TOWN GOVERNMENT IN WISCONSIN                        101

much larger than a government township, but because these regions
lack natural resources or are underdeveloped.
  Since the number of officers and certain functions are fixed by law
the overhead of general government becomes high per capita and per
thousand dollars of valuation for these sparsely peopled towns. This
is recognized by three state laws setting a lower limit to the size of
the towns in terms of area, population, and taxable wealth. The
county board is not permitted to organize a town which at the time
of its organization, has less than 125 inhabitants, of which at least
25 shall have been electors and residents of the area for six months.
Ashland, Barron, Bayfield, Burnett, Douglas, Juneau, Marathon,
Oconto, Polk, and Shawano Counties were exempted from this particu-
lar law. In the case of division after a referendum election or crea-
tion by the circuit court, it is provided that no town shall be divided
so as to create or leave any town with less than 75 electors, with real
estate valued at less than $200,000 or with less than 36 square miles
in area. The new town created under the circuit court method must
contain at least 36 square miles and must be less than two govern-
ment townships, have more than 75 "resident freeholders or home-
steaders" and have more than $200,000 of assessed valuation. The
statutes set the minimum of people in terms of voters and "freehold-
ers" which is difficult to convert into total population. However, an
analysis of the 1930 census shows that at that time there were eight
towns with less than 100 people, 44 with 100 to 200, and 142 towns
with populations ranging from 200 to 400. Assuming 400 to be a rea-
sonable minimum there were 194 townsIwith less than this number.
If $200,000 or more assessed valuation is considered the standard there
were at least 115 towns below this minimum as measured by the 1934
local assessments. Practically all these underpopulated and under-
valued towns are in the northern and the central counties.

               Consolidation and Dissolution of Towns
  Although new towns may not be created below the minima set by
the law, there is no statute which compels them to dissolve or merge
whenever they fall below these standards. It is interesting to note
the law passed in Minnesota in 1933 under which the county boards
must dissolve any civil township whenever the assessed valuation
drops to less than $50,000, or whenever the tax delinquency amounts
to 50% of the assessed valuation, or where the state has acquired
50% of the real estate of such township.
  Towns may also be dissolved in Wisconsin. Upon a majority vote
of the people of a town the county board may "dissolve" a town.
In
Minnesota this would mean that it becomes "unorganized territory"
directly under the county government. In Wisconsin a "dissolved"
town would have to be attached to some other town or certain func-
tions such as assessment or collection of taxes would cease. It is
doubtful if this statute has any practical value. On the other hand,
towns may consolidate under a general law which permits any town,