (American forestry, 1913, v.19: 128).

Taxation of timber lands in B.C. (Canada lumberman, Feb. 15, 1912, v.32,
no.4: 26-7).

Taxation of timberlands. (American lumberman, Mar. 15, 1902: 15).
Taxation of timberlands. (Luwber review, May 1, 1908, v.18, no.9: 12).
Taxation of timberlands. (Lumber trade journal, Apr. 15, 19CB, v.53, no.8:11_12)

woodland. (New England farmer, Sept. 21, 1901, v.80, no.37: p.1).

“3

Taxation o
Taxation of woodland. (Boston evening transcript. Sept. 11, 1901).

Taxation of woodlands. (In Maryland - Cemuission for the revision of the
taxation system. Report, 1913, p. 343—8).

Taxation of forest land in Wisconsin. (Mississippi valley lumberman, May7,
1915, v.46, no.19:26).

Taxation of thber lands. (Timberman, Nov. 1918, v.15, no.1: 26).
Taxation the priuary issue. (American forestry, 1910, v.16: 299-300).

Taxation as a destroyer of forests. (St.Louis lumberman, Aug.l5, 1908, v.24,
no. 4: 57-8).

The taxation of timber; seme expressions on the subject by well known timber
owners. (Lumber trade journal, Nov. 15, 1909, v.56, no.10: 22).

Taxes in the forest preserves. (Albany journal, Mar. 6, 1900).
Taxes and trees. (Philadelphia press, July 9, 1902). 1

Taxes on standing timber in Douglas county, Wisconsin. (Amer. lumberman, June
7, 1922, p.13).

Taxing a forest grant. (Conservation, 1909, v.15: 440.441).

Taxing timberlands as barren; Senator Bobb's bill in the N.Y.legislature.
(Paper trade journal, Feb. 27, 1908, v.46, no.9: 54).

Taxing the wild lands of Maine. (Forest leaves, Aug. 1907, v.11: 52-3).

Taxing timberlands in Mississippi. (Lumber trade journal, June 1, 1913, v.
63, no.11: 19—21).

- so: _
Tinker cutting regulations and taxing policies in relation to forest preserva-
tion. (Amer. lumberman, May 30, 1908, no. 1723: 32).

Timber owner's interest in state forest preservation legislation. (Amer.
lumbernmn, June 13, 1908, no. 1725: 33).

Timber taxation. (Amer. lumberman, Feb. 15, 1915, p. 49).

Thnber taxation an unnust burden on the Pacific northwest. (Amer. lumberman,
Sept. 16, 1916, no. 2157: 24).

Timber taxation problems in washington complex in character. (Amer. lumbernnn
Feb. 20, 1909, no.1761: 33).

Tbmber taxes raised. (Southern industrial and lumber review, Sept. 1911, v.
19, no.2: 42).

Timberland tax valuations are too high as compared with other lines. (Lumber
trade journal, July 15, 1914, v.66, no.2: 22 .

Timberland taxation in Pennsy1Vania. (Amer. forestry, June 1913, v.19: 398—9).
Unjust land taxation. (Amer. lumberman, Mar. 14, 1908, no.1712: 14).

Unwin, A.Harold. Forest land taxation. (Canadian forestry journal, Aug. 1906,
v.2: 148—9).

Walker, T.B. Forest taxation. (Timbernen, Oct. 1909, v.10, no.12: 32 a.)

_-- Taxation of timber lands. (Mississippi Valley lumberman, June 25, 19C8,
v. 39, no.26: 245).

Walker, W.J. Unjust timber land taxation. (Paafic Coast wood and iron,
Apr. 15, 1909, v.51, no.8: 9).

Ward, C.W. Good advice from Minnesota. (Minn. forester, Dec. 1909, v1. no. 12:
136—40). '

--—- Taxation of American timber holdings. (Amer. lumberman, Dec. 23, 1911,
no. 1910: 50—1 .

---- Taxation of timber an incentive to its destruction. (Amer. lumberman,
Nov. 30, 1907, no.1697: 87-8).

Weld, C.W. Too much immature cutting; exemption from taxation. (New England
farmer, Jan. 11, 1902.

Where and how to tax timber. ( Mississippi valley lumbernan, Feb. 12, 1909,
v.40, no.7: 22.)

White, J B. Taxation as related to forest preservation. (St. Louis lumberman,
July 1, 1908, p.63-4).

Wood, L.S. The rating and taxation of woodlands. (Timber trade journal,
June 19, 1909, v.65, no.1712, 12).

——-— The rating and taxation of woodlands. (Royal English arboricultural
society. Report of the British timber conference, 1909, p.24-37).

Supplementary list of Articles on Forest Taxation

Aris, J. Whitton. Estate duty. (Quarterly journal of forestry, London,
April 1917, v.11, no.2: 129-31).

- 260 -
Elliott, Simon Bolivar, Forest lands and tax problems. 11. (In the Open,
Pittsburgh, June 1917, v.7, no.6: 18-28).

Elwes, H.J. and Eaviland, Wm. A. Income-tax on woodlands. (Quarterly journal
of forestry, London, Jan. 1917, v.11, no.1: 66—8).

Galloway, Robert. Forestry and income tax. (Royal Scottish.arboricultural
Society, Edinburgh. Transactions, Jan. 1917, v.81: 31—5).

How shall planted lands be taxed. (Canadian forestry journal, Ottawa, Aug.
1917, v.13, no.8: 1243—4).

Goadby, Arthur. A modern Gordian knot - forest taxation. (New York forestry,
Syracuse, July 1917, v.4, no.2: 20—23).

Hayden, J.F. The taxation of timber lands. (Miss. Valley lumberman,
Minneapolis, Dec. 4, 1917, v.48, no.50: 33).

Boomer, Ralph Sheldon. Forest taxation. (Empire state forest products
association, Albany. Proceedings, 12th, 1917, p. 14-30).

Louisiana lumber taxation. (lumber trade journal, New Orleans, Apr. 1, 1917,
v. 71, no.7: 15-16).

.Maw, P.Trentham. Taxation of woodlands. (Quarterly journal of forestry,
London, Apr. 1917, v.11, no. 2: 131—2).

Roth, Filibert. What is a basis for yield tax. (Journal of forestry, Wash.,
D.C., Nov. 1917, v.15, no.7: 886-90).

Standing timber's relation to "invested capital." (American lumberman,
Chicago, Jan. 12, 1918, no.2226: 34es).

Taxation of timber lands. (Pulp and paper magazine, Toronto, Jan. 24, 1918,
v.16, no.4: 67).

Barnes, G.T. Principles of forest taxation reviewed. (Amer. lumberman,
Mar. 15, 1919, p.46-7).

Chapman, H.H. Forest taxation. (Amer. lumberman, Dec. 27, 1919, p.61-8).

Eairchild, F.R. Finding solution of forest taxation. (American lumberman,
Sept. SO—Oct. 7, 1922.)

Liberal tax laws foster reforestation. (Hardwood record, NOV. 10, 1922, p.22,24.

McKay, M.K. Present status of forest taxation in the U.S.
(Journal of forestry, May 1919, p. 472.89).

Maughan, J. Death duties on timber. Quarterly journal of forestry,
July, 1922, p. 212-16).

Maw, P.T. Notes and suggestions on death duties, taxes, and rates on
woodlands. (Quarterly journal of forestry, July 1919, p.185-93).

Maw, P.T. Taxation of woodlands. (Quarterly journal of forestry, Apr. 1917,
p. 131—2.)

Moore, A.G.T.Tree & taxes: two forestry phases. (Southern lumberman,
Dec. 17, 1921, p.121).

Murphy, L.S. Single taxes distinction between land and standing timber ex-
plained. (Amer. lumberman, Aug. 9, 1919, p. 58-60).

 

 

-261-

Murphy, L.s. Maine's new tax law in the toils. (Journal of forestry,
Nov. 1922, p.826—8).

Murphy, L.S. Many state laws in aid of forestry. (Amer. Lumberman,
Oct. 21, 1922, p.61.)

National tax association — Committee on forest taxation. Forest taxation:
report of the committee. (Amer. forestry, Nov. 1922, p.655—60, 667).

Parker, G. Comment of "forest taxation.". (Journal of forestry, Dec. 1921,
p. 925—7 .

Rhodes, G.H. Localizing forestry. (Amer. lumberman, Aug. 5—Sept.2,1922).

Skeels, I. Federal tax on timber stumpage. (Amer. lumberman, July 5, 1919,
p. 42.3).

Srhuus, K. Forest taxation in Sweden: new law effective in 1922.
Translation. (Journal of forestry, Mar. 1922, p.313—15).

Taxation of standing timber. (Timberman, Jan. 1922, p.26).

Taxation of timber land. (Timberman, Nov. 1922, p.186-8).

 

- 262—

MICHIGAN GENERAL
1. Budget Committee of Inquiry 1918.
2. Census of Michigan 1854 — 1904.
3. Cmnnission of Inguiry into Taxaiion 1911.
4. Digest of the Laws in regards to Taxation.
5. Farm statistics of Michigan.
6. Fuller: Economic and Social Beginnings of Michigan1867.
7. Reports of the Mich. Land office 1914.
8. Report of the State Tax Statistician 1896.
9. Reports of the State Tax Commission.
10. Reports of the Board of Equalization Meetings.
11. U.S. Census - Wealth — Debt Taxation 1913.
12. U.S. Census.
MICHIGAN FOREST TAXATION
1. American Lumberman March 29, 1924
2. Census 1925.
3. Commission of Inquiry into Taxation.
4. DeCamp, J.C. — Timberman March 1923.
5. DeCamp, J.C. - Michigan Tradesman July 30, 1924.
6. Forest Aluanac 1924.
7. Hardwood Record Aug. 10, 1922
Sept. 10, 1922
July 10, 1923.
8. Michigan State College Bulletin 162.
9. Michigan Agriculturist Feb. 1923.
10. Pennsylvania Forests and Waters - April 30, 1925.
ll. Report Auditor General 1903.
12. Saunders — W.F. American Lumberman - Feb. 1925.
13. Stace, A.W. — Grand Rapids Press — Nov. 15, 1924.
14. Lyndall, C.G. — Michigan Farmer Apr. 4, 1925.
15. Timberman, Aug. 1923.

15

Watson, R. - American Forestry - Aug. 1924.

17. Whtson, R. — Forest Conservation with special reference to Michigan.

 

 

- 600—

 

18. Zon, R. — American Lumberman Apr. 4, 1925.

19. Senate Resolution 398 Part 4

a. F.0.Barden 410
b. Albert Stoll Jr. 426
c. P.S.Lovejoy 428
d. Benmm Landon 432
" " 456

" " 457
Rasmus Hanson 437

s. C.A.Biglow 443
f. John Baird 444
g. Marcus Schoof 448
h. R.G. Schreek 448
i. Robt. Rayburn 451
j. Homestead Act. 454
k. W.T. Saunders 471
l. R.E.Wstson 480

m. P.P. Schamorback 489

n. J.W.Blodgett 501
o. C.H.Wsrcester 518
p. G. Van Platen 552

MICHIGAN FOREST TAXATION
l. Forestry Comm. 1900 _ 1908.
2. BiAnnual report Conservation Commission.
3. Public Domain Reports
4. Report Mich.Forestry Cemmission 1880.
5. United States Dept. of Agriculture Year Book 1898.
6. C.W.W5rd - American Lumberman Dec. 23, 1911.
7. Russel Whtson — Forest Conservation.
8. United States Dept. oftguculture Year Book 1924.

10. C.F.Tillotson — Lumberman Apr. 25, 1925.

 

ll. A.B.Grayham - Mich.Forestry Commission 1900.

 

 

 

18.
14.
15.
10.
ll.
12.
l3.
14.
15.
16.
17.

18.

_ 264 -
Journal of Forestry _ Oct. 1917
A.B.Cook - Mich. Forestry commission 1907—8.
C.F.Culley _ Mich. Forestry Commission 1900.
Public Donain CommissiOn Report 1915
Mich. Forestry Association News Letters.
Report Auditor General 1903
Michigan Agricultural College quarterly Bulletin Aug. 1918.
J.E.Bissell — Mich. Forestry Commission Report 1905-6.
C.B.Blair — Mich. Forestry 00mm. Report 1907-8.
Commission on Inquiry into Tax lands and Forestry 19GB.
Taxation and Tax lands Mich. Forestry Commission 19C5h6.

P.S.Lovejoy - Country Gentleman _ Feb. 10, 1923.

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

M'TITJ'I‘flflIINWSIJMIfliflilflffliflliiflflfljfflilfllflms [