E. M. GRIFFITH, State Forester of Wisconsin: The present method of taxing timberlands is hostile to the forestry interests of the State, as a single timber crop is taxed heavily and repeatedly, and the owners are forced by our present laws to cut their mature timber in order to escape inequitable taxation, to sacrifice their young growth, and to disregard conservative methods of forest management. Taxes are unfortunately a very valid reason in many sections of the State for not practicing forestry. Many town assessors seem to feel that they must tax the timberland owner, especially the non-resident owner, as heavily as possible, and naturally in self-defense the owner is forced to cut his timber and so reduce the taxes to a reasonable amount. Then, when it is too late, the towns find that they have "killed the goose that laid the golden egg." However, the loss of the taxes on the timber is but a drop in the bucket compared to the irreparable damage to many communities from losing the industries which depended upon the forests for their raw material. To appreciate this one only needs to visit towns in which the sawmills have shut down on account of lack of timber. Of late years the end of the timber has been largely hastened on account of the excessive taxes placed upon it. The whole system of forest taxation in this country is wrong, for it puts a premium on forest destruction. RALPH C. HAWLEY, Instructor in Forestry, Yale University: A system of taxation which discriminates against timber, one of the chief natural resources of the commonwealth, is to be condemned. KENTUCKY STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE REPORT: When a rise in the valuation of other than forest property becomes necessary because of the greater development of the resources of the region, the valuation of forest property should be increased with great caution in order that the forest lands may be held to advantage for the production of future timber crops. A timber crop is marketed only after the young growing timber has been held for a long term of years, during which time the forest has been yielding only a very slight revenue, if any, to the owner. If the valuation of the forest or its rates of taxation goes beyond a comparatively low limit, the holding of forest land for a second crop of timber is impracticable or nearly prohibitive. This condition has prevailed in many other States where now the problem of taxation is a difficult one to solve. ALFRED GASKILL, State Forester for New Jersey: The present practices favor and encourage the untimely or wasteful use of standing forests, discourage the propagation of others, and tend to hasten the time when the country shall be forced to face a wood famine.