AN OBJECTION MET A possible superficial criticism may be that, leaving the land out of consideration, the proposed yield tax at a personal property valuation of the crop means that but one year's tax is to be paid upon the timber. The fallacy of this, however, will be seen when it is remembered that it is a crop, having been produced from nothing by the owner, since his acquisition of the land and while he was paying taxes upon his land upon its value for productive purposes throughout the entire period just as any other crop grower loes. _It is not unearned speculative increment._ To tax it annually is exactly equivalent to taxing an agricultural crop 50 times during its growing period. The proposed plan does tax the annual production fully, although not until the crop is produced, for taxing its full value when grown is the same as taxing each year the increment added since the preceding year. If it is worth $150 an acre, after 50 years from seed, a 3 per cent yield tax would be $4.50. Each year since the first must have produced a fiftieth of the ultimate value, or $3, and had this been taxed at 3 per cent, or 9 cents, the same aggregate revenue of $4.50 would have resulted. To also tax annually the value of proceeding years' production, like taxing a wheat crop twice a week, is exactly the confiscatory prohibition of forest growing which we should seek to avoid. When the essential difference of the two systems Is grasped--that the _crop is distinct from the land and the latter is still fully taxed_--it will be seen that but one tax upon the crop, at the rate other property pays, is all that is just and all that can possibly be paid in a competitive commercial business. The case is not analogous with our present system of taxing mature timber, in which land and timber together are assumed to constitute inseparable realty, _stationary in production_ and increasing only speculatively in value, therefore the comparison with one year's taxation under our present system has no weight. FROM THE OWNER'S STANDPOINT Nor does the proposed system by any means either subsidize the forest grower or assure him a profit. It merely puts on a basis similar to that of other enterprises a business more greatly handicapped by long-deferred returns, risk of loss, uncertainty of future prices, and continued current expense without current revenue. Only escape from fire and high future stumpage prices will permit profit at best. Otherwise, since the tax is definite and not upon income, the forest grower will pay the community for the honor of providing it a resource at his own expense. It is believed, however, that a more fortunate outcome is sufficiently promised in this region of rapid growth if we remove the single fatal handicap of uncertain confiscatory taxation. VIEWS OF EXPERT AUTHORITIES