with a humane purpose, and revealing statesmanlike understanding. However, let him tell it:

"One thing I have learned during this war and my connection with the Red Cross work. There is a danger that the peoples of the world will retain the habit of looking to Government for many functions which are not proper under our American theory of individual responsibility and initiative. It would overload Government, and atrophy the powers and capacities of the individual.

"The International Red Cross has been one of the world's finest institutions, and during wars has done great things for humanity. However, so scon as a war has ended, the Red Cross has lapsed into inactivity, awaiting another call for wartime service. It has been splendid, and the world owes it a large debt of gratitude and appreciation.

"I want you to consider this, howeversuch Red Cross activity confined to wartime is really negative. It takes care in part of the results of mankind's mistakes which have brought on the wars.

"Cannot we make of the Red Cross a constructive force? Cannot we make of it an agency to prevent wars, or tending towards that end?"

Mr. Davison paused. The glow of enthusiasm faded from his countenance. In its stead came a reflection of sadness, and then, as often the sky changes in its cloud effects, a look of horror came over him, and, shuddering, he interjected:

"This war! It has been more horrible than the world realizes. It has been ghastly, beyond comprehension. There have been magnificent sacrifices by fine, upstanding women and men and deeds of valor.

"But why not set at work these Red Cross ameliorating influences in peacetime as a means of war prevention, bringing the world peoples together in mutual understanding, mutual helpfulness? Why not set up a central international Red Cross clearing house, whither should flow, in peacetime, information relating to human ills and the means of curing them, and whence should go out, in peacetime, this information to the ends of the earth? Why not maintain at such headquarters men and women skilled in the treatment of great

Mr. Davison had been "dabbing" at a French omelet, as we sat at table, and, in his fervor, had eaten little. He went on"Now-these Red Cross folks over here

I have not been able to make them see this thing as I see it. Up at Geneva, they insist that the Red Cross began as a wartime activity, has always been such, and, therefore, must always be such.

"So I conceived the idea of calling a conference of the Red Cross societies of the nations, the old International Red Cross to go on as it wills, and the others of us forming a new worldwide Association of Red Cross Societies, to inaugurate and carry on the peacetime work. And it is to be organized at a conference at Cannes (France). The work is to go on! I am sure it will be a great influence for peace. will help cure the habit of depending on Government for what should be done by private means, and, will, through the co

operation of the national societies, each contributing, bind the various peoples together in unity and constructive effort.

"Each cooperating national society will of course have the endorsement of its own government. That will be necessary in order that, when we work in a given country, we know we are personae gratae to the government there. But our funds will be derived from private sources, our workers will be non-governmental, and the friendship of man for man, regardless of boundary lines, will have full scope to produce its good results."

Mr. Davison in Washington, Later We had come from France. One day, at Red Cross headquarters in Washington, I was climbing the central stairway, and met Mr. Davison, coming down, on the landing. I took the liberty of remarking that he appeared to be worn out, and needed a rest. He apparently remembered our luncheon in Paris, and his description that day of his Red Cross peacetime project, for he said:

"I am tired. You know how the Cannes Conference came out. It was not successful. My plan failed."

"Mr. Davison," I countered, "there is no such thing as failure when one does a kindly deed, or plans a kindly move, or even thinks a kindly thought. Such seed

sown never dies. It is eternal. You and I

might not live to see the full fruition of the sowing, but there will be fruition, and your idea will in time prevail."

"I wonder," he replied. "I wonder." And he passed on downward. I never saw him again. Some months later, he fell ill at his Long Island home, fought with his accustomed tenacity against the malady, and, at last, died. I verily believe it was in part his feeling of partial failure as to the great Red Cross peacetime world association of national societies which weakened his resistance to the malady. Nevertheless, it was a wonderful conception, and promised much for mankind all over the world.

The Red Cross Today, and Mr. Davison's Vision Realized in Part

Now, what of it all? Was it failure? I assert, No! most emphatically, No! Take a rapid survey of the world, and the Red Cross, and human disaster since the war. An earthquake in Japan, and resultant fires. A terrible thing. A whole world.

appalled, a nation fearfully stricken. So soon as authentic cable news came to American Red Cross headquarters in Washington, a cable credit for a million dollars went to Red Cross representatives in Tokio, for relief.

I have since talked with an Oriental consul-general in an important American city. In substance, he said:

"No one ever will be able to measure to what extent America hastening to Japan's relief has been an influence for preserving peace in the Pacific area. A fellow may be rather gruff one moment, even to the verge of offensiveness; but if, the next moment, he spring to an act of humanity, it is hard to quarrel with him."

A couple of billions have been poured into Europe and the Near East from the United States, given outright from private sources. Don't be impatient. Europepart of it seems to misunderstand America just now. But wait. In time matters will straighten out, and understanding take the place of misunderstanding, and Mr. Davison's idea will triumph.

It is based on the eternal truth that there is a common bond between the peoples, and that each individual should have a part in keeping that bond intact. By maintaining the great Red Cross institution, sustained by private contributions, captained and manned by private citizens, and operating independently of, but with the endorsement of, Government; by appealing to the universal sentiment of sympathy, and by sustaining it long enough, the world will come to understand, and peacetime cooperation. of the many peoples, as Mr. Davison indicated, will work its inevitable and desirable ends.

Harry Davison was right! and he did not fail! Rather, he sowed seed which, in due time, will flower beautifully for humanity's good. Only, we need a little patience to await the time of fruition.

League of Nations Increases Expenses

In September, the League Assembly voted a budget of $4,749,563 for the current year expenses of the League of Nations, the International Labor Office and the World Court. This is a little larger than last year, but each state's contribution will be smaller, due to the fact that Germany now shares in the League's expenses.

Prof. Fred R. Fairchild, Department of Economics, Yale University, who is chairman of the Forest Service Committee, United States Department of Agriculture. and Prof. Henry Schmitz, Department of Agriculture, University of Minnesota, continue this month in THE TAX DIGEST the symposium on the question of deferring taxation on growing trees until the timber has matured as a crop ready to be harvested.

The symposium began in the January TAX DIGEST, with Paper Number One by Prof. Woodbridge Metcalf, Extension Forester, University of California College of Agriculture, and United States Department of Agriculture Cooperator. Several papers remain to be printed in forthcoming issues of THE TAX DIGEST.

The subject was given added interest by the adoption at the November, 1926, election of an amendment to the California Constitution, which provides:

EXEMPTING FOREST TREES FROM TAX

ATION. Senate Constitutional Amendment 10. Amends Section 123% of Article XIII of Constitution. Exempts from taxation immature forest trees planted on lands not previously bearing mer chantable timber, or planted or of natural growth, upon lands from which seventy per cent of merchantable original growth timber over sixteen inches in diameter has been removed; declares maturity of forest trees or timber shall be determined, after forty years from planting or removal of original timber, by a board comprising assessor of county wherein same are located and representatives from state boards of forestry and equalization.

Twenty years ago, the proposal was made that there be encouragement of timber growing by some such proviso as this. and it is only now receiving serious, detailed attention.

California Taxpayers' Association and the Tax Digest oppose exemption of property from taxation as a basic proposition. It is held, however, that this is not an exemption; rather, a treatment of timber as a crop, and the imposition of tax thereon. when the crop is mature.

I have on numerous occasions put myself on record in favor of two principles which I regard as fundamental to the problem of forest taxation.

The first is the importance of giving to the law-making body the greatest possible degree of freedom with respect to taxation. In my opinion. the best constitution from the point of view of taxation is the one which is silent on that matter. As an example, I may refer to the State of Connecticut whose constitution nowhere mentions the word "taxation." As an example on the other side, all students of taxation have become familiar with the troubles which the State of Ohio suffers, under her rigid constitutional rule of uniformity in taxation. It appears to me that a state makes a serious error when it undertakes to limit by constitutional restrictions the freedom of its legislature to enact tax laws. After all, we must trust our law-making representatives, and it is very dangerous to undertake to bind the future on the basis of the knowledge and opinions of the present. Holding such views, I am naturally pleased to note that California has seen fit to remove some at least of those restrictions of

methods for taxing timber lands. While I have as the result of my past studies arrived at certain conclusions, I am quite certain that the last word has not yet been said on this subject and am proceeding to the present investigation with an open mind, quite ready to accept the con

clusions of this study, even though they should prove to be at variance with my present notions. I sincerely hope that a few years hence the findings of this Inquiry may put us all in better position to give advice on the subject of forest taxation.

The question of forest taxation, since it must eventually be applied to approximately 500 million acres of land in the United States, is one of the biggest economic questions confronting our ' country. I believe also, since it is now known that agriculture cannot absorb this enormous acreage, or even a small part of it, in the near future, we are beginning to see more clearly that something must be done to keep these 500 million acres productive. Not even a country as rich as the United States can indefinitely carry such an enormous burden or overhead as is represented by 500 million acres of land.

Possibly you will not agree with me, that agriculture will not absorb even a small part of the area now classed as forest land. However, when one considers that it has taken American enterprise and ingenuity centuries to put 350 million acres, much of it prairie land, under the plow, and when one further considers the difficulty which agriculture finds itself in today, largely due to overproduction or under consumption, which in the last analysis amounts to the same thing, and that the area under cultivation is actually decreasing in many states, one cannot escape the conclusion that agriculture will not solve the land use problem in America. Furthermore, a prominent agricultural economist has recently predicted that before our agricultural revolution shall have subsided, approximately 40 per cent of the people now on farms will have moved to the city. This economist does not view this shift as a calamity, but rather as a mark of progress. In other words, he considers that about 15 per cent of our population engaged in agriculture on the area now devoted to agriculture will adequately meet the immediate agricultural needs of the nation.

Looking at this problem from a national point of view, then, we are confronted with two very important questions: first, the use of 500 million acres of land, and second, the employment of ten million people now engaged in agriculture.

If we recognize the fact that agriculture cannot use this large land area, that by far the largest part of it is devoid of any mineral or oil resources, only one productive use remains, and that is the growing of timber crops. The mere recognition of timber as a crop brings us face to face with the problem of giving this crop an equal break with agricultural crops. If it is proper to tax a forest crop 60 to 90 times during the period required for it to reach maturity, why not apply the same principle to all agricultural crops?

A Step in the Right Direction Personally I am not at all certain that a change in the method of taxing forest crops will entirely solve the problem, but it is unquestionably a step in the right direction. The growing of forest crops must be financially profitable, before private capital will engage in the enterprise to any considerable extent. Without a doubt, one of the most potent reasons why timber cropping is not more profitable in many regions is because we are applying a system of taxation to a crop that was originally designed to apply to an actual resource. If the general property tax were properly applied, and the land owner would be given a reasonable assurance that it would be fairly applied until his crop reached maturity, there would be no need for special forest tax legislation. The fact that the general property tax has not been fairly applied to growing forests, is too obvious to require further elaboration.

In my opinion, it is economically unsound to exempt any property from its just burden of taxation, and one of the most serious errors made in connection with the consideration of forest taxation is the loose use of the word "exemption." Forest properties should, and I believe can, bear their just share of the tax burden. The question is one, then, of determining what this just share is. My own feeling is, that forest property should pay the regular land tax based each year on a nominal valuation of the land. The valuation placed on these lands should be such that the annual property tax would not be in excess of 5c or 10c per acre. At the time the crop is harvested, a certain percentage of the gross value should revert to the state, county and community in lieu of all back taxes. The exact percentage of the gross value so taken would and should vary in different regions, and should take into consideration the hazards connected with the grow ing of these crops and the rate of growth of trees in the particular region. In any event, it should not be too large.

It is perfectly obvious that in many counties a tax of 5c to 10c per acre on forest land will not be sufficient to meet the running expenses of the counties. It is likewise perfectly obvious that the counties are not showing much disposition to reduce their running expenses. In that event. it may be necessary for the state to assist the county in the way of subsidies, until the yield tax from mature timber comes in. This method of assisting the counties is anticipated by the law passed by the Michigan legislature several years ago.