St. Tammany farmer., 1922-10-28
Middle States Pass From
Virgin Timber to Farms
In Less than SO Years
POVERTY IN TIMBER
WEALTH IN FARMS
Reforestation Contract Is
Hurtful; Act Said to be
Unconstitutional
BY A. E.. Briggs.

w
binding contract with the Police Jury
and landowner by which the latter's
taxable valuation can be fixed or re-
'duced and the land devoted to re-
forestation? We believe the law and
the form of contract are so made
Quately drawn as neither to accom-
plish the purposes proposed nor to
withdraw the lands from the present
method of taxation.
This, however, is question for
louisiana lawyers to pass upon, for
the write neither desires nor seeks
the responsibility of counselling any
person as to his legal rights. The
question is therefore proposed here
for the purpose of suggesting to the
landowners the desirability of con-
sulting their Legal advisers, and fur
thermore we desire to indicate to
such lawyers as are interested the
reasons why the constitutionality of
the law be questioned.
Article TO, Section l, of the Con-
stitution of 1921 reads: "For the
purpose Of encouraging the refores-
tation of denuded lands, contracts
fixing the assessed valuation of the
specified lands for the duration of
the agreements are hereby authorize
ed under such regulations, terms and
conditions as may be prescribed by
law
We believe that this article of the
Constitution means that the General
Assembly must prescribe the regu-
lations, terms and conditions of the
contract, and that the Assembly must
delegate this legislative power to any
commission or commissioner.
Does Act 30 of 1912 prescribe the
regulations, terms and condition of
the proposed contract? Has the AS
sembly prescribed any standard Of re-.
forestation by which the performance
'of the contract can be determined?
Has the assembly any power to vest
in the Commissioner Of Conserva-
tlon the power to make such rules
and regulations? Is not this con-
tract illegal because it provides that
the refOrestatiOn shall be done ,"ac-
cording to the rules set out by the
Department" and Sin such manner
as the Department shall prescribe,
contrary to the Constitution which
requires that the regulations must
be prescribed by law?
We do not think that Section IL
of Act 80 of 1872 sufficiently meets
the requirements of the Constitution
as to the terms and conditions of the
contract. But is the contract as
promised by the Conservation De
partment authorized by the terms of
said act? Where is there any pro-
vision in the law that the landowner
may withdraw lands found to be
chiefly valuable for immediate agri-
cultural or mineral use"? Where
is any provision in the law giving
right "to prospect for minerals, oil
and gas on this land" Where does
the Act provide that lands SO with
drawn will suffer only the penalty as
provided for breach of contract? Are
not these provisions of the contract
illegal?
Apparently it is the intention or
purpose Of this contract to obtain
for the contracting landowner lower
taxation than that on adjoining or
similar lands not under contract.
But if the contract is illegal, will not
the effect be the contrary? Will the
making of this illegal contract en-
able the landowner to escape penalty
for non-payment of taxes? II the
contract Is illegal we think it will be
injurious both to the parish and the
landowner to enter into such con-
tracts.
But there are other reasons why
the law should be deemed bad one
which should prevent the Police Jury
it or owner entering into
it. We do not believe in general
policy of reforestation for this par
ish, but granting we may be mistak-
Ell there are still serious objections
to this contract and to the law un-
der which it is made. A
The law was made for the stated
purpose "of encouraging the refor-
estation of denuded lands" Why
then was not provision made for fix
ing the assessed valuation of the
growing timber rather than the land?
How can fixed valuation of the
land encourage the growing of tim
Der? We admit that reforestation
will cause depreciation in the val
ues of land in this parish, for the
reason that timber land of necessity
has to be low priced land, because
the owner cannot afford to raise tim
ber on valuable lands. If denuded
lands anywhere are bearing high tax
es, it must be because those lands are
for other purposes than for
growing timber, in which case they
should not escape the higher taxa
ton, but should bear their fair share
of general taxes.
Whoever originated the idea that
high taxes ON denuded lands Is one
Of the greatest drawbacks to success
full reforestation was probably some
what mixed in his thinking. All the
literature of the Government For
estry Service has emphasized the
fact that the growing Of timber or re-
is feasible only on waste
or very low priced land, where OF
course taxes would also be low. It