/ / ' mi Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924009275375 IMPROVEMENT AND REGULATION OF GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE PUBLIC LANDS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON H. R. 19857 MAY 3, 4, 7, 10, AND 29, and JULY 29, 1912 APPEARING: SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, WALTER L. FISHER, S. H. COWAN, B. T. TOMLINSON, S. F. POTTER, GIFFORD PINCHOT, WILLIAM KENT, AND OTHERS WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OITIOE 1912 COMMITTEE ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. House of Representatives. JOSEPH T. EOBINSON, Arkansas, Chauman. JAMES M. GRAHAM, lUinois. SCOTT FERRIS, Oklahoma. EDWARD T. TAYLOR, Colorado. JACK BEALL, Texas. ALBERT ESTOPINAL, Louisiana. S. H. DENT, Jk., Alabama. JOHN E. RAKER, California. HORATIO C. CLAYPOOL, Ohio. WILLIAM F. MURRAY, Massachusetts. JAMES P. MAHER, New York. THOMAS L. RUBEY, Missouri. HENRY GEORGE, JE., New York. HARVEY B. FERGUSSON, New Mexico. FRANK W. MONDELL, Wyoming. ANDREW J. VOLSTEAD, Minnesota. ' SYLVESTER C. SMITH, California. CHARLES N. PRAY, Montana. DICK T. MORGAN, Oklahoma. CHARLES E. PICKETT, Iowa. PETER M. SPEER, Pennsylvania. JAMES WICKEESHAM (Delegate), Alaska. Geady Miller, Arkansas, Clali. GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. Committee on the Public Lands, House of Representatives, Friday, May 3, 1912. The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Joseph T. Robmson (chairman) presiding. The Chairman. The bill under consideration this morning is H. R. 19857, of Mr. Lever, for the improvement of grazing on the pubhc lands of the United States, and to regulate the same, and for other purposes. A number of gentlemen are present and desire to be heard con- cerning this bill. They have arranged their own order of speaking, and it is desired that the hearing be as concise as possible. The bill is as follows: [H. R. 19857, Sixty-second Congress, second session.] A BILL For the Improvement of grazing on the public lands of the United States, and to regulate the same, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate amd House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress asseTnbled, That the unreserved, unappropriated public lands of the United States shall be subject to the provisions of this act, and the President of the United States is hereby authorized to establish from time to time, by proclamation, grazing districts upon the unreserved, unappropriated public lands of the United States, con- forming to State and county lines so far as practicable, whereupon the Secretary of Agriculture, under rules and regulations prescribed by. him, shall execute or cause to be executed the provisions of this act, appoint all officers necessary for the adminis- tration and protection of such grazing districts, regulate their use for grazing purposes, protect them from depredation, from injury to the natural forage crop, and from erosion; restore and improve their grazing value through regulation, by the eradi- cation of poisonous plants, and by the extermination of predatory animals and other- wise; eradicate and prevent infectious and contagious diseases injurious to domestic animals; issue permits to graze live stock thereon for periods of not more than ten years, which shall include the right to fence the same, giving preference when prac- ticable to homesteaders and to present occupants of the range who own improved ranches or who have provided water for live stock grazed on the public lands; and charge and collect reasonable fees for such grazing permits, based upon the grazing value of the land in each locality: Provided, That for ten years after the passage of this act such charge for grazing shall not exceed four cents per acre nor be less than one-half cent per acre, or the equivalent thereof on a per capita basis, and the Secretary of Agriculture shall revise and reestal)lish maximum and minimum rates of charge for grazing for each succeeding period of ten years. Sec. 2. That homestead or other settlement, location, entry, patent, and all other disposal of public lands under the public-land laws shall be in no wise restricted, limited, or abridged hereby; nor shall anything herein be construed to prevent bona fide settlers or residents from grazing their stock used for domestic purposes, as defined under the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture, on the public lands affected hereby: Provided, That after the establishment of any such grazing district no form of location, settlement, or entry thereon shall give a right to grazing privi- leges on public lands except when made under laws requiring cultivation or agri- cultural use of the land: Provided further. That permits to graze live stock upon land which is subsequently appropriated under any public-land law shall not be affected by such subsequent appropriation, except as to the land actually appropriated until the end of the current annual grazing period: Provided further, That no permit shall be issued which will entitle the permittee to the use of any buildings, corrals reservoirs, or other improirements owned or controlled by a prior occupant until 4 GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. he has paid suc'h priur cccupant a reasonable pro rata value for '^"^ ';^*;''„f g^Jr.ii improYoments. If the parti<-.-. interest. -d can not a.uree, then 'ne .onmi payment shall be determined under rules of the «e- of -^""; ^"y"l:^„,-„. provided fartha. That when buildings, corrals, reservoirs, wells, or "t^i" ™P™' ^ ments, exeept f-nees, shall ha^■e been established on any forty-acre tract to the ^ame of more than one hundred dollars, as determined by rules of ™e ^e.r.'tar.\ ' / - culture, such l,.rt\--aere tract shall not be subject to settlement or appropriation under the publi.-land laws durinu- the permit period wathout the consent oi ui. owner of such buildiutis, corrals, reservoirs, wells, or other improvements. .,- • , Sec. 3. That all water on public lands or subject to the jurisdiction of tne L mteu States within such graziiiR districts may be tis.'d for milling, mining, domesu. ui irrigation purposes under the laws of the :- to protei t the users of the land which will be driven across. Sec 5. That the users of the public lands under the ])rovisions of this act mav select a committee of not more than four m.embers from the users of any such grazing district , which committee shall represent the owners of different kinds of stock, and, with the officer appointed bv the Secretarv of Agriculture in charge of such grazing district, shall constitute an executive board, which shall determine whether the permits tor such grazing districts shall be issued upon an acreage or upon a per capita basis, shall make such division of the range between the different kinds of stock as is necessary, and shall decide whether the distributi(jn of the range shall be by individual or com- munity allotments. The executive board shall also determine the total number of animals to be grazed in each grazing district, and shall decide upon the adoption of any special rules to meet local conditions, and shall establish lanes or driveways, and shall prescribe special rules to govern the movement of live stock across the public lands in such distrii-ts so as to protect the users of the land in their rights and the right of persons having the necessity to drive across the same. The executive board, after thirty days' notice by publication, shall also determine the jireference in the allot- ment of grazing privileges provided for in section one of this act. and shall, under rules of the Secretary of Agriculture, determine the value of the improvements and the use of the same whenever that may become necessary under the pro\isions oi this act in the administration of the same. Fences, walls, and other improvements may be constructed with the permission of the Government officer in charge, who .shall record the ownership and location of such improvements. An>- differences between a majority of the executive board and the officer in,,. .„„^ Very sincerely, yours, Gifford I in.-HOT. The Chairman. I am also in receipt of a telegram from Gov. John M. Carey, of Wyoming, strongly indorsing the bill. The telegram referred to is as follows : Cheyenne, Wyo., May 2, 1912. Hon. J. T. Robinson, M. C, Washington, D. C: Have examined bill known as the Lever and La Follette bill for the leasing of public lands for grazing purposes. It is a splendid measure and would be of untold benefit to this State and other Rocky Mountain States. I have examined it critically. It is fair and its just administration would work no hardships to anyone. I am heartily in favor of its becoming a law. If I had the time I should like to appear before your committee as one of its advocates. If such a law had been in operation this last winter, there would have been millions of dollars' worth of live stock saved in_the Rocky Mountain States that perished from the severe storms for want of sufficient feed. John M. Carey-, Governor of Wyoming. The Chairman. I also have another telegram from Dwight B. Heard, vice president of the American National Live Stock Associa- tion; James A. Johnson, president Arizona Cattle (!rd unreserved public lands;" and, in fact, the two classes of lands are now usad and must always be used largely in connection with one another. It is impossible to segregate properly, and at least judiciously, the use of the one from the use of" the other, and we ought not to have two sets of control, the on(^ of the forest reserves and the other of the pubhc grazing lands which lie adjacent to the forest reserves. It limits the privilege of the permits that may be granted to 10 years. It requires that preference be given to the present occupants of the pubhc land,us.ing it for grazing, and persons who have improve- ments and who have provided the facilities for the runnino- of live stock (as I will use that common expression) on the pubfic land although those facilities may not be on the public lands and o-en- erally are on private lands. The law, of course, can not require lust to what extent* preferences shall be given, but it requires that prefer- ences be given. It limits the charge that is to be made by the Government for the use of the land — if by the acre to a maximum of 4 cents and a minimum of one-half cent. The bill specifically pro- vides that it does not interfere with the acquisition of title to land under any of the pubUc land laws of the United States, except that if the permit holder makes improvements on the land other than fencing, which are worth a hundred dollars on any 40 acres that -iO acres is not subject to be taken under the pubhc land laws of the GBAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 9 United States for the purpose of acquiring grazing privileges, but shall not interfere with the taking of it for mining purposes during the term of the permit imless the person putting the improvements upon the land has not been paid for them. If he has been paid for them, the land may be taken then. The acquisition for mineral or for other than agricultural purposes of the title does not give the right of grazing to the person acquiring the title for other than agricultural purposes. Of course, by "agricultural purposes" is meant the acquisition of it for any other purpose than mining or certain other forms of acquiring title. The person acquiring a mming claim would have a right to take up the privilege of grazing from the permit holder, but it prevents the turning over of the improvements without compensation to some other person securing a permit of that char- acter. The waters are reserved for the same uses to which they may now be applied under the law. That was an unnecessary provision, because that would be the case without its being put in here. The right to prospect, to go upon the land for the purpose of acquisition, to drive Uve stock, are also provided for in the bill; but need not have been provided, because that would be the law any way. The control and distribution of the permits, the character of the same, the preferences, and all of the matters pertaining to the local administration of this bill is placed in a district committee selected by the stockmen of each grazing district, and if they fail to select such a committee, the President is authorized to appoint such a committee who, iri connection with the representatives of the Agricultural Department in that grazing district, will have control of tlie local affairs. And, in case of disagreement between the local committee of the stockmen and the officer of the Government in charge, it may be referred (any person interested in the matter has a right to refer it) to the Secretary of Agriculture to determine it ; but it takes away from the department as much control as is at all consistent with the theory of any department of the Government controlling the public lands and puts it in the stock raisers, engaged in any sort of stock raising, through a committee which they appoint in the grazing district, as designated by the President of the United States; and if they fail to appoint such a committee, the President will appoint a committee. The local officer in charge represents the Government and carries out, jSrst, the provisions of the law; s«cond, the rules of the Department of Agriculture; and third, the local rules made by the committee of which I have spoken. In order to put the country in any grazing district entirely within the control of the Government, it is provided that after one year, following the first establishment of the grazing district, it wUl be unlawful to graze the public lands without a permit. ]\Ir. Feegusson. Whether leased or not'^ Mr. Cowan. Whether leased or not; otherwise there would be a discrimination as between localities in case persons in one grazing dis- trict wanted to use the land without paying for its use. One of the objects of the bill, and the leading object, is the pubhc conservation of the range. The funds derived from the payments made are to be appropriated, first, one-fourth of the gross receipts, as I recall the provisions of the bill, to the improvement of the public roads and schools in the district where these lands are located, to be, however, turned over to the State, and the State to determine the character of 10 GEAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. the appropriation, provided it goes to the public roads and public schools. . . , Those are the substantial provisions of the bill. Aow, witJiout attempting to argue whether that sort of a bill, whether that character of control is a proper one, I wish to devote a few minutes to the sub- ject of the necessity for the public benefit and the economic proposi- tion of some form of private control of the grazing of the public lands of the United States. I am well aware and well acquainted with, as mv friend ilr. Mondell knows, the controversy that has been waged for a long time between those that desire that sort of law and those who do not. I do not wish to take issue, further than on the principles of the proposition, with the gentlemen on the other side. The experience of the cattle raisers in my State, in the leasing of the public lands of the State of Texas, is an exi^erience to v>rhich am^one, desiring to inform himself and utihze that intelligence which men gather from the experience of others, can well look to. ]\Ii-. Rakee. How much public land have you in Texas ? ;\Ii-. Cowan. We have not much now. ]\Ir. Rakee. Approximately? ;\Ir. Cowan. I could not tell you, but we have a good many miUions of acres, so far as that is concerned; I suppose it is close on to 10,000,000 acres to-day. If you mil take the map of Texas and look over to the corner near Oklahoma you will find the one hunclredth meridian splitting the State half in two, east and west. Along in the eighties, Gov. 0. M. Roberts said that all the land west of the one hundredth meridian would never be fit for farming. There is a great deal of public-school and other lands east of the one hundredth meridian which are unused anv one that I can recall where there was any serious trouble arising out of the homesteader purchasing a section, or two sections, when we had the two-section law, or four sections when we had the four-section law, or eight sections when we had the eight-section law — there never' has been any trouble in any man purchasing and occupying that land, except when it arose because of some one stealing cattle. Judge Smith was the district judge all over that country for maiiv years*^ and he will beaf me out in what I say. Therefore'l say that' the objections made to the proposition of leasing the pubhc lanaying even 4 cents, and how would you raise cheaper beef upon them if you had to pay for the grazing ? Mr. Cowan. I was just trying to explain that the reason of it lies in the fact that to-day you have destroyed the permanency of the business, because the lands are for anybody's use. 12 GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. The Chaiemax. In other words, the range would be destroyed in a little while, according to your theory ''. Mr. CowAX. It not only destroys the range, but it kee])s men trom going into the business where thej' otherwise would do it. li he could acquire 10,000 or .50,000 acr(>s and if he could get that for 10 years, he could depend on that and put a fence on it and raise cattle. Mr. Rakee. In other word.s, it reduces the number of men engaged in the stock business '. :\Ir, CoAVAX. Oh, no. It would increase the number of men and would increase the number of live stock materially, because it would conserve the range and make the business permanent, whereas tii-iiay there are very few cattle bred on the public range. I am not confining it to forest reserves, or to certani localities where, by reason (jf the local situation, streams, and one thing and another, the ownership of private lands interspersed with public lands, the i)cople are enabled to use public lands. As far as the permanent b^reeding feature is concerned, they can not carry the business on on strictly public lands, because" they are not allowed to fence under the law. Of course, if thej^ were allowed to fence and had the control of it, that would be a different thing; but as it is, that is not permitted. Now, I believe if you are going to increase the cattle of the country for beef purposes you have got to do two things: You have got to put the public grazing lands of the country under private control (it ought to be done equitably and fairly between the different live- stock interests, of course), but it ought to be put under private con- trol to encourage these people to establish the business of breeding. They can not breed cattle and make any money out of it on high- priced lands, and now if they could only get enough public lands outside of the forest reserves it could be utilized chiefly for the pur- pose of breeding. The cattle industry in my .States is interested in this way: In the first place, we have a number of peojile living in Texas and to the west of Texas in Arizona, Oklahoma, ant! ('olorast advantage the public range, by putting it under private control. I do not care whether GEAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 13 it is done by this bill or some other, but I do believe that every man who desires to conserve the public land, and every man who desires to encourage the great live-stock interests of this country, will agree that we ought to encourage breeding where the breeding can be done most cheaply; and the use of the public land for the purpose of feeding beef is an economic proposition worth any man's consideration. Of course, if it does not result in the production of more cattle, in the conservation of the range, in the improvement of the country so men can come into it and live on it, as has been the case in Texas, then it would be a failure. My own experience, however, has been that leasin'g the land and putting it under private control does not interfere with the settlement of the country, but encourages the settlement. And I make the assertion, which I believe Judge Smith will bear out, that west of the Pecos River in Texas is quite a large countrs*, and by the method of leasing and selling eight sections to a man, and by the method of leasing that land for 10 years, we have developed and fenced practically the entire country. We have developed the private lands, and we have built railroads, I loiow in my section and every other section. The school lands have been sold at $2 an acre, and many of them to-day sell for more than $2 an acre, which were only worth 50 cents 15 years ago, and the country has become developed and I think ten times as many people and ten times as many cattle are in that country as there were 15 years ago. Now, my figures might not be exactly correct, but they are illustrative. So we feel from that experience and observation in the cattle country of Texas that most of the public grazing lands of the United States if handled in precisely the same way will be benefited and the homestead land will be bene- fited and protected, because the people will have a method of making a living, and the whole country will be benefited in a way it never will be unless the Government gives private control to the parties grazing on the public lands of the United States. Mr. MoNDELL. Judge, you have referred to the Texas policy and have assured us that it has worked out well. That has been my understanding. The Texas grazing policy, as I understand it, was the policy of temporary leasing, havmg in view ah early disposition to the lessees or to homesteaders and purchasers. Mr. Cowan. The property was always subject to sale, except in certain districts, where they could not lease unless they gave a long enough time to develop the water. Mr. MoNDELL. Texas will provide a person as many as eight sections ? Mr. Cowan. That is west of the Pecos River. That law was passed, I think, in about 1897. Mr. MoNDELL. Ill other words, that was intended to be a temporary leasing, looking to the sale and disposition? Mr.CowAN. Oh, yes; we have always been anxious to settle our countrv- Mr. MoNDELL. And that worked well ? Mr. CowAX. Yes. Mr. MoNDELL. I do not see in this bill you have been discussing, in Ime with the Texas system, that it looks to any sale or ultimate disposition of the land other than under a leasing law. 14 GBAZING ON THE PXJBLIC LANDS. Mr. Cowan. Well, the trouble about that, Mr. Mondell, lies in the fact that the Government of the United States, sitting here at VV asti- ington, has never acted with much judgment m offering an induce^ ment to the people to buy land, because they have not ottered enough for a man to live on, as you well know, in most ol the agn cultural country. Mr. Mondell. Of course, what the Government does here is at least to reflect the desires of the people. Mr. Cowan. I do not think so. Mr. Mondell. Is that due partly to the fact that it has been an effort in the direction of urging these sales 1 Mr. Cowan. No; we did not urge it in Texas. We sold the land on 40 years' time, at 3 per cent interest. The urging lay m that fact Here is our land, and here is the law, should you wish tn buy it, and the lease does not interfere with the purchase, and we sell enough for a man to make a living on. Mr. Mondell. Yes; but you base your argument on the general leasing proposition, as I understand," largely on the experience of Texas. Mr. Cowan. Well, I point to that example. Mr. Mondell. But it seems to me that what is proposed is not at all in line with the Texas policy. The legislation proposed would seem to contemplate a permanent leasing system, except as a homesteader, under the rather difficult conditions of the homestead law, might come in and secure a foothold. Mr. Cowan. It does not attempt to provide a plan for the sale and disposition of public lands. It only attempts to provide for the use of it until it is sold. But whatever law Congress might pass as to the sale of lands need not be interfered with by the provisions of this, should Congress pass this law. Mr. Mondell. Certainly not; but my thought was, if you had in mind the Texas policy, would it not be well to urge with this leasing policy a system of seeking sales. Mr. Cowan. At present, sir, I can not urge that. In fact, practi- cally all of this cheap land can not be used for any other purpose than grazing, except where it is irrigable. The Government won't sell a man enough land to make a living on in that locality, and it seems to me perfectly foolish. Mr. Mondell. I want a temporary leasing j)olicy looking to the disposition of the land, and would be very much inclined to op- gose a plan which it seems to me conteinplates the permanent rovernment ownership. Mr. Cowan. Ih. Mondell, the leasing of the pubhc lands pending the purchase by anybody who wants to buy under reasonable condi- tions, of course having regard to the rights of the lessee, produces the improvement of the public land and puts the water on it and develops it so you can make a li^dng on it, and puts it where the people will come and buy it. The leasing system puts the people on there who are willing to pay the taxes and settle up the country. Mr. Mondell. You do not urge, in connection with your'leasino- what would seem to be the other important feature of the Texas law' as to the provision for sale. ' ' ' Mr. Cowan. As a citizen, Mr. Mondell, I would urge and I have advocated that always. I have made a good many speeches' at GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 15 Denver and other places on this subject, in which I have advocated that it ought to be done; but so far as I am concerned here I am only representing an association to present the bill. This bill if passed •would encourage the development of the land and induce the ultimate purchase; but the land laws of the United States with regard to the disposing of the grazing lands are so inadequate and would not induce people to buy, because a man can not make a living on 160 acres of land up there. Mr. MoNDELL. Judge, does it appear to you that while that is your view of it, most of the people who are urging leasing land are "with equal vigor insisting there shall be no sale legislation ? Mr. Cowan. I do not think that. It is not the case with our asso- ciation and the people represented by our association. We had that discussed (Gov. Carey, one of the men from your State, and Mr. Underwood, also from Wyoming, and Mr. Jastro, of California, and feople of Montana and elsewhere), and every man of them, so far as know, did nothing to indicate he did not want a settlement of the country. Every one of them wants a settlement of the country and is not opposed to the settlement. They are not opposed to the little man; they are in favor of giving everyone a fair snow; but they are in favor of having the control of the public lands in somebody rather than nobody. That is the expressed opinion of those gentlemen, and I think it is perfectly honest. Mr. MoNDELL. I think there is no question about that. Mr. Underwood — you mentioned his name — is favorable, as I understand, to a leasing system looking to the sale and looking to the ultimate disposition of the land. Mr. Cowan. So is Gov. Carey, the same way. Mr. MoNDELL. I do not know about Gov. Carey. Mr. Cowan. I think that was advocated by every member of the committee — of the executive committee of the American National Live Stock Association. I know I argued it very generally, and Mr. McKenzie pointed to the instance of Texas, where the land sold right in pastures. Mr. MoNDELL. But as this matter comes to the committee ordi- narily, it comes as a demand for leasing legislation, coupled with that legislation not to part with title at any time. Mr. CowAN. That is not our position, and it ought not to be the position of any well-informed, good citizen of the West, as you know, Mr. Mondell. And the committee can inform itself, and it will find out from the experience in the leasing of the Indian reservations and in the leasing of the railroad lands how it is, when men get private control of the lands, that that is the foundation of business. That induces others to come out and buy, and make entry on that land. But they ought to have enough land to make a living on, and the Government only offers 160 acres; and they can not do it. The Chairman. You referred a while ago to the poHcy of selling lands enough to make a living on. What limitation would you place on the area of grazing lands to be sold ? Mr. Cowan. I would not be very strict about it. West of the Pecos Eiver we sold 8 sections. We sold 4 sections in certain other dis- tricts of the State, running along the eastern boundary of Mexico, and 2 sections and 1 section in other portions of the State. 16 GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. The Chairman. Is nat this also true, in connection with being^ in haste to sell the grazing land, that land of this characler is beconimg more valuable and useful for other purposes than grazing, and it is ot grave doubt, so far as the public interest is concerned, whether we ou£rht to be in haste about disposing of lands of this character . ilr. Cowan. Well, answering your question, Mr. Cluurman, trom experience, when. we passed the Texas land law the friends Oi a land law of any sort were afraid to seU lands in large tracts. \A c granted 3,000,000' acres to the Capital Syndicate, and just as soon as the land became valuable enough (the bonds were owned mostly by the English people), just as soon as the lands became of sufficient value to be fit for agriculture, what did the synchcate do ? It sold the land to people coming down there and buying small tracts. The Chairman. In that case the syn(hcate took advantage of the increase in value which had been brought about by tJie progress of science, just as in tins case the syndicate would again get the increase in value. :\lr. Cowax. Why should not the men have that ? Here is what the syndicate did: The Ca])ital .Synchcate never in the end paid a net dividend. The lands advanced, but it is supposed it cost them over $.3,000,000 to build tlie capitol of Texas. They got 3.()()(),tO() acres; they fenced the land, divided it up, and carried on bushiess there for many years — 25 years — and sold the land mostly at $2 to $2.25 an acre. The present owners wanted the land for grazing purposes, and some of the cattlemen looked far ahead and bought big tracts of it, and they are the ones wlio got the real rise in price. It is worth wliile to think of the point that when you put the indi- vidual behind the development of the country, when that land becomes too valuable for use as grazing land, it is going to hasten the sale of it for farm purposes — exactly what happened all over the State of Texas. Mr. Rakee. As I observe the purpose of this bill, one of its effects would be to keep out the small cattle raisers or farmers that now have land adjacent to the public domain. ilr. CVjwA.x. Not at all; it gives him a preference. Mr. Raker. What kind of a preference? Mr. Cowan. To he decided by the boai always wound up by a flat indorse- ment of tlie recommendations of our "committee m 1908. Our last action on this matter was taken December 12 and 13, 1911, and is incorporated m a resolution adopted bv the association unanimously at that time. I would like to insert "that resolution in the record. It IS resolution No. 7, urging Federal control of the unappropriated semiand grazmg lands of the West; also resolution No. 8, urging classification of the public grazing lands, and resolution No. 10, to encourage the sinking of wells on desert lands. The latter resolution IS slightly foreign to this subject, but I would like to have it go in. The resolutions referred to are as follows: [Resolution No. 7.) URGING FEDERAL CONTROL OF THE UNAPPROPRIATED SEMI-ARID GRAZING LANDS. The American National Live Stock Association, in convention assembled, at Denver, Colo., December 12 and 13, 1911, hereby declares that— We believe that the prosperity and development of the stock-raising industry on the public grazing lands of the arid and semi-arid West is seriously threatened by the present indiscriminate methods of grazing, and we strongly recommend the early passage by Congress of a bill providing for Federal control of these unappropriated pubUc grazing lands and a just and reasonable method of leasing such lands. We favor a bill to operate either under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior or of Agriculture, and along the general hnes definitely recommended by this organization at its annual convention in Denver in 1908, and approved at all its conventions since that date. This measure would be of great practical advantage to the stockmen of the West, gives full protection and encouragement to the actual settler and homemaker, and through the distribution of the net revenues received in the construction of schools and good roads in the districts from which the funds are obtained would be of great public benefit. [Resolution No. 8.] URGING CLASSIFICATION Of PUBLIC GRAZING LANDS. To better facilitate the leasing and control of the semiarid grazing lands, as out- lined in the bill approved by this association, we vigorously urge Congress to provide without delay for the classification of the unappropriated unreserved public lands into grazing and agricultural districts. [Resolution No. 10.1 TO ENCOURAGE THE SINKING OF WELLS ON DESERT LANDS. Whereas there has been introduced in the House of Representatives a bill, "To encourage and promote the sinking of wells on desert lands in the Territory of Arizona, ' ' which will enable citizens of the United States to obtain a patent to forty acres of desert land after sinking a well and obtaining water thereon and making proper proof by payment of 81.25 per acre, 25 cents at time of fiUng and $1 at final proof, with Umft of eight filings to one person; law not to be appKcable to any but desert grazing lands: Therefore be it Resolved, That the American National Live Stock Association, m convention assembled, at Denver, Colo., December 12 and 13, 1911, heartily indorses the pro- visions of this bill and recommends that it be made applicable to all the arid-land States. Mr. ToMLiNSON. At the last meeting of the Wyoming Stock Grazers' Association, held at Sheridan, Wyo., on April 2, they adopted a resolution which I will read, as follows: Resolved, That the prosperit}^ and development of the stock grazing industry of the public grazing lands of the arid and semiarid west are seriously threatened by the present indiscriminate methods of grazing. We strongly recommend the early passage 36 GKAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. by Congress of the bill providing a reasonable method of purchasing or leading all of the pubUc irazing lands, to be controlled and administered by tiie State authorities where such lands are situated, subject at all times to the operation of the homesteaa law m such manner as may be provided by law. The Montana Stock Growers' Association at its last annual meet- ing held in Miles City, April 17, 1912, adopted a resolution lavormg Federal control of the open range and indorsing the bill lormulated by our association. I will insert that resolution in the record. Mr. Raker. Does that resolution favor State control, the same as Wyoming ? Mr. ToMLiNSON. No, sir; it does not. The resolution referred to is as follows: ^ We believe the present development of the stock-raising industry in the public grazing lands of the arid and semiarid West is seriously threatened by the present methods of graziag, and we strongly recommend the early enactment by Congress of a bill for Federal protection of these unappropriated grazing lands and a just and reasonable method of leasing such lands. We favor a bill to operate either under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior or of Agriculture and along the lines definitely recommended by the Ameri- can National Live Stock Association. This measure would be of great practical advantage to the stockmen of the West and give full protection and encouragement to the farmer and home maker, and the net revenues received in the construction of schools and good roads in the districts from which the funds are obtained would be of great public benefit. Mr. ToMLiNSON. The Arizona Cattle Growers' Association hare re- peatedty in the past five or six years passed resolutions urging Federal control of the arid and semiarid unappropriated ranges; so also has the Western South Dakota Stock Growers' Association, operating in western South Dakota. TJie local Colorado associations, many of them, have also indorsed legislation favorable to the control of the open-range country, and for the purpose of a record, I will read into it a resolution adopted by the Delta County ]jive Stock Association, which Congressman Taylor knows very well. This resolution adopted December 2s, ]911, is as follows : Resolved, That we are most heartily in favor of the passage of Senate bill No. 3463, recently presented in the United States Senate by Senator La Follette, entitled "A bill for the improvement of grazing on the public lands of the United States, and to regulate the same, and for other purposes." The La Follette bill, I might explain, is but little diflFerent from the Lever bill which you are now considering. The Lever bill, however, has a few minor improvements in it. Afr. Taylor. May I ask you in that connection, isn't it true that the Colorado Cattle Growers' Association is opposed to this measure 1 Mr. TOMLINSON. There are, as you know, Mr. Taylor, two State associations m Colorado, one laiown as the Colorado Cattle and Horse Growers' Association and the other as the Colorado Live Stock \^so- ciation. The reason for the existence of these two associations is that they spht on the question of the administration of forest rt^servcs the old association for some years opposmg it and the new association favoring the present administration of the forest reserves The old association, to which you refer, Mr. Taylor, has not in the past year or two taken any definite action either on the forest reserves or on the open-range question. The new association has declared itself in favor of forest reserves and m favor of the lease of the seuiiaiid open- range country. ' GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 37 _ Mr. Taylor. Yoia referred j'csterday to the forest reserves. This IS not a question so much of the forest reserves, is it? Mr. ToMLiNsoN. No; not at all. I am just trying to explain why there are two State associations in Colorado. I think perhaps I ought to read into the record a letter from the Colorado Live Stock Asso- ciation which does favor some Federal control of the open range, so called. Mr. Raker. What was the final action of the association that you refer to ? Did they oppose the leasing of the public domain ? Mr. Taylor. As Mr. Tomlinson has said, the original association — which, I think, is the main one, isn't it Mr. Tomlinson. I think they are about equally divided, so far as membership is concerned. Mr. Taylor. They have always been opposed to the leasing of the public domain, haven't they ? Mr. Tomlinson. I would hardly think it a correct statement to say that they are all opposed to it. They have refused to con- sider that issue in the last two years, Mr. Raker. The old associa- tion was not inclined to take any action either on the forest-reserve or the open-range question, whereas the new association has taken very emphatic action on both. Mr. Raker. Mr. Tomlinson, this matter now before the committee — so that we may have the matter clear — has not any relation or any connection, then, with the Forest Service ? Mr. Tomlinson. Not in the slightest; I did not drag it in except to explain the position of those two associations. The letter to which I refer is dated Denver, Colo., April 29, 1912, and is addressed to me. It is from the secretary of the Colorado Live Stock Association, of which Mr. Isaac Baer, of Meeker, Colo., is president, and Mr. John Grattan, Broomfield, Colo., is secretary. Shall I read it ? The Chairman. If there is anything in it you especially wish to emphasize you might read it, but if you stated the substance of it I suggest you put it in the record, and all other resolutions, refer to them generally. Mr. Tomlinson. I will put it in the record here. The letter referred to is as follows : Colorado Livb Stock Association, Denver, Colo., April 29, 1912. Mr. Tomlinson. Dear Sir: Whatever you may do toward procuring legislation that will put our public domain under some system or regulation will be very much appreciated by the members of our association. While we do not in any way wish to injure the small stockman, yet we think the small man as most of our members are, always stands a better show under government than under anarchy. The free pitch in on the range results in no one getting the benefits they should, besides a useless waste of a valuable product, because of want of system and manage- ment. The same principles apply to the range that apply to the farm, to a business, or to a municipality. I can see why some people who have now a certain monopoly on certain grazing land don't want any change. They are no different from some other people who have immense quantities of the world's goods and the balance of the goods headed in their direction. They never want a change. Respectfully, John Grattan, Secretary. 38 GBAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. Mr. ToMLiNSON. I also desire to present to your committee a letter from Mr. Isaac Baer, of Meeker, Colo., president of the Colorado l^ive Stock Association. It is as follows: Meekee, Colo., April 29, 1912. Mr. T. W. ToMLiNsoN, Secretary American National Live Stock Association, New Willard Hotel, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: Knowing that you will be in attendance at the hearing before the Public Lands Committee of the House of Representatives on May 3 and 4 when the lana- leasing bill as presented by your conmiittee will come under consideration 1 aesire to inform you that at a meeting of the Colorado Live Stock Association held m Den- ver in December last, the same bill was presented and received the unanimous indorsement of the members at that meeting. j t ■ a* i We had a full attendance of the entire membership of the Colorado Live btock Association at our last meeting, and the leasing bill was one of the most important matters brought before the house, and was received with a great deal of enthusiasm, as all present feel that the future of the live stock business of the West depends upon the successful management of the public domain by the National Government. Wishing you success in convincing the honorable members of the Public Lands Committee, I am, yours, Isaac Baer, President Colorado Live Stock Association. Mr. ToMLiNSON. I also want to put in the record a statement pre- pared in 1908 by J. C. Underwood, of Underwood, Wyo., and George Mitchell, of Uva, Wyo., representing the Laramie County Cattle and Horse Growers' Association. It is entitled "The True Status of the Grazing Problem, in Wyoming." Mr. Rakeb. What is Mr. Underwood's business ? Mr. ToMLiNSON. Mr. Underwood is a cattleman. He has prob- ably one of the best herds of Hereford cattle in Wyoming. He had to take his ences down, and, of course, is relegated to the open range country, and he has not been able to improve his herd or even main- tain its high standard. Like all our stockmen he litis had a hard time this winter with the severe weather, which might have been avoided had he been able to run his cattle under some sort of control. In this short article prepared by the Laramie Countv Cattle and Horse Growers' Association they refer to the fact that there are -J ,000 cattle- men in Wyoming, and their holdings aie approximately less than 200 head. Considering the size of their lioklings and the fact that all these local live-stock organizations in Wyoming — the cattle organiza- tions I refer to— favored some Federal control of the open range, and that the AVyoming State association also favors ^ome change in the present conditions, you can readily see that the small man does favor a change in the present system. The statement referred to is as follows THE TRUE STATUS OP THE GRAZING PROBLEM IN WYOMING AS SHOWN BY THE POLL OF THE LARAMIE COUNTY CATTLE AND HOUSE GROWERS ASSOCIATION. The misapprehension which may have been created in the minds of Members of Congress and the public generally as to the views of Wyoming stockmen on the subject of Government control of grazing the public lands, by constant appeals of certain large interests who profit by the open range, leads us to make this explanation in behalt of the small stock owner and the men in (he cattle business in that State for the purpose of showing you the fact that a majority of our stockmen favor such a pro- tection to established live-stock business, the settlement and prosperity of the State Those m whose behalf we speak are scattered <)^'er wide areas and are not possessed of the means of getting concerted action, as is the case with those who, as we believe GEAZING ON I'HB PUBLIC LANDS. 39 have created an erroneous impression as to the real wishes of the great majority of Wyoming stockmen. . The State has an area of 63,430,000 acres, of which 7,389,026 acres, or Hi per cent, IS m private ownership. Four million acres, or 6 per cent, is controlled by the State m regular school sections, lieu lands, and Government grants to the State institutions. Nine million acres, or 14 per cent, is included in forest reserves, making a total of 31i per cent of the total area that is controlled in some way. At this time only 2,152,000 acres, or 3 per cent of the patented area, is under cultivation. The 68 per cent of land remaining, or about 43,000,000 acres, is now used for grazing of cattle, horses, and sheep. An official pamphlet recently issued by the State officials of Wyoming says, "That eventually about 10,000,000 acres can be cultivated. " Former Senator J. M. Carey says, "That within the next 25 years probably 8,000,000 acres will be placed under cultivation. " Ilia personal knowledge of the topography and his colonization experience throughout the State without a doubt makes him an authority on this subject. We have grazing on the public lands now approximately 800,000 head of cattle, valued at $20,000,000; 5,000,000 head of sheep, valued at $22,500,000; 79,571 head of horses, valued at $2,500,000. There are 4,000 men engaged in the cattle business, which would represent an average of 200 head of cattle to the man. There are 1,600 sheepmen, with an average of 3,125 sheep to the man. The horses are about equally divided among the owners of cattle and sheep, with very few individual owners. Nearly all of the cattlemen with their families live on and improve their ranch property by their own toil, while a large proportion of the sheepmen do not maintain established places of business, and a great number live in the cities or out of the State. The approximate revenue derived from the sale of cattle amounts to $8,000,000 per annum, and that from sheep amounts to $7,211,773 from the wool clip and $5,405,027 from the meat movement. The majority of the cattlemen are small owners, and as the cattle can not be herded to an advantage it is necessary that these men have a fixed place of business where they can produce winter food, improve'the quality of the stock, and prevent loss from stray- ing off. To a considerable extent the sheepmen maintain fixed places of business. Naturally both cattle and sheep men with fixed places of business wish to improve their ranches and homes and acquire exclusive use of the adjoining lands, as this is the only way the stability of the business can be maintained. The sheep business is carried on in a different manner from the cattle business, as sheep are constantly herded by day and penned at night. The herder has his houpe on a wagon, and as feed grows short the sheep and the camp are moved to greener fields — the only neces- sity being water provision. With free range the incentive is to get all you can, which in the end works to the detriment of all. The men with the fixed places of business as a rule are raising hundreds of tons of hay and various crops for winter feeding and wish to acquire by lease or purchase the adjoining grazing land in order to carry on their individual ideas. While men may differ as to the manner in which they should be permitted to acquire a definite portion of the public range to carry on their business, the very great majority of those with a fixed localized business desire by some fair method to so acquire the use of the public land. In order to obtain a consensus of the views of stockmen upon the subject, the Laramie County (jattle and Horse Growers' Association commenced a poll of the State to- ascertain the views of the people regarding the leasing of the public domain by sending out a series of questions to the 5,000 men engaged in the stock business. Up to Feb- ruary 1, 1908, we had received 613 replies from 252 post office districts in the State out of a possible 350. This poll ."^hows 516 favoring a lease law and 97 opposed. Those in favor of the lease law own 9 per cent of the patented area, 5J per cent of the cultivated area, 269,721 head of sheep, 142,508 head of cattle, 8,503 head of horses. They also raise 87,317 tons of hay, valued at $650,000, all of which is fed to their stock during- the winter months. The 97 opposed to a lease law own 1-^ per cent of the patented area, 1 per cent of the cultivated area, 126,000 head of ?heep, 29,557 head of cattle, and 2,504 head of horses. They raise 16,815 tons of hay, valued at $99,012, most of which they feed during the winter months. Our banner year was 1907 in the addition of lands to private ownership — an area of 5 townships, or 115,200 acres going to patent. At this rate it will take 368 years to get the balance of the 1,840 unappropriated townships in the State into private owner- ship. During 1907 we had approximately 3,035 homestead filings in the State, 1,000 of these being in the extreme southeast corner of the State in a district about 40 miles long and 25 miles wide. We also had 626 desert-land filings throughout the State. On the other hand, during this same period we had nearly 500 relinquishments of homestead entries and over 300 desert entries, the reason given' in the majority of 40 GEAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. •cases being that the applicants could not make a living upon these lands. Some few desert filings were relmquished because the entrymen could not conaply wiin tne new interpretation ol the law, and these in numerous cases were selected by the state as lieu lands for the parties who had relinquished them. Nearly all the lands in the State along creeks and rivers are now under paLenu, leaving only the highlands unappropriated. Where it is possible m a tew instances to reclaim some of these lands by building reservoirs, yet it is only by corporate interests that this will become possible. In order to obtain a business basis the majority ot tne stockmen are willing to pay the Government a reasonable fee for the use of these lands in order that they may conduct their business on an individual paying basis. Under the fencing systems, 'which has grown and become almost general because the law against inclosing public lands, for nearly a quarter of a century, has not been enforced by the Government, the quality of our live stock, especially cattle and horses, has im- proved 100 per cent in the past 10 years. Now to turn this improved stock_ loose indiscriminately on the public range, which has to be done where the owners are lorced to remove their fences from the public lands, will simply ruin the live-stock business and put it back 10 to 20 years. With one man expending his time and resources on a Hereford breed of cattle and his neighbor on a Shorthorn breed, the individual idea ot neither breeder can be conserved upon the open range. The hve-stock owners do not wish to be placed in the attitude of wishing to maintain their business by unlawful means, i. e., inclosing public lands in violation of a United States statute, and there- fore they wish relief through the repeal of the fence law, or, if this is impracticable, they wish their business methods placed upon a legal basis, which can be done by giv- ing them a lawful tenure of grazing lands through leasing. The people wish the rights of the settler safeguarded in every way, and his settlement ■on lands" where he can succeed will be welcomed, but the stockmen also feel that they are entitled to like consideration and that this business should not be jeopardized. In this connection we wish to quote from a letter just received from the Hon. 0. N.AValters, a prominent stockman of northern Wyoming: "1 inclose petition of 60 representative stockmen of this vicinity, who own $1,000,000 worth of land and li^-e stock, who favor a reasonable lease law. If the present Congress does not take action in tjjis direction, they certainly should repeal the present fence law, which is causing great hardship and loss in this section." "We are not wedded to any particular measure or specific language, but we do need relief, and we would kindly ask that you give this matter your serious consideration. We do not wish to press the grazing measure at this session, as we do not feel the sentiment of Congress is ripe for action, but fence relief would be welcome. Respectfully, George Mitchell, President, Uva, Wyo. .1. C. Underwood, Secretary, Underwood, TVyo. Mr. MoNDELL. I did not quite catch that last statement of yours. 1^,' Mr. ToMLiNsoN. I say that as the bulk of the small Wyoming associations, such as the Laramie County Cattle and Horse Growers' Association, and all the small cattle and horse growers' organizations in Wyoming favor some Federal control, and that the Wyoming Stock Growers' Association, by the resolution referred to, favor also «ither some Federal control or State control, it is perfectly plain that the small men of Wyoming do favor a change in present conditions. The Chaieman. Mr. Tomlinson, let me make a suggestion to you. Can you not state the organizations that have indorsed this measure or similar measures a little more briefly ? Mr. Tomlinson. I will file with the secretary a list of all the mem- bers of our association. The Chairman. I wish you would do that. I think that will serve the same purpose. If you desire to state the organizations that have opposed it, we will be glad to have you do that. Mr. Tomlinson. There are no members of our association that oppose this bill. , GKAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 41 The list referred to is as follows : ASSOCIATION MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN NATIONAL LIVE STOCK ASSOCIATION. "a IK*"^^ ^ounty Cattle and Horse Growers' Association, Wyoming. Albany County Wool Growers' Association, Wyoming. American Berkshire Association. American Hereford Cattle Breeders' Association. American Short Horn Breeders' Association. Arizona Cattle Growers' Association. Arizona Wool Growers' Association. Bent County Cattle Growers' Association, Colorado. Bijou-Muddy Cattle Association, Colorado. California Live Stock Association. Cattle Sanitary Board of New Mexico. Cattle Raisers' Association of Texas. Coconino County Cattle and Horse Growers' Association, Arizona. Colorado Live Stock Association. Colorado Stock Growers' Association. Corn Belt lileat Producers' Association. Converse County Cattle Growers' Association, Wyoming. Delta County Li\-e Stock Association, Colorado. Gunnison County Stock Growers' Association of Colorado. Inland Registered Breeders' Association of Washington. Kansas State Live Stock Association. Kern County Cattle Growers' Association, California. Kern County Wool Growers' Association, California. Laramie County Cattle and Horse Growers' Association of Wyoming. Las Animas County ( 'attle Growers' Association, Colorado. Live Stock Sanitary Board of Arizona. Montana Stock Growers' Association. Nebraska Stock Growers' Association. New Mexico Cattle and Horse Growers' Association. North Park Stock Growers' Association, Colorado. The Pan Handle and Southwestern Stockmen's Association. Park County (.'attle Growers' Association, Colorado. Pikes Peak Cattle and Horse Growers' Association, Colorado. Plateau Valley Cattle Association, Colorado. Sheep Sanitary Board of New Mexico. Snake River Cattle Growers' Association of Colorado. Southwestern Utah Live Stock Association. Southern Utah and Northern Arizona Cattlemen's Union. Virgin River Stockmen's Association, Utah. Washington Live Stock Association. Western Slope Wool Growers' Association, Colorado. Western South Dakota Stock Growers' Association. White River Cattle Association, Colorado. Wyoming Stock Growers' Association. Mr. Fergusson. May I ask a question, Mr. Tomlinson? Do I understand that this bill you are now considering is accepted as a summary or substitute for all the other bills referred to ? Mr. Tomlinson. Yes, sir. Mr. Fergusson. This is the one you are advocating? Mr. Tomlinson. Yes, sir. Mr. Fergusson. I notice in the first line that the imreserved, unappropriated pubHc lands of the United States shall be subject to the provisions of this act. In the State of New Mexico, which I rep- resent, for instance, that would subject to reservation for grazmg purposes the whole of the public domain of the State of New Mexico except what is now reserved for forest purposes and what is now allotted and appropriated to private owners, would it not ? Mr. Tomlinson. It would give the President the privilege, of course, of setting those aside — of establishing grazing districts. 42 GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. Mr. Fergusson. I mean, subject to being reserved in his discre- tion. Mr. ToMLiNSON. Yes, sir. Mr. Raker. As a matter of fact, would it not reserve all the pubhc domain which is not reserved or in private ownership ? Mr. ToMLiNSON. It is not obligatory on the President to do that. I presume ultimately, after a survey and classification, if he found it worked satisfactorily, he might adopt that plan in parts of New Mexico. ]\rr. Fergusson. That is, th'ey are subject to being reserved ? ^fr. ToMLiNsoN. Yes, sir. Mr. Fergusson. There is a clause in here, section 2, that homestead or other settlement, location, entry, patent, and all other disposal of public lands under the public-land laws shall be in no wise restricted, limited, or abridged hereby. The operation of this bill would, how- ever, subject a homesteader to the necessity of going within the fenced inclosure of any permit that had been granted for grazing purposes under the lease of 10 years. Mr. ToMLiNSON. It depends altogether on whether the ranges are divided up upon a community basis or leased outright. Possibly under both conditions a man would have to go inside a fence. Mr. Fergusson. I would like to state to you, as a preliminary to the next question, that the Secretary of the Interior in person, at a hearing before this committee, has suggested that in his opinion the public domain should be classified into, say, arid and semiarid, agri- cultural, mineral, and other divisions like that. Would it not suit the purposes of these cattlemen whom you represent to have that classification provided for in a bill like that, so as to hare the public domain in the State of Xew Me.xico, say, subject to appropriation for strictly agricultural purposes under the great irrigation enter- prises, and especially under the improved methods known as scien- tific farming? Don't you think the purposes would be served that you are seeking, which I recognize as very valuable, because I recog- nize that a large part of the public domain of Xew ]\. exico is hopelessly arid or semiarid and absolutely incapable of being utilized for farming purposes i In view of that, don't you think the purposes would be served by a classification that would permit the President to reserve only such of the pubhc domain as is not suited now for agricultural purposes for the uses indicated in this bill of the great cattle and sheep industries of the country i Mr. ToMLiNSGN. You will recall the resolution of our assi.ciation, which I just put in the record. We urge the speedv survev and classification of all this semiarid country and it is our behef — at least it is my behef — that before the President could act on such a bill as the Lever bill he would have to have the land classified. Mr. Fergusson. It is provided on page 3, line 10, that permits to graze live stock upon land which is subsequently appropriated under any public-land law shall not be affected bv such subsequent ap- propnation, except as to the land actuallv appropriated until the end of the current annual grazing period, which would be 10 years, as elsewhere provided. Will not the operation of that proviso prevent a farmer or homesteader from taking his homestead and from doing anything to develop that in an agricultural wav if he wanted to have a few cattle? That would be the effect of it, would it not « GRAZING ON THE PTJBLIC LANDS. 43 Mr. ToMLiNSON. Until the end of the "current annual grazins; period." Mr. Feegusson. Which might be more than 10 years? Mr ToMLiNSON. No; it could not be more than a year; probably A4- T>^ a year.. The bill reads, "Current annual grazing period." Mr. Feegusson. If a farmer should come in within one year after this permit had been granted for 10,000 acres, then for any year he ^^r^l prohibited from doing anything to cultivate his entry? The Chairman. Don't you think, Mr. Fergusson, that that applies to a single year rather than to the whole grazing period « Mr. Feegusson. I do not understand it so. The Chaieman. That is to say, that inhibition would expiie at the end of the year and not at the end of th« whole grazing period? That is, the farmer could not use the land surrounding that which he was actually appropriating until the end of the first year? Mr. Feegusson. It does not say that. If it would make that plain, it would be good. The Chairman. I think that is the construction that would be given to it, but if there is doubt about that, of course, it should be made specific. Mr. Feegusson. One other question along this line. If a farmer should go in the area of a grazing permit of, say, 10,000 acres, and locate his 160 or 320 acres, locate his homestead, he would be within the fenced area of the permit. Would it not entail upon that farmer the absolute necessity of fencing his homestead at once, or could he raise crops in the midst of a grazing herd? Mr. ToMLiNSON. I think the condition would be about the same as at present. If he wanted to protect any property or raise any crops he would have to fence it; yes. Mr. Feegusson. You say your association is advocating this bill now as being a summary of all the others. Would you object to having this bill so amended so as to provide that there should be a classification, and that it should apply only to lands unfit for farming ? Mr. ToMLiNSON. Most decidedly, I would not object to such a classification. Mr. Feegusson. Don't you think it would be better that, if possi- ble, the areas where farming might be successfully prosecuted and the areas that are unmistakably suited only for grazing purposes should be classified and the distinction between them properly pre- served so that the country might develop both in an agricultural and a grazing way without confhct of interest ? Mr. ToMLiNSON. As I stated before, in reply to a former question, I believe it wiU be necessary before this bill is put into actual oper- ation to have some survey and classification of the open range, and it will be necessary to segregate the agricultural land from the grazing and semiarid land. In tnis connection, may I ask how much land you regard as semi- arid in New Mexico ? Mr. Fergusson. I shall have to refer you to the department for that. I do know, however, that land which was considered within eight years, in eastern New Mexico particularly, where the contour of the country is similar to the panhandle of Texas — I know that prior to a period within 10 years past that was looked at as fit for nothing 44 " GEAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. but grazing, and that now there are thousands of more or less pros- perous farmers there and they get a Httle ram. With a suitable home- stead law they wHl be allowed five months absence each year, when they can find other employment, and in that way vnll slowly make progress. I believe it would not be wise to retain it lor grazing pur- poses and have fenced lands of that character that may be made mto homes for the people. Mr. Taylor. Will the gentleman from New Mexico permit a ques- tion? What you have just said, in view of what Judge Cowan said yesterday concernmg the belief in Texas a few years ago, that the great portion of the western part of tlie State would never be any good for anything, whereas it is now valuable farming land, do you think it is possible or practicable for anybody at this time to have enough foresight and superhuman intelhgence to classify the lands of the West so as to determine what they will ultimately be good for ? Is there any possibility of that being done; is not the Secretary of the Interior's recommendation upon that subject, from our western personal knowledge, absolutely impracticable ? Mr. Fergusson. I will only say what I said a while ago. I believe there are millions of acres there which it will be to the interest of our country to have appropriated for graziag purposes under some proper law, but I do not think this bill ought to be enacted without providing and guarding carefully the rights of farmers that show a disposition now to come and fill up New Mexico. Mr. MoNDELL. But your view to-day of what that area would consist of would be different from what your view would have been a few years ago ? Mr. Fergusson. Yes, sir; but at the same time it is to the interest of New Mexico that the cattlemen and sheepmen should have to do what is generally advocated by men here who have larger tracts and have the right to fence them, but I think it should be carefully confined to what is strictly appropriated to grazing purposes. Mr. Raker. While you are putting this land under the control and ownership of the homesteader, the desert-land claimant, do you then make it possible that the State and county and district wherein this land is can subject it to taxation to help iDuild up the country? Mr. Fergusson. Yes. Mr. Raker. Ought not the balance of the land to be put in the same position so it may bear its share of the burden of taxation? Mr. Fergusson. Well, that can be reached by the leases — you mean for local taxation? Mr. Raker. Yes. Mr. Fergusson. I think that will adjust itself. I am in accord with the gentlemen advocatmg this bill so far as the great grazing stretches of New Mexico are concerned, because I think' that*' it will tend ultimately to make farms out of it. Mr. MoNDELL. Would you have that accompanied by a provision for sale within a certain period ? Mr. Fergusson. No; I do not know that I would say that. Mr. Mondell. Do you think this provision which prohibits the entryman from grazing any of his live stock on any i)art of the leased area within the current year would not discourage him somewhat from taking his horses and his cows into that area at the time he made entry ? GEAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 45 Mr. ToMLiNSON. Oh, possibly. If he took up 320 acres, for exam- ple, he certainly would not cultivate it all the first year, and he would have ample land to graze the few milch cows and horses he had witliin his own fence. Mr. MoNDELL. Of course, that man would either have to fence them or picket them or have the children close-herd them. Mr. ToMLiNSON. This colloquy has proceeded on the theory that the homesteader would be prevented from exercising his inahenable rights. I do not believe he will. I think the provisions of the Lever bill will encourage homesteading, and for this sole reason: After these lessees have spent a large amount of money providing water, and after they have created water and demonstrated to the prospective homesteader that he can get water on this range, he is infinitely more likely to come in and settle than he would under the arid conditions with no prospect of water. Honestly and sincerely, I think this bill would encourage the small homesteader. I know some little* about the operation of the lease law in Texas and know how it operates, and it worked entirely satisfactorily, as does the Australian lease system also. There are approximately 300,000,000 to 350,000,000 acres of semiarid land in this country which will never be used for anything else but grazing. I am pretty familiar with the dry farming of the west and have been closely connected with it for seven years. In good wet years, of course, they can make'a living, but in dry years they are half starved. That is true in large sections of New Mexico, and it is true in eastern Colorado and true in Wyoming, as Mr. Mondell knows. It has not been proved an entire success, although they have been able to raise some forage crop. Yesterday I was asked whether a 1 or 2 section homestead would not be satisfactory ia certain sections of the west. In reply to that I might say that not long ago I had the pleasure of talkmg with Mr. J. B. Kendrick, president of the Wyoming Stock Growers' Association. He gave it as his personal opinion that so far as certain sections of Wyoming were concerned the two-section homestead might solve the question up there. He said in certain localities he thought a man could with two sections make a good living; that may be true in Wyoming; it certainly is not true down in Arizona, Nevada, or certain parts of New Mexico. This bill which we advocate contains, of course, general provisions which I think will meet the maj.ority of the yarjong conditions all over the West. It may not be a finality, but it wiU relieve the very unsatisfactory, unstable, and unprofitable conditions. If later on some land could be turned over to the State or sold, you are not sacrificing anyone's rights by leasing it or putting it temporarily under Federal control. We have been imploring this legislation for many years. The last record I read on it was in 1907, when we had hearings before the Senate committee. We have had this bill introduced in Congress time and time again, but nothing has been done. It does not now seem to be much further along than it was 10 years ago. Now, gentlemen, the range of to-day is different from what it was 25 year's ago. If there were an unlimited range, with virginal grasses and houses 50 miles apart, the stock men would not be here asking protection, I might say, against themselves. The range is crowded; 46 GEAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. it has been depleted; it is a scramble among stock raisers to get the most grass. The result is the carrying capacity of the range nas been greatly decreased. As Mr. Cowan said yesterday, it is a great economic question; we have reached a point on cattle, at least, ana on sheep as weU, where we consume practically our production. Wow, if there is any way whereby you can make two blades ot grass grow where but one grew before, and raise two bullocks where but one grows to-day, it is due to the great consuming public as well as to us pro- ducers who are trying to make the best out of very bad and unsatis- factory range conditions that you enact this very reasonable remedial legislation. I was asked yesterday by Congressman Pickett to enumerate some of the reasons why we ask for this bill. In this Arizona pamphlet to which I have aheady referred and which I beheve is encyclopedic on the question, it enumerates 12 reasons why there should be some Federal control of the open range. It says : In addition to what has been said already concerning the disadvantages of free grazing, there are certain positive advantages to be had In' virtue of grazing in fenced areas. These are apparent at a glance from an examination of grazing conditions m New South Wales, Texas, and in occasional small fenced areas in ^^'yoming. 1. To begin with, stockmen are able to handle the public range under fence pre- cisely as if it were their own land. They know in advance their grazing resources, and can increase or decrease their herds accordingly. Their business is, therefore, on a reasonably sound basis, and as far as possilile removed from loss or disaster. 2. The cost of rounding up, branding, and otherwise^ handling cattle is less in fenced areas than on the open range where commonly cattle become scattered over a large extent of country. Less paid help is necessarj', and the owner is at liberty to devote a portion of his time to agriculture, or other pursuits, instead of continually riding the ranges. 3. During prolonged droughts weak and starving animals in pastures can be kept nearer to supplies of feed and water, and hence stand a better chance of being brought through. At such times as these, on an open range, feed is farthest removed from water and often beyond the reach of poor, emaciated animals. Accordingly these gather around watering places and starve to death. 4. Better care, also, can be given to the mothers and their young and the season of the calf crop can be controlled. In Wyoming reproduction among cattle was found to be 25 per cent higher on ranges that were fenced than on the same ranges ■when the fences had been remo^■ed. 5. On inclosed ranges it is practicable to improve herds by breeding with high- grade animals. On the open range under ordinary conditions it is not, and one's grade of stock is the average of the entire range. 6. The incentive to overstock ranges is removed by fencing them, since each man has control of the grazing areas he is dependent upon. For this reason resident stockmen and homesteaders are most in favor of fencing. Their largest profits come from good range country, and they desire to manage their ranges accordingly. Until our grazing ranges are fenced we need not expect any permanent or lasting recovery from them. 7. On fenced areas it is practioalile to carry out a systematic alternate grazing and resting of the ranges. Ranges can be divided into pastures, and each of these grazed for three or four months at a time, after which they may be alkmed to grow up and mature seed before being grazed over again. Overgrazed ranges can thus be restored to their former grazing capacity. s. With fencing each man receives the full benefit from the improvement of his ranges through restricting the number of grazing animals for a time, de^■eloping water supplies at distances of 4 or 5 miles, eradicating weeds, useless shnilis, poisonous plaTifs, and range rodents, preventing incipient erosion, cultivating occasional areas, constructing dams for flooding purposes, and in other ways increasing the carrying capacity of the land. The incentive to do this can come in no other way except by fencing. Through such intelligent range manai,'fmeiit the carrying capa(■it^■ of ranges is often increased from .50 to 100 per cent. 9. Cattle "rustling" ceases to be a conunon occurrence un fenced ranges Dis- honesty from this source is much more difficult than under cjien -range conditions, GKAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 47 where cattle belonging to many owners range far and wide. This is the experience in iexas. 10. Range ''wars" between sheepmen and cattlemen are not possible on leased fenced ranges. The tramp sheepman and his roving band is also eliminated. J*" J 1^^ stated that in coynle-proof pastures herds of sheep graze much more openly and do le.-^s traiUng than A\lien ^he^' are herded. At night also they tend to bed in smaller bands than when herdetl. 12. Under proper administration leasing and fencing makes for the permanent set- tlement of the country by man>' resident stockmen and homesteaders and encourages the growth of such dry-land croj-s as sorghum and Kafir corn. In this way it furthers agricultural conditions, as may be seen in the instance of Texas; in turn, the develop- ment of agriculture renders more certain the stock industry. Mr. Eaker. May I ask you a question there? Have you any record as to the number of cattle, horses, and sheep that were m these western States 10 years ago as compared with the number now? Mr. ToMLiNsoN. I could not give it to you with exactitude. I can answer in tlxis way, that the range receipts on cattle particularly — — Mr. Eaker. Xo; I do not mean that. Can you give me the num- ber of cattle, the number of horses, and the number of sheep in California, for instance, in 1900? Mr. iloNDELL. The census records would show that. Mr. Raker. I wanted to know if he had given that any thought? Mr. ToMi.ixsox. Take 25 years ago Mr. Raker. No; 10 years ago. Mr. ToMLiNSON. I could not give it to you with any accuracy; probably less cattle and more sheep. The Chairman. Have you concluded, Mr. Tomlinson? Mr. Tomlinson. Yes, sir; unless there is .some other question. Mr. Taylor. Mr. Tomhnson, you have been for a number of years the secretary of the American National Live Stock Association, have you? Mr. Tomlinson. Yes, sir; since 1905. Mr. Taylor. Who is the president of that association ? Mr. Tomlinson. H. A. Jastro, of Bakersfield, Cal. Mr. Taylor Was he the president of the Matador Cattle Co. ? Mr. Tomlinson. No, sir; that was Mr. Murdo Mackenzie, of Trinidad, Colo., who has now gone to San Paulo, Brazil. Mr. Taylor. He is now representing the cattle industry in Brazil ? Mr. Tomlinson. Yes, sir; he represents the Brazil Land & Cattle Co. Mr. Taylor. Has that any connection with the beef trust ? Mr. Tomlinson. No, sir; entirely separate and distinct. Mr. Taylor. And who represents the Matador Co. now? Mr. Tomlinson. Mr. John McBain, of Trinidad, Colo. Mr. Taylor. And that is how large a company, did you say ? Mr. Tomlinson. They run approximately 60,000 cattle. They run- them all under fence; they.use no open range. They do lease some land from the Government up m Dakota. Mr. Taylor. And the other company, the one that Jastro is the head of i o ^^ i ^i Mr. Tomlinson. The Kern County Land & Cattle Co. Mr. Taylor. How many head of cattle does that company repre- sent? ^„ „ , ^. ^ Mr. Tomlinson. Well, at a rough guess, that company runs 150 000 head. It has ranches in Arizona, New Mexico, California, Oregon, and Washington. 48 GEAZIWG ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. Mr. Taylor. There is no question, I assume, but what the large cattle companies want the remaining portions of the public clomarn reserved as much as possible, don't they, for their own mtercsts . Mr. ToMLiNsoN. I disagree entirely with you on that proposition, but I am glad you asked the question. Coming east I had a talk with Mr. George Keeline, one of the large operators in Wyoming. He objected to any lease law simply because he could not get enough land for both his summer and winter ranges. You will find that is true all over the country. The big men who use the range frequently object to Government control. Mr. MoNDELL. Isn't it true that a large cattleman who is not in favor of a leasing system is very rare ? Mr. ToMLiNsoN. You do not find, very many large cattlemen on the open range any more. Mr. MoNDELL. The Keelines, to whom you refer, run cattle and sheep, and they have been in the business a good many years and they have a good deal of land of their own ? Mr. ToMLiNsoN. Yes. Mr. MoNDELL. I did not refer to that as affecting the question one way or the other, but my understanding is that most of the large cattlemen and many of the smaller ones do favor a leasing system. Mr. ToMLiNSON. Of course there are more small ones than big ones, and necessarily the small ones favor the lease law for their own pro- tection. There is a good reason why the small man should favor it, because he can not otherwise protect himself unless he has some sort of Federal control. Mr. Taylor. Is not the president of your association, Mr'. Jastro, who you say represents 150,000 head of cattle, the main sponsor for this measure ? Mr. ToMLiNSON. Not by any means; no, sir. ' Mr. Taylor. And is not your association practically the only one that has been taking the lead in this movement for years ? Mr. ToMLiNSON. No; I do not think so. The Arizona Stock Growers' Association; they have been trying to get some regulation of the open range for more than 10 years. The president of the Arizona Wool Growers' Association told me recently he hoped something would be done toward the settlement of this open-range qui-stion. Ml-. Taylor. Of course, it is not a. question of who wants it or does not want it. The question is whether or not it is for the welfare of the western country, and the country generally. Mr. To.MLiNSOx. Entirely so. Mr. Raker. Do you know any large cattleman that owns from 5,000 to 6,000 head of cattle m California that runs his stock on inclosed land entirety? Mr. TOMLINSON. The Kern Cour.ty Land & Cattle Co. does. Mr. Raker. Do you know of anv in Nevada that confine them- selves to inclosed land or land of their own ? Ml". TOMLINSON. No; I think it is prettv ncarlv all open range in Nevada. I am not famihar with conditions there. Mr. Raker. In Oregon '. Mr. ToMLiNSON. I am not familiar with Oregon. :VIr. Taylor. Is there a living stockman in "the State of Col,)rado that runs his cattle withm an inclosure >. Don't we have a fence law and haven't the cattle the right of wav all over the Slute « GKAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 49 ^Ir. ToMLiNSON. I kiK)\v quite a I'ow; yes. Mr. Taylor. They must be small. They do not use the open range any ? Af^' '^"iLiNSON. No; they do not use the open range at all. Mi: Raker. Do you know any man in California, Nevada, or Oregon that has any number of cattle, saA' from 1,000 head up to S-Opt), but what owns all the way from 1,000 to 20,000 acres of land which he uses for pasture antl for hay, and then still uses the range in common with the small growers in that country ? ^Ir. ToMLiNSON. I can iu>t point you to anyone. I am satisfied a great majority of them do own a g nxl-sized chunk of land and .!„!+ !T' '^°*^ *^"®*' 7^^ ^'■'' ^''^^"g to live by mere existence. This has brought about a chaotic state of affairs. Where we originally had plenty of pasturage lands known as range and all the people were range men, live stock was handled on a *w??tKT-^ ^^^^ ^}\.'^']'^^^<^ together. With the settlement of the country, and the fact that in railroad limits and where State lands could be leased has caused about all the water in the western country to have been controlled in some way. This leaves vast bodies oUands that are only used for grazing in bad position for water, as a man wishing to protect some feed for winter will fence up the water the nearest to the land, causing stock to walk long distances. The great majority of this land will not for a good many years, if ever, be of.any value except for grazing purposes Each section of our country has its own particular value . The East has its mineral and agricultural, and so m parts of the West. There is one great business that this Nation IS dependent upon, and that is meat food products. The very life of each individual dependsupon it. The farmers of the Eastern States require the live stock in order to use up their surplus agricultural products and thereby balance the price of those com- modities during the good and bad years. For this reason it is very necessary. that some portions of our Nation should be given over to the live-stock industry in particular. Numerous portions of the semiarid West are fitted in this particular for the reason that the ranchmen have settled and improved all the irrigable lands along the streams and put them in shape to raise forage crops for winter use of the live stock. This industry IS dependent upon grazing in the summer months. The time has come when indis- criminate grazing is a detriment instead of a matter of value. The Government should lease these lands that are classified as grazing lands in some equitable manner to the local residents of the grazing districts so that they may protect the grazing value of the lands and use them at their best time of the year suitable to the industry. No hard and fixed rule can be laid down for the various conditions that can and must be met. Therefore it is essential that as much local control as possible should be given in the matter of administration of these lands. Second, these leases should be indi- ^•^dual as nearly as possible as no two men will want to run their cattle alike even on lands joining. The past winter has been the worst in the annals of the live-stock industry. For the cattlemen it is the worst, as they have gone to no end of expense in order to provide feed for their stock in order to keep them alive and in condition to go ahead on grass. With the cttndition that our ranges were left last fall without any feed it leaves the great majority of them in the position of having to turn their stock on bare ranges and left to drift. It matters not what prices may be realized this coming summer and fall for good beef, the fact remains that the great majority will only have gotten into the feeder claa.9 by the time they are ready to be shipped and the best of prices will not clear up . the expense of the past winter for two or three years. Only by being able to give their stork the mo.it careful attention will stockmen be able to weather the past two dry years and the bad winter. It is absolutely necessary that if we continue in the business that we be allowed to make it a permanent one in a permanent place and not be required to roam all over the country in search of grass for our stock. My personal opinion is that the Lever bill will as near meet the needs of the stock- men as it is possible at this time to draft a bill of that kind. It must necessarily be tried out and some changes will no doubt have to be made. The only thing for the permanency of the live-stock industry that I would suggest is that these lands should only be leased until such time as the lands may be impartially and equitably allotted, then I believe, after the first 10-year lease has expired, that one-third of the lands should be sold to the lessee at a fixed price. I would say the roughest portion. In five years more another third should be sold and m another five years the remaining third What the West wants is a chance to put her industries on a permanent basis and to get her lands on the tax lists the same as the Eastern States enjoy. J. C. Underwood. 52 GEAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. [Letter Irom Woodruft Ball, of Valentine, Nebr., member of standing committee on forest reserves an grazing lands of American National Live Stock Association.] Valentine, Nebe., April 30, 1912. T. W. TOMLINSON, Washington, D. C. My Dear Tomlinson: Your favor of tlie 26th at hand and contents noted. Regret that I can not personally go to Washington in behalf of this lease bill. ^ Speaking of conditions in -western Nebraska and the sand hills m particular, woum say that while the proportion of public land left is small, still that, to my mind, is the strongest argument in favor of a lease bill. The sand hills are not agricultural land, never were, and it doubtless will be many years before they will be, and tne public land left to-day is of the poorest quality, and even the low Government price of $1.25 per acre is too much to pay for it. When viewed from a grazing standpoint, the feeding value is not there, as experience has shown that it requires 20 to 25 acres to summer one animal. This ratio is now enforced .on all the Government forest reserves in this State. To crowd that allowance renders that land useless, as the grass is soon tramped out and the wind blows if full of holes. Some time in the future a use will be found for these sand hills where the>- can be advantageously cultivated in small tracts, but under the present policy of the Gov- ernment, when that time arrives it will all be held in large tracts for speculative pur- poses, and the small, poor man can not get a look in. To my mind, the wiser course to pursue, both for the present and future generations, would be to classify these lands as grazing lands, hold the title in the Government, and lease them for grazing purposes until the other use is discovered, when they can be homesteaded in small tracts again. Under the present policy one of two conditions only can be the outcome. If the cattlemen are compelled to buy in this land as fast as it comes on the market to protect what they already have and thereby materially increase their investment and interest charges, they must receive a corresponding increase in the price of their product, and what that means to the already sorely tried consumer the committee must appreciate. If this increase can not' be wrung from the packers and consumers, then the cattleman must quit the business. This many have already done to follow more profitable lines. At present, we don't dare fence an acre of Government land. This works for gross waste in operation, so to speak. Were we to be allowed to lease this land and fence it along with the deeded lands, then every acre would be used and its feeding value conserved, for it is a well-established fact that where this land can be judiciously han- dled its grasses improve, but as handled at present, everybody believing each yearta be the last, they overstock it. In this connection I must cite you to a report made on conditions covering the Xiobrara Forest Reserve and adjacent ranges. This report was mentioned by Assistant Forester Barnes at our Los Angeles meeting in January, 1909. This will prove my point beyond a question. As to the character of these sand-hill lands, would cite you to a report made by Assistant Forester Redington of the Denver forestry bureau office after an exhaustive personal investigation. Personally have always been bitterly opposed to this policj' of enlarged homestead acts and the mad desire of the (iovcriimentto dispose of its public domain, for they are playing directly into the hands of men with large means as against the future wants of homesteaders on small tracts. Since the enactment of the Kinkaid law in Nebraska, the number of the insane and county poor in this (Cherry) county has increased out of all proportii>n to the increase m population, due entirely to this present confidence game played by the Government, railroads, and locators, for such lands as could be homesteaded' in the sand hills durin" say, the past five years are of such quality that a man can not do neaily so well with 640 acres as he could formerly with KiO. The committee should see that in the la,st analysis this lease bill is not an entirely selfish jiroposition proposed and -lemanded In- the st.:.ckmen, but that it has a much broader purpose viewed in an eimiomic and humanic sense Yours, very truly, ' Woodruff Hall. GBAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 53 {Letter from WUliam Harrell, secretary of the Panhandle & Southwestern Stockmen's Association, of Texas and New Mexico.] ™ ■■,, _ AuxTUhho, Tvix., April S9, 1912. 1. \\ . lOMUNSON, Secretary Avierican National Live Stock Association, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: I have yours of L'Gth, written just before starting to the Capital. Answering, I wish to impress upnii you llie importance of the passing of the bill which we designate as the leasing law, now before the House Lands Committee; and that we heartih- indorse the recommendations of the American National Live Stock Association, and hope you may be successful. Yours, truly, ' -^ji Harrell, Secretary. STATEMENT OF HON. H. S. GRAVES, CHIEF FORESTER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. Mr. Graves. Mr. Chairman, my direct interest in this matter beioi-e your committee lies in the fact that I have charge of the Forest Service, which directs the grazing work of , the national forests. It is my understanding that the purpose of this measure is to extend over the public range a system of range control which is not analogous to that in operation in the national forests, but necessarily adaptecT to the special conditions of the unreserved public lands. The Department of Agriculture has been engaged in studying this question of range control since some 12 or 13 years ago. In fact, the beginning was made at the time of my previous connection with the department, when Mr. Coville and Mr. Pinchot, with his staff, and Mr. Potter, who is now associate forester, took up the whole study of the effect of grazing on forest production and problems connected with the production of grass. Mr. Potter was placed in charge of the organization of the grazing administration of the national forests when these were transferred to the Department of Agriculture from the Department of the Interior, in 1905, and the present procedure represents the result of the expe- rience during that period of time, and while there have been a great many difficulties, and while there are to-day local difficulties here and there, the system is in successful operation. Although the system has been in effect a comparatively short time, we hope we can show that there have been certain results already accomplished. I wish to enumerate these very briefly, for it is expected that the same results may be secured through regulation of the public range. Mr. Potter, who is here, has had everything to do with the development of this system, and I wish you would call upon him for such questions as you wish to ask, as personally I am not a practical stockman. The results of the regulation of grazing on the national forests are as follows: 1. The prevention, reduction, and elimination of destructive methods of^use and the prevention of waste. 2. The restoration of the normal producing capacity of the grazing lands. 3. Greater stability to the live-stock mdustry dependmg upon the national forest ranges, due to protection from unfair competition, 54 GKAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. assurance of permanency in the use of the range, and a guaranty to settlers to a fair share of the range. . * u 4. j.\laterial improvement in the character and grades ^^ '^"l'''' ^.?, produced, larger percentages of annual increase, heavier beel cattle, lambs, and wool clips. . ... 5. Reduced losses from droughts, shortage of feed, disease, wild animals, and other causes. 6. Greater net monetary returns to the stock grower. These results have been accomplished in the follomng ways: ^irst, by an equitable division of the ranges between different kinds of live stock and the different classes of stock growers; second, l^y a proper limitation of the number and kind of stock allowed to occupy the different ranges; third, by careful determination of the periods m which the forage may be utiUzed without destruction of the valuable plants or denudation of the range; fourth, })y the appliciition of improved methods of range management. We have in the Forest Service a simple, economical, and effective organization for the management of the grazing business. Mr. Potter, our associate forester, has personal direction of the work. In the branch of grazing in the Washington office there is an assistant forester reporting to Mr. Potter, who is assisted in Ids administration by two inspectors of grazing. In the field the work is closely co- ordinated with other administrative work of the service. In each district office there is an office of grazing with an assistant district forester in charge. In the forests the work is, of course, in charge of the supervisors and, in turn, under them the rangers have immediate oversight of the work on the ground. We have, therefore, in the Forest Service a technical force of men trained in the work of range control. Calculating the amount of time that the various administrative offices devote annually to grazing, I estimate that the cost of the work on the national forests for grazing amounts to about •'«;.'560,000. The receipts from grazing the last fiscal year amounted to something over $935,000. That figure may be of interest to the committee in connection with this bill in judging the cost of adiuuiistration. If this bill were to_ pass, the Secretary of Agriculture would naturally utilize the organization which he already has m the field and add such men as are necessary to carry on the additional burden. Mr. Chairman, that is all I have to say as to those specific features, and anything connected with th<' techiiical matters I shall have to refer to Mr. Potter. Mr. MoNDELL. May I ask Mr. Graves one or two questions? Of course you realize, Mr. Graves, that the public domaiir as to its character is so widely different from the areas included in the forest reserves that there would be a great manv problems which you do not have to meet, a great many settlement problems which you do not have to meet, a great many problems with regard to the rights of adjacent owners which you do not have to meet except in a fimited way. It would not be so simple a problem, by any manner of means. ilr. Graves. I appreciate that. Mr. MoNDELL. And the problem as von have it is not the same. Mr, Graves. I merely wished to present those few facts rcirardino- our organization for what they may be worth. ^ ° GBAZING ON TH£ PUBLIC LANDS. 55 The Chairman. Mr. Cowan wishes to make a brief statement in addition to that which he made yesterday. ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF MR. S. H. COWAN, OF FORT WORTH, TEX. Mr. Cowan. Mr. Chairman, I want to clear up the idea suggested in some of the questions with regard to the interest of the large cattle _ownors by saymg that mainly the large corporations and the large individual cattle owners are interested in this matter only to the extent that the cattle industry as a whole may be benefited. .Nearly all the large owners in Texas are interested in this only on account of the fact that it furnishes to the small man the opportunity to keep up. The Matador Co., for example, and many others that I might mention, do not want the land. They have an ample supply of their own, but so far as Texas and eastern New Mexico are con- cerned, the object of the large cattle owners is not themselves to get, neither could they use, the iniblic range by leasing, but it would be a matter of vast benefit in the marketing and selhng of cattle. Mr. Riddle, representing the American Live Stock & Land Co., purchases about one-third, I behevc, of the entire output of 2-year- old steers in Texas and New Mexico. Having purchased them for his company, he then sells these cattle in small bunches to various people up North who take them and graze them and finish them, because cattle acquire larger size by taking them from southern breeding grounds to the North. The benefit to the large cattle growers would come more from the fact that, having a permanent market and a place where the cattle can grow and mature, they grow so much larger. A steer taken from Texas to Montana would weigh about 250 to 300 pounds more at 4 years old when he is carried up there at 2 A'ears old than he will if matureil in Arizona, New Mexico, or Texas. Many of these steers go in turn to Missouri River markets. The large cattlemen's interest is not so much to get the land as to propagate the business. Mr. Taylor. The big cattleman, of course, does not want to get the land; he just wants to get the grass off the land? Mr. CowAX. No. Mr. Taylor. Mr. Murdo Mackenzie is now representing the Brazil- ian Cattle Co. « Mr. Cowan. Oh, yes. Mr. Taylor. That is controlled by the Standard Oil Co., isn't it? ]\Ir. Cowan. I could not tell you who controls it. But suppose it is; even if the Standard Oil Co. is developing 10,000,000 acres of land for the development of tlie world, it is a good thing. These men — and you know that, too, Mr. Taylor — are among the most patriotic and progressiA'e men. Mr. Taylor. There is no question about that. Mr. Cowan. And tlie big sheepmen, the same way. Mr. Taylor. It would be greatly to the interest of the cattlemen of southern Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona if all the public lands in the "Western States could be virtually retained for years for pasture purposes ? It would undoubtedly be .of benefit to those stock interests ? Mr. Cowan. Oh, yes. 56 GKAZING OX THE PUBLIC LANDS. Mr. Tayloe. It is only a question as to whether the welfare of those States and their growth would be furthered. Mr. Cowan. It would be a great benefit t" the welfare of the States. I just want to disabuse the minds of the committee of the idea that there is a selfish interest further than that which would benefit the general public in ha-\ang new lands in the Northwest and up to Canada under such private control that the people living on them will have that character of control that they could afford to become producers. Mr. Taylor. Did you ever see a buU fight in the City of .Mexico ? Mr. Cowan. No; I have seen one in Juarez. Mr. Taylor. You know what a matador is, don't you ? Mr. Cowan. Oh, yes; yes. l\Ir. Taylor. He "is the feUow dressed in gaudy attire who cornes out with a flourish and sticks the sword into the bull and kills him. In view of the Matador Cattle Co. being one of the princi])al sponsors for this public land-leasing bUl, did it ever occur to you that there was any peculiar significance or coincidence between that name and the inevitable effect of this bill upon homestead settlements ? Mr. Cowan. Oh, no. Practically all the people in the Matador pasture of 7,000 acres down there in Texas have largely acquired their living by working for the company, taking up the land, and there has never been a single case of killing, murder, or anything of the kind in all that great pasture. Mr. Raker. Just one question. Have you had any experience with regard to the cattle business in California ? Mr. Cowan. None at all. Mr. Raker. In Oregon ? Mr. Cowan. None at all. Mr. Raker. In Nevada ? Mr. Cowan. None at all. Mr. Raker. Isn't it a fact that the method you have described here as to the turning it over to the large stock interests would prac- tically be the ruination of the small stock owners in California, Oregon, and Nevada? Mr. Cowan. We would not turn it over to the large stock o^\^lers ; we do not propose to. Ninety per cent of the men of these associa- tions which comprise the American National Live Stock Association — • 90 percent of the members of the Texas Cattle Raisers' Association — are men with less than 500 cattle. Mi-. Mondell. Judge, this plan is referred to generally as Federal or public control of the range. I notice that you refer to it continu- ally as private control of the range. I supp( )sc you assume tliat , takino' the problem by and large, in all its bearings, either term is appli- cabl(> ? Mr. Cowan. The terms are not as conflicting as they may seem. Either term is applicable. What I mean is that the Government grants the individual the right to dominion over the place where the indi^'idual does his business. Mr. Mondell. The benefits that have come to Texas and elsewhere througli a leasing system have been most ))ron6unced as the condi- tions drew nearest those of private ownership? Mr. ('owAN. Undoubtedly. The nenrcM' you can come to private ownership of the place where a man did have control over the stock. If you lost them you knew it and knew where you were at. I followed 'the shee]) business for a number of years and was fairly prosp(n-ou-; in it. 6BAZING ON THE PUBLIC LA2S-DS. 59 In 1900 the range outlook was very bad again and fearing a repeti- tion ot what had taken phico 10 years before upon receiving an offer 01 a good price for my stock I concluded that the wisest thing to do was to xell It and temporarily go out of the bushiess until range con- ditions became more favorable. So in the fall of 1900 I sold out. Ml-. Kaker. Mr. Pottw I think you made a mistake in the dates when you said 1900. Mr. Potter.. I mean that from 1SS3 to 1890 was the prosperous time and that 1891 and 1892 were the bad years. In 1895 and 1896 we cleaned up our cattle and sold out. In 1896 I bought the sheep and sold out entirely in 1900. The main point I wanted to make was that whetlier tlie stock busi- ness was conducted with profit or loss in that country at that time was largely dependent upon whether or not you had control of your stock. The sheepmen made money through these adverse conditions because they had their stock under control and because they could take advantage of the grass. That is where they had the big advan- tage of the cattlemen. , If there was good grass in a certain part of the country the sheepman had his stock under control and could take them to it. The cattleman however even if he knew where the good grass was, and knew where his cattle were, might find it impossible to round them up and move them in time to secure any benefits fronf it. During 1S98 a forest res,erve was created in the mountains there, and then we had to deal with the department in the matter of grazing privileges in the forests. At that time I was secretary of the eastern division of the Arizona Wool Growers' Association, and was sent to Washington as their representative to take up with the Secretary of the Interior the question of grazing privileges on the national forests. I became well acquainted with .Air. Pinchot. and succeeded in inducing the Secretary to send ~\:r. Coville and i.r. Pinchot out to Arizona the following year to make an investigation of the range conditions there in order that they might decide as to what their policy would be in handling the grazing in the future. When yh. Pinchot learned in the spring of 1901 that I had sold out my sheejj interests he wrote me asking if I would consider a propo- sition to enter the Government service. At that time it appearecf to offer a good opportunity to do a lot of good in bringing about closer cooperation between the Government and the stockman, and there- fore I accepted his offer and entered the Government service. i:y first work was in the examination of the boundaries of proposed forest reserves. Now, I found even at that early date there were a great many petitions for the inclusion of lands within the national forests which apparently were made for the purpose of getting grazing lands into the forests in order that they might be brought under some sys- tem of control. We had to make unfavorable recommendations on a good many areas where that was done. There were, however, a good many such areas included, and within the last three years there have been ehminated from the exterior limits of the forests some 3,000,000 acres of land found to be cliiefly of that character. In reference to those eliminations there have been a great many protests, a great many petitions, some on file now, protesting against the elimination of these grazing lands. These protests are coming from the small settlers, saying they can not maintain their business 60 GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. and compete on the open range with the big stockmen, and that they need the Government's help to get their share of the range. I think that is one of the main reasons why the stockmen have endeavored to include grazing lands within the forest reserves. It is because we have been able to bring about a satisfactory adjustment of affairs with regard to the lands which have properly been included in the forests. They can legally construct fences within national forests which they can not do on the outside range. And the fences are necessary to the proj^er handling of cattle which are not close herded. We have allowed under permit the construction of drift fences within the national forests wherever they appeared to be necessary for a proper adjustment and distribution of grazing and proper con- trol of the stock, and such permits have been issued covering the construction of over 2,100 miles of drift fences within the national forests. We have also allowed the stockmen to fence little pastures, pastures that they needed for holding their thoroughbred bulls; pastures they needed to hold their steers when they were being gathered; pastures they needed for holding their saddle horses. Those pastures are restricted to areas not exceeding .320 acres, but in^somc exceptional cases we have allowed pastures of greater area than that. Under that regulation some 4,000 permits have been issued for these little pastures, and this has been a great help to the stockmen, enabling them to handle their business in a better way. Another thing we have done is to encourage the development of water by giving some kind of control over the area adjacent, issuing permits for the construction of reservoirs and the development of seeps. ]\Iany little seeps which apparently were nothing but mud holes, have been cleaned out and nice watering places made for 100 or 150 head of cattle. Where it has seemed necessary to fence those places we have allowed the construction of fences around them, maldng inclosures of not exceeding 40 acres, and charging for that inclosure a nominal rental of $2 a year. Under that encouragement there have been over 1,000 watering places developed on the national forest range. This has been done very largely by small owners. The total number of stock grazed on national forests under permit is 1,500,000 head of cattle and horses. They are owned by over 20,000 different owners, an average of only 70 head to the owner. We have about 7,450,000 head of sheep owned, by about 5,000 different owners, an average of about 1,450 sheep to the owner. The records of the permits issued by the Forest Service show verj^ clearly that from A^ear to year there is a gradual and slight increase in the number of small permittees. Mr Pickett You arc speaking exclusively of the cattle comino- under your jurisdiction t Mr. Potter. Cattle and sheep, both, Mr. Pickett. Mr. Pickett On the forest r(>si>i-vcs '>: Ml- Potter. Entirely on the forest reserves. Siucc the passage of the act of June 11, 1906, over ,S,00() settlers have come into the national foiosts who have taken up places there and undertaken to estabhsh homes. Many of them have been encouraged in doino- this by the fact that they know they will have protection'in small y permittees, feeling tliat they will have a chance under that condition to get protection in the use of such small amounts of range as may be necessary for the successful establishment of their homes. it has been a custom in the allotment of grazing privileges on the national forests to recognize just as far as we could priority in the use of the range; that is, to allow the stockman who was there at the time the forest was created to continue to use it, and to make reduc- tions in the number of stock only for two purposes; First, to prevent damage to the forest, and, second, to provide for taking care of new bona fide settlers in the country. Not a single one of the larger per- niittees on the national forests has ever expressed to me any opposi- tion to that policy. They all agree that it is a perfectly fair propo- sition, and they must concede that their past use of the range can not be urged in any way to block the .development of the country but that tliey must give way to the bona fide new settlers. The main advantages that have been gained through the regula- tion of grazing on the national forests, I think, are that greater stability has been given to the business; that is, that the stockman feels that he can figure on something ahead, that he knows where he is at. One of my friends in Arizona said to me, "I know in reference to my range on the national forest that when I go up there I am going to find grass and not sheep tracks." They feel in reference to these allotments on the national forest that if there is grass there they are going to get it. And it is the fact that they can get these privileges which are necessary for the successful carrying on of their business, these privileges which are necessary to enable them to improve their stock and enable them to put their business on a bet- ter paying basis which has brought about the support of the stock- men to the system which has been inaugurated on the national forests. The Chairman. We will resumerthe hearings on Tuesday, unless something arises to prevent. ]VIr. ToMLixsoN. Mr. Taylor seems to be suffering from the hallu- cination that this report comes from the big men. I desire to read into the record a telegram from Delta, Colo., from Mr. J. B. Kilhan, president of the Delta County Stock Growers' Association, an organi- zation of about 300 stockmen, none of whom has -over 300 head of cattle, indorsing this particular bill. It reads as follows: Delta, Colo., April SO, 191t. T. W. TOMLINSON, Thi- Willnrd, Washington, D. C: Xo question as to the growing necessity of a law controlling the grazing of live stock on all public domains. Present historic methods impracticable, unbusinesslike, and a menace to the peace of commonwealths. The sentiment of our people and my sentiments as your committee are that you urge Congress to act at once. J. B. KiLLIAN. Thereupon, at 11.55 o'clock a. m., the committee adjourned to meet Tuesday, May 7, 1912, at 10 o'clock a. m. 62 geazing on tpie public lands. Committee on the Public Lands, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C, May 7, 1912. The committee met at 10.15 o'clock a. m. Present: Messis. Robinson (chairman), Ta34or, Raker, Rubey, Fergusson, Mondell, Speer, Graham, and Pray. The Chairman. We will hear Mr. TomHnson for a few minutes. ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF MR. T. W. TOMLINSON, SECRE- TARY AMERICAN LIVE STOCK ASSOCIATION. Mr. ToMLiNSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, since I had the pleasure of appearing before you on Saturday I have had an oppor- tunitv to talk with a few Senators and Congressmen regarding the provisions of this Lever bill (H. R. 19057), and I find a general feeling among some of the Congressmen and Senators that part of the live- stock men in their districts do not favor this bill. I am constrained to beUeve that they are vastly in the minority. However, our asso- ciation has no desire to force or urge a bill upon this committee which does not meet the support of the majority of the live-stock people using the semiarid unappropriated range. Therefore, for the purpose of largelj^ meeting these objections and the criticisms of soriie of the members of this committee, I suggest that the Lever bill be modified by the insertion of this clause_ after the word "practicable," line 9, page 1: "Upon petition of a majority of the owners of live stock using the unappropriated public lands in said districts." With this clause in the bill, it will readily be seen that if the sheepmen in any district, or the cattlemen, or horsemen, a majority of them, do not desire to have the lease law put into effect, or grazing districts established, they need not petition. It would then give absolute local control; in fact, local initiative. Mr. Taylor. Would ymi be \villing to make it a majoritj^ of the taxpayers of the chstrict ? Mr. Tomlinsox. I hardly think that would be a fair provision. A great many taxpayers would not be interested in the grazing of live stock on the open range. That would not seem to me a fair restriction to put in the bill. I am quite willing, however, to sav that not only a majority of the usei's, but a majority of the stock, should be represented bj^ the petition. Personally I would be inclined to make it slightly over a majority, but I think a majority ought to be sufficient. That clause, I think, answers most of the objections to the bill. We are ybyj keen to have such legislation passed, and are willing to do almost anything within reason to meet objections of those who feel that their constituents do not desire this kind of legislation. Mr. Raker. The gentleman has stated that he has consulted with Senators and Congressmen. Would you have any objection to stat- ing the names of those you have consulted with 'i Mr. ToMLiNSON. I have particularly talked with Senator Fall, of New Mexico. Mr. Raker. Anyone else ? Mr. ToMLiNSON. I had a little talk with Representative George Curry. GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 63 Mr. Raker. Are those the t.ulv ones vou have talked with in regard to the matter? Mr. ToMLiNSON. Those are the only ones; niv most extended talk was with Senator Fall. Mr. Raker. Then j^our statement that you have talked with Sena- tors and Representatives from the West would apply to those two '( Mi\ ToMLiNsoN. I mentioned it to Congressmen Mondell, Rucker, and Jackson as well. Mr. Fergusson. Is Senator Fall in favor of this bill? Mr. ToMLixsoN. He said that with that modification he thought it would be satisfactory to the southern part of New Mexico, and the northern part, if he understood the situation correctly, would not petition to establish the grazing district. He particularly had in mind some of the»small Mexican sheepmen. The Chairman. What qualifications would you prescribe for the petition I How would you determine when a man was a qualified petitioner I Mr. ToMLiNsox. Oh, he would have to make affidavit that he owned a certain amount of stock and used the public range. I should not think it would be necessary to go further than that. Let him make a sworn affidavit that he was user of the open range and had grazed a certain number of head of stock on it. Mr. Raker. Limited to any number? If he had one, two, three, or four head and used the range, you would consider him one of the qualified petitioners? Mr. ToMLiNSON. I think so; yes, sir. Mr. Taylor. Would you be willing to have the board of county commissioners of the county pass upon it also ? Mr. ToMLiNSON. Pass upon the Mr. Taylor. Upon the question of whether or not land in each county should be leased. The county commissioners are usually supposed to guard the welfare of each county Mr. ToMLixsoN. I think that the opinion of the users of the range ought to be superior to that of the county commissioners. I would not beheve it advisable to have the county commissioners pass upon the petition. Mr. Taylor. Is not the board of county commissioners elected by the people of each county to represent the business interests and general welfare" of the county ? Mr. ToMLiNSON. Presumably; yes. Mr. Taylor. You do not mean to say they do not do so usually? Mr. ToMLiNSON. No; far from it. ]\lr. Taylor. Would it not be api)ropriate then for them to be con- sulted about what was done with the land over which they have Mr ToMLiNSON. I actually believe the judgment of the users of the range is far superior to that of any of the local county officers, and I think you are minimizing the whole question by leaving it to some local county officers. A district might take in several counties, it might embrace a whole congressional district. ^jj, -p^YLOR. It might take in the whole State or the western 15 States. 64 GRAZING ON THE PtlBLIC LANDS. Mr. ToMLiNSON. It depends upon how large a number of peti- tioners applied for grazing districts, whether it took in one county or two or three. I thank you, gentlemen. The Chairman. Gentlemen of the committee, do you desire to adjourn now in view of the fact that the House is in session '. Mr. Raker. I think we ought to adjourn. The Chairman. The question is to set a time to conclude the hear- ings on this matter, so these gentlemen may be apprised of whether they may \w heard. I suggest Friday. Mr. Raker. Friday is satisfactory to me. The Chairman. Friday, then, we" will take up the hearings on the grazing bill. Thereupon, at 10.30 o'clock a. m., the committee Adjourned to meet Friday, May 10, 1912, at 10 o'clock a. m. Committee on the Public Lands. House of Representatives, ^Yashington, J). C, May 10, 1912. The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Joseph T. Robinson (chairman) presiding, a quorum being present. STATEMENT OF MR. ALBERT F. POTTER, ASSISTANT CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASH- INGTON, D. C. The Chairman. Mr. Potter, I believe you have completed your direct statement. Are there any additional statements you desire to make 'i Mr. Potter. I might add just a little, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Then proceed, Mr. Potter. ilr. Potter. In reference tn whether the small owners and settlers were desirous of having some system of regulating the use of public grazing lands, I mentioned the fact in my statement the other day that numerous petitions had been received by the Forester from set- tlers protesting against the elimination of grazing lands from the forests, for the reason that they had received great benefits from the protectii>n afforded by national forest regulations. Mr. Monuell. That they had received benefits by having others excluded fr mi the tcj-rifury they occupied f' Mr. Potter. That is tlie idea. Here are three or four of those jietitions, and I want to read one or two of them to the committee. There is one in reference to the Lemhi and one in reference to the Payette National Forests, wh(>re action has been taken eliminating the areas in both cases, and one in reference to the Wallowa Xational Forest in Oregon, and one in referenc'e to the White River National Forest in Colorado, wliere action has not yet been taken, but the settlers are jjivitesting against the land being eUminated, for the reason that they desire to have the regulation for grazint; continued. The Chairman. They will be made a part of thTs record. GKAMING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 65 Exhibit I. LEMHI NATIONAL FOREST. Secretary Wilson, Ogden, Utah. Tpmhi M^®;- ^\ undersigned ranch owners and stock growers living adjacent to the pH^T,=,Hnn°T^ ^°"''''' ^? ^I'f ""y petition that you use your influence to prevent the thTtht T^n ,™^ considerable area of the above-named forest, and we further pray Wn hafi r 1^1°°''^ timbered country now outside the forest be added . fn„^^ tw + K ''° -'"T'" experience under the Forest Service regulations and have WpV-Hnn ./■?>, J^7 beneficial in the equalization of. the usage of the range, in the Ev ^nt Xtn-n^ "^' ■^™°' ^destruction by fire, in the protection of the water sheds Dy not allowing overgrazing. .T. W Swauger; A. R. White; John McKelvey; S. M. Ivie, D. P. Wells; A. \\ Lambson; J, H. Baxter; Ben Muir; Sherman F. Furey; C. T. _ , , -, Knapp; Joseph P. Dickey; S. Edring- ton; Frank Anth(]uy; Geo. B. Miller; William H. Cherry; W. F. Taylor; John G. Richardson; (Jhris Jensen; B. A. Pearson; U. M. ^avana; G. W. Walhmn; W. H. Bahr; Nicholas Teranson; John Jamaon; J^. P. Swauger; C. E. Dyer; W. J. Harris; Dick Ivie; Peter Donahue; Geo. F. Kent; T. J. Prithcett; Daniela W. Woods; Joseph Vanous; L. H. Evans; W. H. Perkins; Elmer Beck; Christ Rogers; D. M. Burnett; Evan Harris; John J. Lemmon; Wm. Harris; David 0. Hagan; F. E. Franklin; Mart. Houston; Fred Snively; S. C. Thomson; Wiley Jones; J. W. Stod^dard; E. C. Richardson; E: S. Crawford; C. D. Lemon; A. N. Anderson; A. F. King; Peter Bursledt; Frank E. Harger; M. S. Vaught; Thos. Ivie; Edward McKelvey; L. F. Ivie; Levi Warren; A. B. Lambson; S. M. Miller; C.H. Furey; E. A. Melton; Urban Evans; Alden S. Ivie; B. M. Gray; Ernest Paetsch; J. W. Beck; W. M. Rolls; Joe Rabido; Brian Han-is; Sam F. Taylor; J. M. Franklin; Chaa. Warren; Wm. Fricke; Thos. Donahue; R. H. Swing; Marion Hodgson; C. E. Judd; J. B. McClellan; B. F. Morrison; Mrs. Alex. Boyle; C. C. Jones; E, S. McGune; S. Callagan. Exhibit 2. Payette National Forest. The honorable the Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, D. C: We, the undersigned residents in or near the Payette National Forest, State of Idaho, being informed that an examination of the boundaries of said forest is being made with the view of eliminating such grazing lands as are included within this forest, desire to protest against the elimination of said lands. We believe the protection given the live- stock industry under the Forest Service is a benefit to the stock raiser and the range, and we have no desire to return to the old system of "open range;" therefore we respectfully request that no grazing lands be eliminated from the Payette National Forest, and that this petition be presented to the proper authorities for consideration. G. W. Holbrook, Ola, Idaho; A. M. Beach, Ola, Idaho;- Wm. Pinegar, Ola, Idaho; Sherman Glenn, Ola, Idaho; Cyrus William, 'Gross, Idaho; N. S. McCullough, Gross, Idaho; D. W. Kenned, Ola, Idaho; E. T. Whitelock, Ola, Idaho; Wm. Bowman, Ola, Idaho; C. T. Ritter, Ola, Idaho; J. C. Loyd, Ola, Idaho; J. T. Glenn, Ola, Idaho; W. H. Otto, Ola, Idaho; L. L. Saxton, Ola, Idaho; John Buckmaster, Ola, Idaho; Wm. Perron, Ola, Idaho; Irb Demasters, Ola, Idaho; M. G. Voughn, Ola, Idaho; Edwin Johnson, Ola, Idaho; Louis S. Park, Ola, Idaho; Will Mrlvory, Ola, Idaho; 0. E. Williams, Ola, Idaho; Geo. G.Whit- lock, Ola, Idaho; Elmer Williams, Ola, Idaho; N. F. Steiner, Ola, Idaho; J. R. Busteed, Ola, Idaho; W.A.Williams, Ola, Idaho; G. L. Pennington, Ola, Idaho; Gus Linebarger, Ola, Idaho; Joseph Beal, Ola, Idaho; M. Huertson, Ola, Idaho; Robert Holbrook, Ola, Idaho; Frank Perron, Ola, Idaho; Ben Williams, Ola, Idaho; Wm. Braddock, Ola, 58222—12 5 60 GEARING OS THE PUBLIC LANDS. Idaho; Joe Oosezens, Ola, Idaho; W. H. JlrCmincl, Ola, Idaho; Fi-ank Holbrook, Ola, Idaho; Geo. II. Hewitson, Ola, Idaho; J. Demaster, Ola, Idaho; lUchard Grak, Gross, Idaho; B. F. Tufford, y postmas- ters and county assessors, in that way getting a ])retty general and wide distribution. We received some 1,400 answers to it, and the diagram which you have before you, I beheve, is one which 1 sub- mitted to the commission in connection with my report. Mr. Pickett. Yes; I do not know what year it was gotten out. Mr. Potter. In 1904, and the result of that, as I remember it, was that in replying to the question of whether or not the grazing capacity of the ranges being used had been increased or diminished, about 75 per cent of the stockmen or more reported the capacity as having been diminished. Mr. Pickett. That was one of the cjuestions you answered that is included in the report. Mr. Potter. And as I said before, the reason given for its having been diminished in a large niajorit)' of the cases was overgrazing or overstocking the ranges. Out of the answers received almost 1,100 out of 1,400 expressed themselves as being in favor of some system of control of the grazing lands which would enable them to stop the damage which was being done and place their business on a more stable basis. Mr. Pickett. Now the answers to these questinns on this chart here under the heading of totals are indicated hj the colored footings, Mr. Potter — have j^ou one of these ? Mr. Potter. Yes, sir; it is Senate Document Xo. 189. Ish. R.\KEE. Wliat session ? ]Mr. Pickett. Fifty-eighth, third session; that was in 1905. Now, Mr. Potter, have your invt'stigations and oljscrvations, since this report was submitted, changi-il the conclusions reached at that time in any respect, and if so, in what respect ? Mr. Potter. No, sir; not materially. Mr. Pickett. Plave you 1icen in toucli with the situation since then ? Mr. Potter. Y'es, sir: I have. Mr. Pickett. And what would you say as to the answers as shown by this chart here relative to the carrying capacity of the ranges, whether it had been increased or decreased, and the expression of their opinion \\ath reference to Federal control; whether that remains relatively the same now as it did then ? Mr. Potter. I would say in many instances the carrying capacity of the ranges has continued to (h-ercase, because there is no means of controlling its use. Of course tiie ranges liave been under greater control within tlie past few years through more watering places passing into private ownership. The principal means of controlling the grazing on ]nd:)lic lands outsiih' of the dill'erent reservatii>ns is through tin' ownership of the watering places, the control of the winter controlling to a great degree the use of tlie adjacent lands. Of couise there are a laigei- number of watering places under private ownership now than theri' weie 10 years ago. Mr. Pickett. I notice in this re])ort that you refer to the causes of inei-ease in capacity, and one of the principal causes you state is due to the fencing of pastures wheie there has been an increase. Mr. Potter. Y'es, sir; that has l)ecn our ex])erience on the National Forests as well, Mr. Pickett. In handling cattle on tlie ranges we GBAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 71 find the most important thi.io-, and the first thing to be done to set I'U' stock under contr.,1, is U, construct drift fences wldch will con- nne the cuttle to their natural ranu'os Pn,./' i^'^'^^^-'^- ,\^" ,*'^^* '''''^^'■'' tht^ cattle have been under some con rol, prmcipaUy by rco-ulatiuns of the d<>])ar(incnt of the cattle ity ..VYhe'V d'^r^^^''" '^''^^^ ^'^^^^' ^^ i"cr would be there and "hold the place clown," as we called it. Now, that was the cause of the stock coming in before they ought to, so that they could get on to the range and hold it by being in possession of it; there being no other way by which they could hold it. Mr. Pickett. Is there any other way for controlling that ? _ Mr. Potter. Only by having legal authority to control it. We have fixed a date m the national forests as being the earliest date the stock could go on. This has been fixed in cooperation with stockmen and is satisfactory to them. Mr. Pickett. What has been the effect of that rule ? Mr. Potter. It has been to save a great deal of the forage that otherwise would be wasted. It has stopped the tramping out of a 72 GBAZING ON" THE PUBLIC LANDS. great deal of grass while it is immature, and has increased the carry- ing capacity of the ranges. I think in the national-forest ranges, through tlie means of reguhxtion— that is, through dividing the ranges between the different kinds of stock and through the establishment of proper grazing seasons — wo have stopped the waste of at least 25 or 30 per cent of the forage. Under the old system fully 2.5 or 30 per cent of the forage was absolutely wasted which under proper regulations is being saved and utilized. h Mr. Pickett. You think the same result would be brought about by the passage of this la\\', or some similar measure, for the control of the range ? Mr. Potter. Yes, sir; to a large extent. Mr. Pickett. Is that the primary object of the legislation? Mr. Potter. Yes, sir; so far as the Forest Service is concerned, it is the feeling that it would result in a better use of the range and the production of better and more stock. Also, that it would bring about more stable and better conditions in the livo-stock industry and be for the best iuteresls of the general public. The Chairman. Are there any other gentlemen who want to ask Mr. Potter questions ? Mr. Fergi'sson. Are you acc[uainted ^vith the Carrizazo Cattle Ranch, in New jMexico ? Mr. Potter. I am, Mr. Fergusson. Mr. Fergussox. Vt'eU, in a general way, is it a fact, as you have already indicated, that in the control of a vast pubhc domain, ranges — that the control of ranges situated 10 or 15 miles apart would give control of the grazing range for miles around as far as the cattle would graze '. My. Potter. Yes, sir. Mr. Fergusson. Is not it the incoming of farmers and settlers, in the improvement of those ranges, taking up homesteads in various sizes close to the springs, say, owned by the big cattlemen; is not that one reason wliy the cattle industry has been growing less, say, in New Mexico ; the encouragement of homesteaders ? Mr. Potter. Yes ; to a large extent. Mr. Fergusson. And wliere tlicy can get water by digging and pumping, either ]>y wind power or i>y gasoline or other power? j\Ir. Potter. Yes; that is true to quite an extent in western Colo- rado, westciii New AU'xico, and soutlieastern "Wj^oming. Mr. Fekoussox. And is it not a fact that m districts settled up by farmers wliere they can get xvvy httle water and have difficulty in cultivating the land except by dry farming; is not it a fact that the eastern part of N^ew Mexico is settled up by farmers, and there will not be a,iiy more grazing? Mr. Potter. A very large part; yes, sir. M)-. Fer(ii\ssox. Is it not a fact that the wholesale withdrawing of this land — A\()iild not the effect of this law be to retard the settle- ment of farmers ? I\Ii-. PoTTEii. No; I do not think it would, Mr. Ft'igusson. Mr. Fergi'sson. AVhy not ? If you can convince me Mr. Potter. Because it would not interfere in any way with the settlers going ahead and taking up that land in homesteads. Ml. Fergusson. You say it would not? Mr. Potter. No, sir. GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 73 Mr. Feegusson. Now, the proviso simply says that this fencing shall not interfere with the right to prepare the lands for homestead entry under the homestead law, but as a practical effect would it not have to be in this way: That the farmer or homesteader will find lands smtable for him to cultivate within the limits, say, of 10,000 or 100,000 acres under fence by some big cattle company? He goes in there subject to his homestead being surrounded by trampling herds of cattle all around the land he occupies. Will not he, m the first instance, be hampered by having to go through a big fence to select the homestead, and would not he be compelled to fence his homestead, and would not that be an additional burden upon him ? 'Six. PoTTEE. No; because he has to fence his homestead now under the present law. Mr. Feegcssox. Would not he have to go through that fence to obtain ingress and egress ? How would that be obviated ? jSIi'. Potter. I do not know how he could be restricted in going through the fence. There has not been any trouble in that regard in fences that have been constructed on the national forests. Mr. Fekgussox. Are you acquainted, in the service, ^viih the domain in New Mexico and Arizona and have you knowledge of this fact that thi'ough some of the so-called best sections inhabited by the cattlemen, who would come from some distance to get water for their cattle, that farmers are now coming in and taking that water for farming ? Mr. Potter. Yes : the cattlemen have demonstrated that they could fet water close to the surface, and the farmers have followed them, think it is true all through the Panhandle country and all through eastern Colorado that cattlemen have made these demonstrations, and then the farmers have gone in and taken up the various tracts. ]\Ii\ Feegusson. :\Iimbres Valley; are you acquainted with that? yiv. Potter. I am in a general way. ]\Ir. Feegussox. Do not you know that the surrounding country that was formerlv almost exclusively occupied by cattle ranches is now filled with prosperous farmers, because water is within 20 or 30 feet of the surface ? Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. ilr. Fergussox. Now, would not the settlement of that have been hampered by being surrounded by a big fence and used by some big cattle company? :dr Potter' I do not believe ifc would. :Mi. Fergussox. Tell me just briefly why it would not ^ ]\Ir. Potter. Fur the simple reason that it has not had that effect where lands have been fenced. . i'lr Fergussox. But in that particular mstance^_ Mr. Potter. But they have fenced in other locahties and we have not had any particular trouble in that respect. Mr TvYLOR. They have no fences m this country ( :slx Potter. Not in the country I am famihar with. Air' Fergussox. Would it not be better, as suggested _ m the hearing before this committee by the. Secretary of the Interior him- self that the lands in New .Mexico should be reclassified, and that those which are able to be used by farmers for their homes should be excluded from the provisions of this bill to allow them to be fenced 74 GKAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. for cattle ranges; and that the provisions of this bill should be con- fined to those sections of New Mexico which I admit is largidy cona- posed of lands suitable only for cattle and sheep raising? 1 am as anxious as anybody that the cattle industry should succeed and prosper, but it should not be made so broad, as this bill makes it, as to shut out the possibility of reclaiming great sections m Xew ]\Iexico and Arizona for farming. In other words, should ii^it the provisions of this bill be confined to the grazing lands of New Mexico and Arizona that it is obvious can nover^be reclaimed by farming ? Mr. Potter. I considered that of very great importaiic<5 in my sug- gestions to the Public Lands Commission. The first recommendation I made was that there should be a classification of the lands, and that the lands which are suitable for farming should only be leased for one year. I believe that lands which are classified as being suitable for farming, CA'en though they are leased temporarily for one }^ear, it should be with the distinct understanding tliat v.'here there is a bona fide applicant for them the lease should be immediatel}' canceled by the application for these lands. Now, in the bill before you there is a provision which has that intention. There was some argument the other day as to its eft'ects, but the intent of the bill is that whenever a homestead settler entered upon land, tlie land would immediately be withdrawn from the permit, or lease, as j'ou miglrt c-dl it. Mr. Feegussox. Those things are not pro^vided in tins bill as di'awn. Mr. Potter. It is the intention that it should be so considered. Mr. Raker. Ha^ie you thought of the construction of "bona fide settler" — what that means in this bill? Mr. Potter. Yes, sii-; I think so. ilr. Rj^KER. Have you given consideration to the fact that the cattleman or sheepman, witfi his many herders, would be alile tn break down before the Land Olhce and the Secretary of the Interi(.r the fact that the man was a bona fide settler, and that he wanted to go in there and settle ? Thej- mio-ht be able to come in v.^tli their influence and to sliuv\' that he had done so and so and therefoi'e was not a bona fide settler, and that therefore it would not apply. Have \ou figured on that teatuix^ of it ? I will examine vou on the earlier liis- torv after you answei' tliis question. Mr. Potter. Yes, sir; I have figured on that, because that has l)een done to some extent in the regulation of the outside grazing lands, simply for the purpose, as I -aid before, of getting control of the watering places. Mr. Raker. But as to a bona fide setthn-, you say that a liona fide setthu-, a homesteadei', can go in there. Now, he has got to deter- mine as to the piece of land on wldcli he wishes to file before he gets his filing, has not he ? .Mr. Potter. If this is so. it does not occur to me why the condition would be differer.t from what it is now. ^Ir. RiiKER. For this reason. You have a huge tract of land ur.der fence, occupied and used hy stockmen. Nom', for the settler to get into the inclosure to select the land he nuist go through the yate^or break tlie fence in ordei' to reach that land. Ml-. Potter. No; he would not have to break the fence. Mr. Raker. Well, if they kept their gates locked, which a good many would do, he would either have to open the gate or In-eak the fence to get in to determine it one way or the other ,"would not he? H GKAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 75 Mr. Potter. No; because I do not believe. the regulations would allow closing up of the area so that there would not be ingress or egress. ^ ^h\ Raker. All right, take another side of it. Now, if the gates would not be closed the man would have to go through the inclosure to get to the land. Now, he has got to determine under this bill that he is a bona fide settler, has not he? Now, the cattleman and his lured men would all be interested in keeping him out. That is the natural conclusion, is not it ? Mr. Potter. Probably so. Mr Raker. And he would have to establish that he was a farmer, with his wife and babies, before he could get in, against the cattle- man and all his assistants ? :\Ir. Potter. I do not believe it would be more difficult for him to establish liis bona fideness where the land is under Government control than where it is not under Government control. Mr. Taylor. It would be much harder to get in where there is a pasture than where there is no pasture at all. Mr. Potter. The pasture would have to be maintained under Government control. Mr. Taylor. You would not have a range rider there all the time to protect a settler and his family. Mr. Raker. Did you ever realize, Mr. Potter, that this is one of the troubles in the West ? I know of a case where a stockman was killed by a homesteader when he attempted to get into the range. Did you know that that is the history of the public land in the West ? Islx. Potter, I know that these controversies ^b. Raker. But the trouble grew out of controversies between the stockmen and the legitimate homesteaders. Did you realize that that was the history? Mr. Potter. I realize that. Mr. Raker. Now, that history of the- stock business in the early days grew out of the sheep business. Mr. Potter. Cattle first, then sheep. Mr. Raker. Did you own any public lands anywhere and herding cattle ? Mr. Potter. I had 160 acres, my home place. Air. Rakee. Did you do the same thing mth the sheep ? You did have a home place ? Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. Of course, in that country the range was not fenced. Mr. Raker. Did you reaUze that before 1885 great tracts of public land were inclosed and were used by the stockmen — the cattlemen, horsemen, and sheepmen ? Mr. Potter. Yes, sir; in some cases. Mr. Raker. And that it was the homesteader who was trying to get into these inclosures that succeeded in having Congress pass the act of 1885 compelling the removal of fences on the public domain. Is not that right ? Mr. Potter. I did not know that. Air. Raker. Well, that is a fact. Now, the courts held— all of them in the West — that where a man had fenced in the public domain he had control of that range, and nobody could come in and file a homestead or preemption upon it. Then the act of 1885 was passed, 76 GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. compelling these people to remove the fences. Some had 100,000 acres inclosed, some had 10,000, and such like as that. The home- steader tried to got his filing. The stockmen had it already mclosed. Now, is not it a fact to-day that there is no conflict between the horsemen and cattlemen us to range? Mr. Potter. None at all. Mr. Raker. And the only conflict that is now arising is between the sheepmen and the cattlemen and horsemen as to the remaining pubhc domain ? i\Ir. Potter. Yes, sir. Mr. Eaker. The homesteader, even before the act of 1885 and up to the present time, has been seeking to get a law and put it in such shape that he might go out on the pubhc domain, makes no difference where it was, and locate his preempted homestead or desert claim. Is not that right? Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. Mr. Raker. Has not the claim been made in Congress and in the departments that the stockmen — the horse, cattle, or sheep men — have been assisted in prohibiting homesteading in any particular range that the stockmen claimed for their own use ? Mr. Potter. I do not know that there has been a great deal of protest where settlers have taken up places. Mr. Raker. Do you know of any place in Oregon or California where that has ceased ? Mr. Potter. I am not familiar with the conditions there now. Mr. Raker. I am calling _your attention to one of the first things as a boy, or when I was 21, which came to my attention. A settler went in on a range, a large range, and located his homestead, and after he got his little cabin there — a week after — they went back and found his body there but never found his head. And we found conditions like that occurring all the time. Now, if all the remaining public domain is inclosed, will not it retard the homesteader going upon the land ? Mr. Potter. It ought not to. Judge, because the permits allowing the fences ought to contain provisions which will not enable the stockmen to do that. Mr. Raker. But, Mr. Potter, you have got 10,000 acres of land under substantial fence hy a stockman. Do ziot you realize that he and all his friends would use every power possible to keep the por- tion of that land within that inclosure from becoming a homestead, so that he would not be inteifcred with l>y having a homesteader witlrin the very center of his range? Take human nature, now, as we know it; would not that be the condition? Mr. Potter. Well, it might l)e in some cases. I do not tliink it would be in all cases. Mr. Raker. "Well, assume stockmen to be the same; do you believe human nature would be so mellow and so generous, after having s]:)ent a fortune ]n'actically in fencing this land, that they would want a jnivate individual to get in there and locate in the center of the land and control any part of that range ? Mr. Potter. They" might not want to, but I doubt if, under present conditions, they \\ould raise very serious objections. Mr. Raker. A'eiy well. Now, fiist, for the homesteader to get the benefit of his land he would either have to build, or somebod}- would have to build, a lane from the outside into his inclosure, would not he ? GBAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 77 Ml-. PoTTEE. I do not know that it would be necessary. In tt ^'^^,^^- ^^^^^^' suDpose there are 8 or 10 head of horses at huge m inere; the stockman has got slahions running over that I'ange; you lu S° ^^^^ ^° '^^'^^■*' "'°^"' ^'^o^'s^'s in there, would you ? Mr. _PoTTEE. Idonotknowwlictherlwouldornot. Mr. Kakee. It would be a jnctly good man that would do it. .NOW, hrst, the homesteader m „u1(. have to fence 40 acies of his land and use the other 120 acres for grazing purposes, would not he « Mr. FoTTKE. Ics; that istiue. llr Kakee. But to get any benefit of the remaining land he would have to lence it all, would not he '( Mr. PoTTEE. He might not have to. Mr. IvAi^EE. Well, if tlu' other man had any stock in there, he could not use it tor any other purpose than grazing purposes? Air. Tayloe. He could lariat them out. The Chaiemax. He could do that now. Mr. Rakee. Well, the point I want to drive in and get before the committee is this: That giving him the benefit of the 160 acres within the inclosure, you therefore ileprive this particular homesteader of any benefit at all of the public range. Mr. PoTTEE. No; that is just exactly what would not happen, Juclge, because in the national forests we are having homesteaders go in under the act of 1906, and immediately they make fifing upon 160 acres we concede that they are entitled to" the grazing of 160 acres. If they do not choose to fence, we give them a permit anyway to graze the number of stock that this 160 acres would support without any charge whatever, and I assume that in all cases in a grazing district if a man did not want to fence and simply w-anted to graze he would be entitled to graze what stock could be grazed on 160 acres. Mr. Raker. Well, the point is this: The individual goes in and files on his 160 acres and fences it. Now, then, the inclosure is the fine fence, and he is absolutely deprived from getting any benefit from the public range, because all the surrounding land is already under lease. Is not that true ? Mr. PoTTEE. That is true, during that season. Mr. Rakee. Very well; under the law to-day any homesteader would be deprived of the benefits of the homestead ? Mr. PoTTEE. Yes, sir; that is right. Mr. Rakee. In other words, he would be restricting the benefits of the homesteader ? Mr. PoTTEE. Yes, sir. Mr. Rakee. Now, Mr. Potter, have you statistics shomng the decrease of the cattle, horses, and sheep in the 16 Western States in the last 10 years ? Mr. PoTTEE. I have not it here. Mr. Raker. Will you put it in the record ? Mr. PoTTEE. Yes, sir. Mr. Raker. Now, is not it a fact that in the public domain horses and cattle have been increasing in the last few years on the range? Mr. Potter. The cattle decreased during the period between 1890 and 1900, as I remember it, but since that time — that is, since 1900 — they have been increasing again. The statistics follow. 78 GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. Number of live stock in the Slnle.t of the mountain and Pacific divisions in ISOO, 1900, and 1910. [Abstracts Irom United States census reports.] State. Arizona California... Colorado Idaho Montana Nevada New Mexico Oregon Utah Washington, Wyoming... 1890 1900 1910 1890 1900 1910 1890 1900 1910 1890 1900 1910 1890 1900 1910 1890 1900 1910 1890 1900 1910 1890 1900 1910 1890 1900 1910 1890 1900 1910 1890 1900 1910 Cattle. I mules. 927,880 744,873 820,295 608,418 479,218 909, 272 166,542 453,971 156,863 219,431 369,217 460,884 ,442,517 974, 845 953,804 210,900 386,249 442,707 ,631,533 996,790 ,086,305 620,648 715,599 741,654 278,813 356,621 427,657 255,134 414,044 423,317 934,066 689,970 771,915 36,486 142,352 113,950 477,241 (■,(16,603 .^7S, 173 193,518 29(1,047 301,007 s.-;,147 ls.j,219 222, 805 177,002 350,492 344,600 .'.s,511 X7, 026 79, 733 114,9.33 164,295 219,284 229,908 31(1, 2(rt 313,088 88, 864 132,090 136,-532 1.55,115 269,724 338,516 93,746 147, 427 169,579 Sheep and goats of shearing age. 615, 136 670, 167 930,227 3,373,036 1,742,290 1, .569, 684 896,810 1,367,251 1,317,.578 357, 712 1,966,083 2,117,009 2,3.52,886 4,215,285 4,993,401 273,469 568,323 843,212 2,474,494 3,348,013 2,941,359 1,780,312 1,963,542 1,961,133 1,936,806 2,5.56,078 1,711,644 265, 267 558, 921 298,858 712,620 3,327,299 4, 826, 680 Number of live stock in the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, ]Ynshington, and Wijoinini/, 1S90, 1900, and 1910. Year. Catllc. Horses and mules. Sheep and gnats. 1890 9,195,S,S'J S,.isl,3'.l7 9, 191,. -73 1,710,491 2,691,440 2,SS0,2(",7 1900 22,273,252 23,510,085 1910 Number of live stock in continental United Sintes, 1S90, 1900, and 1910. Year. 1890 1900 1910 Cattle. 57, 29.',, 212 tiy,336,.^32 63, 104, ,')73 Horses and Sheep and mules. goats. 17 ."3 , .-jdS 40 S76 312 24 V'.M , 43(i 03 (,,S3,966 -' 38o ,6.87 56 096 753 ilr. Rakee. What you mean by controllino; (he range is that you will take stock oH. You will not permit so much stock on the rano-e as are permitted to run on it now, and that to increase the productive- ness of the range j^ou must keep the stock off? Mr. PoTTEB. But eventually the ranges will carry more than they are carrying now. Jlr. Rakee. Is not it a fact that before you can improve the range you must reduce the number of stock on the range ? GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 79 ^|r. Potter. To some extent. stockecT^^™'^" ^^"^ °"^ °^ *^^*^ eonditions now is that it is over- Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. Kn^f^' ^-^P^- A"'^ then you will, after that, increase the amount of liorses and cattle naturallj-v ^Ir. Potter. Yes, sir. nnr^T^l^Ap^j^^'^^t?- ^^ ^^ '^^^^^ ^^^^ committce will stand adjourned until .Monday, Afay 13. at 10 o'clock a. m. Thereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the committee adjourned until Monday, May 13, 1912, at 10.30 o'clock a. m. House of Piepresentatives, Committee on Public Lands, Wedn(;sday, May 29, 1912. The committee this day met, Hon. Joseph T. Robinson (chairman) presidmo;. The Chairman. The committee will please be in order. With reference to H. R. 19S57, the grazing bill, the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Fisher, is present and desires to be heard upon the matter. Mr. Fisher, are you ready to proceed ? Mr. Fisher. Yes, Mr. "Chairman. STATEMENT OF HON. WAITER L. FISHEE, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. Secretary Fisher. Air. Chairman, the general provisions of the pending bill seem to me to be quite in accord with wise pubhc poHcy. The bill represents, as I understand, the result of consideration of these matters by the American National Live Stock Association, and it is in conformity with the general recdmmendations that have been made by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agricul- ture heretofore, and is in accord with the recommendations that I have made since I became Secretary of the Interior. I think that the proper methorl of developing those portions of the public domain that are chiefly or wholly valuable for grazing pur- poses is to administer them under a liberal but carefully guarded leasing law, which wUl enable the primary purpose of the proper conservation of those areas to be carried into effect. As I understand it, the present policy is largely destroying or injuring the value of this land for grazing purposes, that it can not be elfectively con- trolled, and the result is that it is overgrazed or grazed in an im- proper manner, or in such a manner as to injuriously afTect the range itself physically. In addition to that, the conflicts between con- tending interests, the owners of cattle or sheep, are unfortunte, and there is a constant tendency to have the public domain used for grazing purposes by the larger interests in the very nature of things, and without any necessary indication of any improper or illegal pur- pose on the part of those interests. I think this could be much more effectively controlled under a leasing law than in any other way. I think, however, that such a leasing law should contain proper provisions by which such portions of the leased lands as were 80 GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. suitable for agricultural purposes could be taken up, improved, and acquired by homesteaders under the homestead law. There is one exc(>])tion to that pohcv whir less concerted movement to take up those portions of the public domain that have water cm them and that are valuable chiefly in connection ^\ith grazing land adjacent to that water. Tiie result is that under the general authority conferred bv law we have b'-en nial-dng reserva- tions of waier holes, or what are equivalent to water places, and re- serving th{>m from private entry of any kind. That does not mean that tliey are reserved from private uses; on tlie contrary, it means that tliose private uses are encouraged and permitted, Ijecause no- body is luiilding any fences around tliesc water jdaces, and anyone using the pubhc domain for grazing purposes has full access to these watering ])laces, and the result is that they are utihzed for that purpose, the purpose for which they are most valuable. The suspicion that seems quite justified on the face of tliin^-s is that indi- viduals have suddenly become aware of the fact that if they can enter these places containing water under the homestead law, or otherwise acquire a private property in them, that they will thereby control not merely those particular areas, but will control a wider area that is useful for grazina;, extendini;- all around it, and which they can not take up under the homestead law and would not seek to take up. I think that should be controlled. I think that the pohcy of -withdrawing such areas as that, in connection vdth the leasing policy, should be continued. In other W(jrds, there are in these broiid stretclies out west which now remain, in many ]ilaces that are useful chiefly for grazing, certain places where water can be had adjacent to those areas. The cliief value of these places is as watering places for the stock which %vill graze upon the other areas, and if private individuals acquire those particular watering spots, they \vill be able absolutely to dictate terms as to the use of all the remaining grazing lands. Xow, subject to that one exception, it seems to me the making of agricultural en- tries under the homestead hiw should be permitted on all of these lands that are to be covered by a grazing ])olicy. Tliere is another provision in tiic pending bill that T find mvself in disagreement with, and I trust that in what I say there will be no thought that I care anything about the matter from a personal point of view. I think it would be a mistake to turn over the administra- tion of the leasing law to the Secretary of Agriculture for territory outside of the national forests. I believe that there ought to be a coordination between the different departments and the bureaus in a department so as to get the highest (k'gr<^e of elhidency ])ossible, and that tluit coonhnntion can be obtained by utihzing the services of the experts connected with the Agricultural Department, whether in or out of the Forest. Service, yet it will leave the adn^inistration of these areas where it now is — in tlie Dcp.irtmi'nt of the Interior. The fundamental reason I have for that is that it seems to me the Department of the Interior should really be made the administra- tive agency for disposing of and controlling the ])ubhc domain gener- ally, and that it is a mistake to take any part of it out and hand it over to the administration of any other department. GKAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 81 % own theory of the iJi-opor oi-anizaliuti of the dct-arLnuuitH of liii'. »^u)A-ornment would chllVu-outiato sharply between deparLments wmcii are sfieiillic or oxpei-l m tlicir diaracicr and those that are Ao.'^''''V''"''''\''^^\¥"'>'^'''^'''''^''-''''ii'j''ii''^''^'tliat thel)ei;ai-lnientof A^ncultiire should be m the former class, broadly sncaldn--. I think th, wh adi Ag tvT i -f """"^ oii^.Mivi K^v .ii iiiu luruier crass, uroacllv spca ,. _ „„„ mat It wo can adopt a system of the division of our executive deparu- incms so as to iuUow .un iho idou, of stair and line, which is at the foun- dation of scion tiliccihcicncy, we will -et bet terresv.it s than in a. iiy other \N :a . i believe thorou-nly ihatthoroisaprinciple, wliichissound.back OIllii-,so-oallodsciencooi,.li;c](Miivon-iiu'oriiio-,(i[v/lachwohavolicard so niucli, and I bonovo it goes back to the princijile wiiick was eni- bodied^in the atlniinistratiV(> ioaturos adopted bv Von Moltke, in the lurmun Arm.y, and which \\o have soon carried on in -o many of the larger industrial establish),. outs; ami that principle Is the crc.tion ot a dn-i^i(,n et slat! eiliccrs, u-„i, th.' one hand, and of lino or direct adoiUKs.ralivo and oxooiiaAo ofiicor. upon the other hand. So that the siull or 0M]HTt division will be constantly scrutinizing and will be constantly available for assistance to the ordinarv administrative olfacois. And I have believed that ihaf i.. ilio hne "along which the Dejiartment of Agriculluro in its I'oi-tion to the i.ublic domain should ho developed. For that re.isoi: ! dislike o. - v^ the principle broken over by uirninjc the grazing lands ot iho public domain entirolv ouc^ido of the lonstv-d areas over to the Tiop-a.rtmont of -'gricuiiure tor administration. Th.- granting of titles of rourse undi t the homestead law cv other- wise for the portions of that territory that \n)iil(l be leased would prv sumably have to remain in tlie JDepartmeet of the Interior a,nd I believe loss confusion on the whole avoi'M result fv^m ■ >.itiiMiing the adnunistratioii there than if it were turned ov.-i- to the De|)artmeTit of Agriculture. i\ir. liitAiiAM. I beliov.! it has been suggi\st''>d that the Dejiartnieiit of the Interior miglit well be aljolished and the Department of /igricul- ture given jurisdiction over what prop Tiy belongs to it, and the otlnT services in the Interior Department distrilnited elsewh.ere. Seiretary Fisher. I suppose we could take an^' one of the di'part- ments and abolish it and turn its functions over to another, and I do not know of any fundamental j^rineijile that has not been violated in the sidDdivision of work under the existing orgarrization. I find that the Department of the Treasury for instance has functions ascribed to it that it is difficult to defend upon any notion. I nnd the same thing true of the War Department and the same thing true of each of ttie othei- departments. It all depends upon whether you are going to adopt some real principle and then apply it logically or whether you are going to adopt the principle of expediency in every case. Up to date we have adopted the principle of expecbency; w*^ have turned over things to one department or another because it seemed at the particular iime the most expedient thing to e tuined over to them when the honiest.^a/l'rs had periVeted theii- titles. The vigor- ous aetioii, as I am told, of the dpeeial agents' foree prevented that or .liscnuraged that method, and I am told that that has not been so a]))K!reiit siuee. I talkeii with Coiigicssman Kinkaid about it. and I found from him and from other sourees that tliei'e was a dihereiiee of opinion in the teriitory itseH': that tliere v ere some individuals there who were still appreheiisn-e that tliat was going to be the elfeet of the law. But it has not ))]ogressed far enough to quite express an opiinon al)out it; that is. the law has not been in efl'eet long enough to have the thing woik out so we can say just wiiat is going to iia])pen. The same thing is true of the enlarged-homestead act. but t!i;.t has not been in efl'eet long enough to perndt titles to go into pinnate ownersldp and to see whether tliose titles are taicen up by the larger interests. ]Jut I assume that that whieh is to the financial interest of men who are not unrest! ained bylaw is going to happen. i'r. Gk.vham. That is a very fair iiderence. Secretary FiSiiEi;. If we ];ermit thesi' lai}ds, v. hich are valuable ehietly for grazing ])urpc>ses to pass into the ha.nds of pri>'ate indi- viduals, it is apparent that we must make tlie terms very ee.sy. We have had dillicuities about which Mr. Taylor l:nows in easteiii Colo- rado. Tiiere is a great deal of land out there whieh has been opened under the enlarged-homestead act, and some of tiiat land was not entirely suitable h>r entry under that act : sections of it, at all events, were not suitable for agricultural develojiment under that act. The result is that the settlers on some of tliat territory Iiave had a pretty hard time of it. Their experiences June Aaried. In some counties they have gotten good results and in otlier counties poor results. \ow, the ])ressure is to reduce the requirements under the law, and yet cai'c must be taken not to make it possible for peo]ile to enter upon that land and really do nothing except put a few head of cattle on it and later permit the land to get into the hands of the larger interests. There may be no prearrarigement at all, but the (U'dinary settler may go there and acquire a title to the land, and later the larger interests may come along, and seeing where they can make a fhiancial profit out of acciuirhig a inono]ioly of that tenitory, they take it, and the result is that if it is to the linancial intere>t of the larger cattle intei-ests to take it, 1 do not know how y indueenK-nt is di:'erent. The C'jiAiRMAN. There is this fundainental dilfeience: There is the absolute necessity for a large area for grazing purposes; no man GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 85 wlr?!."'''' ? *^^*^ ""."^^^ biishu-ss could 1)0 satisfied with a small area, «u(r(>a^ tiie rule is dilloivnt as to agricultural land. If the real pur- f^, t i/li ^'ulti^^te the area, the demand is usually quite limited; out It the purpose^is to -raze, the area demanded is enormous. iht \' '^^'*^J'^'^^- ihat all depends, „f course, on what you mean by Wn ?™ '.-"ormous." Of ,.ourse, the tenden.^y in the West has oeen tor quite a number of y.-ars to reduce the' grazing flocks and nf.i'i''";^ ""^ to increase th,-m. While, of course, a man. needs more land upon which to .-raze, in or,ler to support a family he does not^need an enormous area. The CiiAiini.v.x. May I ask you a question? What would bo the average graz.n- homestead? What I mean is this: If st,K-k dealers A\ ere pern utted to acquire the fee to the areas which they desired and necdetl to graze, wliat would he the ;i ve,age area' Mr. MoxDELL. Well, I think that after we had eliminated, as we did m Aehraskrt, or thought we chd. practically all the lands that could be plowed and cultivated, a .grazinff homestead, if we were going to have one, would run all the way fro;ii a section to three or four scctior-: that is, assuming that we were basing the grazing area upon the area which wduld support an oidii'arv family. Secn>taiy Fisher. May I state this? As I lindcr.stand it, the rule operates pieii-clv (ij)po-ite to that whieh C'.i!e.:;i-ess)iuin Mondell has at least inthcated in Ids question. Mr. MoxDELL. I have oidv lived Id years in a country where it has operated. Secretary Fisher. I ex]»rcss my opinion v/ith all deference to which Vdur greater exni'i-ience is entitled, but, nevertJu'less, as I understand it, the tendency to-day in all agricultural de-^-eleiiment is lowanl intensive agriculture. I think I can make that sfateinent without the fear of successful cdiitradiction, eycn from a man with as wide experience as you have had in the AVcst. Mi-. Mr)xi)Er.L. Has the gentleman read the ccjisus returns from the State of Iowa ? Seeretai'v Fisher. Indi\ddua] conditions on a particular area have nothing to do with the general tendency. It is already, I think, suffi- ciently apparent that the future develoimient of agriculture is going to be along the lines of int<^nsive cultivation. That is certainly true in all irrigated areas. We know in tlie Reclamation Service that the tendency is to reduce the unit of cultivation, and farmers are becom- ing more and more satisfied with that tendency. They see that real intensive cultivation is the wise metlmd of cultivation, and that it is to their financial advantage. Now, if intensivt' cultivation is going to be the tendency, and I think Mr. Mondell (interposing). ^Vnd should be. Secretary Fisher. Fortunately we are happily agreed on the final conclusion if not on the roads by which we reach it. If that is to be the tendency, then it is apparent that there is not going to be any large agricultural entry under singl<' holdings, because intensive culti- vation can not be su("cessfully carried on in that manner, never has- been, and, in my opinion, never will be. The tendency of agricultural development is toward small holdings rather than toward large hold- ings, and the tendency with regard to grazing Mr. Taylor (interposing). Is not that same rule applicable to the stock interests ? 86 GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. Secretary Fisher. I do not think so, because the old days have gone by when the herds were driven over tiic open ranges in the West, covering immense areas of territory. Nevertheless it is ap- parent that stock raising, certainly sheep raising, can be carried on most successfully if the unit is reasonably large, yet the tendency is toward an extension of such areas, and certainly far beyond the limited area required for a grazing homestead, such as has been indicated by Congressman Mondell, Now, if that is true, then it seems to me that the financial interests will always bring these indi- vidual grazing homesteads under a single large ownership, or a num- ber of large ownei'ships, and if that is true, then there are two oppos- ing lines of development. Mr. Taylor. Do you not think the same principle concerning stock is largely coming into existence all over the West as is now apparent in regard to agriculture everywhere — that is, intensive stofk raising? Is it not true that in the State of Tex^s to-day the large ranges are being, or have already been, all cut up into small farms, that the cattle are being now raised on small farms, and that the State thereby has much better cattle? And do you not reaMze that this bill, if it should be passed in its present form, would have a tendency to keep up the large herd unit to the detriment of agricul- tural development, and does it not look as though that is what the American National Livestock Association, Mr. Jastro's company, with its 150,000 head of cattle, and those large cattlemen are after, the keep- ing up of these large herd units rather than allowing the country to speedily go uninterruptedly into small ownerships, and thereby get better breeds of stock, and bring about the agricultural develop- ment of the country, that should and must mevitably come sooner or later? In other words, would not the passage of this bill retard rather than stimulate the development of better stock and prevent a more diversified industry 'i What do you think about that tendency ? Secretary Fisher. I think there are two questions involved in what you say. I believe there has been an increase in the ownership of stock, the raising of stock by farmers as an incident to the agri- cultural cultivation of a certain portion of their land, and I believe - that so far as it is practicable it is a wise thing; I think it is producing the results you refer to. Therefore, I would not apply a leasing law to areas which are susceptible of that kind of development; I think that is one of the important lines of development going on in the country, and I tliink it explains the situation in Texas, and elsewhere, to which you have referred. I understand, however, that tliis is a different question; this question, as it has been represented to me, is that there is a large part of the land in the West that is not suscep- tible of agricultural development at all, but which is adapted solely for grazing purposes, that it is so exclusively adapted for grazing purposes that that is the controlling use to which it is put. Now, I do not believe that the tendency has been toward the intensive raising of stock Federal cow pasture or not, and they said no. They said they did not feel that the local interests should be consulted in this matter; that there would be a tendency to minimize or localize it; and I was wondering whether you thought the local people or other mterests would tend to localize the effect of this bill, ought to be considered. Secretary Fisher. I would agree with you and not with what you say the gentlemen said in answer to your question. I believe the local interests should be absolutely considered, because I beheve they are very much concerned in this thing, and as far as I am concerned I would prefer that every cent of revenue derived from this leasing law should be paid over to "the local treasury in the county where the land is situated rather than not to have a leasing law go into effect. I believe that a proper leasing law would give the local authorities more, revenue than could be raised by taxation out of those lands. Mr. Taylor. ^Vould you be willing to have this bill so amended that it should only apply to the States where the legislatures memo- rialized Congress at their coming session this winter to have it made applicable to them, and even then only apply to the counties in which the taxpayers looked upon it as advantageous to the development of their counties ? Secretary Fisher. I do not believe that would be a wise form of legislation. OS GEAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. Mr. Tayloe. ViTivnot? Sccfolary Fishee"! I would j-ather take that into consideration befoi'c you j^assed the law. Mr. Tayloe. AVould vou liavc us iLHior*; cxi'W other intci-est under the sun in the western 'half of the United States except the big cat- tleriien ''. Secretary Fishek. I should say, decidedly, not. ilr. Taylor. \Vc!i, it is only 'die cattlemen who are here asking for this bill, MT far as the people of the V>'est are conc<'i'ned. There is no other inteiest and nobinly else here froiri the "West e.xcejit tlie stock- men and Federal oJli'ials who want the adoplidu of this nreasure. If you gent!eii;en will subjiiit t" an aP.iend'.Mcnt v,li('rel«A' the people of those States uiay know that their interc.tN sh:dl be considered as well as the interests of the eattlcMen. and the big cattlemen, I ma}' -^ay, I do not think you will iiui] any opposition to anything that wovdd be for the Vvelfare of the country; but wc must not icL'i l.ite at the recpiest of one inteie-^t and utterly ignore every other inti-rest in that part of the countiy. Secretaiy Fishee. I ciuite agree witli you; we only disagree ;is to the manner in wliich it should be carried into eliect. For instance, the local parti(.^s arc cijiueri.ed about this matter because thcA' want the land under taxation, and I would rather turn nvov to them so much of this revenue as wou:d more th.-ui make K""d any loss of taxation, if I could put this law into etl'ect. In other Avords. I would meet that objection scjuareiy. The Chairman. But that is not the only point of his objection. One of the main objections is that it is desirable and necessary, from his standpoint, to have some local authority jiass upon the f|uestion whether or not ttie act should be eirective as to that locality. He assumes that this bill won!d prevent the pa^sagi^ of tlicse lamls into private owjiciship tlirough agricultural entri(^s, or similar ciitries. Mr. T.iYLOR. Yes; that is what \^'e fear. The taxpa^-crs of a county arc presumed to have the good of tiio county at heart, and the legislature ai.d ]nd.)'ic olhcials of a State are prcsumi'd to have the welfare of the State at heart, and if wc ignore the Federal Treasury feature of it and the Fcileral administration feature of it, and if it is for till' upi.iuiidmg of the ^,Vest, then it would se(>m to me that the people out there, who foot the bills at tlie present time, and who are the permanent settlers, onglit not to be ignored, and that tlie Ameri- can Xational IJi^ e Sto( k Association should not be ])(>rmitted to come in Inae and ask us to legi-~la.te somethieg onto those peo]>le for which they are not asking and which, I will undeitake to say, if they are ever given a chance to be heard, they will be overwhelmingly against. Tlie Chairman. Before the matter should Ix^'ome etfeetive you would not insist that power be given heth th.e le^dslutures and other lo(a] autlorities to taire eimtrol Mr. Taylor (interposing). I tlo not know that I would, but the intei'ests of the local people should he eoi-isidered. Mr. Geaiiam. Do the portions i ojovcd red here [indicating] indicate the lands that would be affected by this law? Mr. Taylor. No, sir. That is the 320-acre enlarged homestead country. The most of that [indicating] has already been taken up. These "parts of the State are forest reserves. This bill appHes to the GEAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 89 public. i,„i(i^ liotli insicU^^ and oiUsido of the roscvves. There is vserves. -Ht, (jrauam, AMiat amount of land has been fixed upon as the maxniium unit for a J ease '. -U-- Taylou That would de])end u]wn circumstances, and the ^icrctarvwoiild dcU-rmuie. I bclu'vo that something along the line or What ,\ 1- ilondell has l)<>cn tl■^'ill;J; to provide— tliat is, a grazing iiomosioad, dependub,' on ths .-^har.v t-r of tlie territory somewhat, ana iiaymi: a loudcu, y to redu( <■ hir-e stock ranges to smaJlcr ones, and to improve the (luahty ui the stock, le-uhng, of course, to the de- TeJojuucat ot the country— wouid be a ^'-od thing; but, as I stated to tlie Sorrctary heiore, the fuudament^iJ difference bctweeJi all of us, and tlie_l)asi. re.isoii for ali tlu- differen-e l)Mlw lands to pass jufn jirivate owenrship so that tl'.cy wni become taxable and be. nine subjct to local adminis- tration, instead of having them .dministered l>y Federal bureaus at a distant e oi two or three thousand miles. Mr. 1- LKGUSSON. S(i far as iXew .Aicxico is concerned, I would like to diiler fioii. you on thar proposition. I want to make a statement in qualification of what Mi. Taylor has jusl sai.:. an.; then 1 would like to ask die Sccrclaiy a few ijUcstioj.s. 1 want lo say that there are m Aew J»lexico \ asi aicas thai aie fit oniy for grazing j,urp(.)ses and ihal; v> dl alw ays be fit for i^-razui:;' jiurj oscs only. I a;,-rce with the Secre- taiy on i];ai proposinon ihoroii^hiy, but 1 wnuln like to ask him a cfucsi ;oii. I (10 jiot agi'ec wjdi :\ji'. 'i'aylor llui e^■eryl)ody is opposed to leasing. '\^'e recognize die fact (hat l.iiii.s suitable for gra/irg jjurj.'oses alo.ie, where the (liajacter of ijie iauos has been ascer- tained to he such as shouh' lie lease. , that the leasing of such lands is a veiy dis.rable thing. It will he a vcjy oesiial Ic thing there, be- cause we feel thai Xi>\\ ^bxico will be laigely a grazing country, and anytliii.g tliat will tend to systematize the ne.uslry and that will pri'A'ent confi,! ts between the cattlcinen am' i he sheej) men ami bet'i\ee:i both th<' cattlcincn aic, ilc' sh^'e]) aien an;l the farmers is a veiy desirable thing. I lieaici the .Serretaiy stale before this com- mittee on soiue oiher occasion that he fth that the solution of the difficult}' ill the "VVtst, as between the sio.kmen and the farmers, dei^ended on a proi>er classification of the land. Now, I agree witJt Itim fully, 'rhat is certainly true as to New- Mexico. Therefore I want (o get his views as to thi(> first few fines of tliis bill, as follows: "That the unres'Tved, unajipropriatcd public lands of the ("1111 cd Slates shall be subject to tlie ))rovisions of this act, and tlit^ President of the I'nited States is hereby authorized to establish from time to time, by ])roclamation, grazing districts," etc. Tliis does not i)rovide the classification that was in the Secretary's mind wlien he spoke here before. Now. do you think, Mr. Secretary, that tins bill could be so framed as to recuure that the lands shah be. classified ? It would not be perfect, perhaps, at best, because we have in New Mexico large areas of land that liave been found to be irrigable becaiis(.' of underground lakes, and wells drilled to a depth of not more than 20 feet have afforded sufficient water by means of pumping to take care of farming operations on these larire areas. Now, this bill would allow the President of the Lmited States, by proclamatioir, to 90 GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. establish grazing districts upon these lands at the instance of cattle- men. Now, I agree with Mr. Taylor tliere: there ought to be sorne sort of hearing as to every apphcation, but this bill proposes to permit every bit of land that is liot locked up m Indian reservations or forest reservations to be locked up in a grazing reservation. That would be a sad detriment to the development of New Mexico in an agricultural way. As I have said, there are some areas in New ^Mexico that are fit for grazing purposes only, while in other places the lands, apparently of the same kind, have been developed by means of pumping for agri- cultural purposes. I would like to see some classification provided along the lines of the Secretary's statement before this committee some time ago. This bill does not provide for such a classification, and I think it is fatally defective in that respect. There is no classi- fication provided along the lines of determining whether the lands are fit for agricultural purposes, and people who are hungry to go in and develop these lands agriculturally will be shut out from them if the cattlemen and sheepmen are permitted to take possession of areas a(hiptcd to agriculture. Mr. Taylok. From what you sa}- concerning the portions of your State that have been lately discovered to be good agricultural lands which a few years ago wen.' thought to be utterly worthless ]Mr. Fergusson (interposing). They were used only for grazing purposes. Mr, Taylor. It was once supposed that the whole western half of Texas would never be fit for aiivthing except grazing purposes, but now they have found those lands to be very valuable for agricultural purposes. Now, is there any human bemg to-day wlio has sufficient foresight to know just what land is gomg in the future to be exclu- sively valuable for grazing jKirposes t Mr. Graham. Its adaptability for some other purpose might be developed during the term of the lease. Mr. MoNDELL (to ^Ir. Fergusson). Would you be willing to trust your own judgment in the classification of lands in New Mexico, and m determining definitely and finally that certain areas were fit for grazing purposes only, and that they never would be fit for anything else? Mr. Fergusson. No, sir; but I would trust the executive officers, and an expert classification after full ascertainment of all the facts by competent investigators. The Chairman. Any classification made now would not be con- sidered as final '. Mr. Fergusson. No, sir. Secretary Fisher. Not only that, but I would assume that any classification provided for under the law would be subject to amend- ment as the circumstances requiring it arose. As I have stated before, the difficulty we are having now is due to the fact that we are trying to administer all kinds of public lands under general laws. AYe are trying to make one law fit all kinds of diverse facts, and I think it is a fundamental mistake. I think, as a general proposition, that the public domain should be divided into classes wliich require different administrative methods, and that we should modify that classification as, from time to time, the circumstances justified or required it. Then we would have a law applicable to each particular classification, GKAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 91 ^Qd, in my opinion, the result would be that we would get rid of ninety-nine one-hundredths of the present difficulties in administering the public land laws. I think that can be done, as the Congressman from New Mexico has suggested, and I believe, as Mr. Graham has indicated, that that is one value of the leasing system — that is, that what we would ultimately do with these lands would depend on developments. Mr. Rakek. I understand from the provisions of this bill that its main purpose is to improve the ranges; that is, to protect them from depredation, from injury to the natural forage crops, and from erosion. Seeretary Fisher. And I would add to that, to prevent monopoly or a tendency toward monopoly. Mr. Raker. The bill provides that the President is authorized to establish grazing districts upon the unreserved, unappropriated public lands of the United States, and that the Secretary of Agriculture, under rules and regulations prescribed by him, shall execute or cause to be executed the provisions of this act, appoint officers necessary for the administration and protection of such grazing districts, regu- late their use for grazing purposes, protect them from depredation, from injury to the natural forage crop, and from erosion; restore and improve their grazing value through regulations, by the eradication of poisonous plants, and by the extermination of predatory animals and otherwise; eradicate and prevent infectious and contagious diseases injurious to domestic animals. These are the main things provided for in this bill. These are the objects intended to be accomphshed, are thev not? Secrctarv Fisher. Those are the objects dechired m the bdl. Mr. Ra ker. Now, for this work that the Government intends to do in handhng this public domain, they expect some revenue from the people who use it under the leases. I find no provision m the bdl that would limit or control the lessee of the lands for the term of the lease, or for a period, we will sav, of 10 ) ears as to the number, char- acter, and kind of stock that is to be permitted to run on the land under the lease. Is that your understanding ? ^ ,, , -n . Secretary Fisher, My understanding is that all ol that will be taken care of in the lease itself. The lease itself would contain pro- visions intended to carrv out the declared purposes ol tbe bill :\Ir. Raker. As to the number and character ol the stoclc tnst would be used on the land ? Secretary Fisher. I understand that all those things are to be taken care of in the leases and that the leases would contain the usual restrictions of that kind. The lease would cover a certam amount of territory and would give the right to pu a certam number of cattle or sheep upon such territory, and it would contain various other restrictions as to the way in which the grazmg shall be done^ Of course, the conditions would have to be very broad but I think we ought to be able to work out these details satislactorily m the lease itself. I think it would be unwise to put all these detailed pro- visions in the law. I think all of that should be covered b:f the lease ^^^Mr Raker. Your idea is that that should be taken care of under the terms of the lease; that the man should be required to use the 92 GKAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. lands as directed in the lease; and that the manner of using the lands should he provided in the lease ? Secrctury FisiiEi:. I think that all ynu have suggested would be a question oi' administrative detail, to be taken care of itr the lease. Air. RAKEr.. Then the next proposition is this: One of the main olijects and purposes to be served is tu try to administer this public domain so as to encourage its gohig mto private ownership, in the way of homesteads, so that the country may be built up. That is one of the oljjects in addition to the leasing, is it not ^ Secretary Flsiiee. I should thmk so. }.lr. Raker. Do you not helievo that the fencing of large tracts of land for 10 years will retard the devclo])iiu'ut of tliat country? Secretary' Fisher. No sir; not as much as Ica'/iug the lands un- fenced — leaving them open to anybody and c-vcn'ybody to go vipon as they ai'c t(^-day. I think you have got to choose betwe(Mi two possi- ble plans. You must either follow tlie practice you have now under which a solitary homesteader who goes upon a grazing tract and starts a farm is subjected to all s(atc land for a home place, and then go further out and UM' tile ])ubhc domain ( Seci-ciary FisnEi;. I understand that many of theiii have local farms oi- ]dcc(;s of land. M]'. R.VKER. Now, conceduig the pui'pose to be to improve the public lands, to ])re\'cnt erosion, to res(oi'(> them to their natural good condition, as nuich as may be, for grazuig purjMisc^s, as well as to de-troy ])rcdatory animals and stamji out contagious diseases as much as pos-;ible, if the Government is going to chai-gc? by lease for the use of the ranges, could not belter re-;uhs be had if mi nuich were charged for each individual permit to run stock on the public domain per year ? Seci'cdary Fisher, Do y(.)U mean to have no fences at all? I\lr. R.VKER. Yes, sir. Secretary Fishee. I should think not; I beheve it could be han- dled more satisfactorily if you had a lease. if r. Raker. I conc<'de that if a man has a ]iarticular tract fenced off he would have control of it, but conceding that the (biA'c-mment is permitted to charge for the use of the public land each man who allows his stock to go around upon the jniblic domain, he would have to pay so much per head per year lor it, and you would then receive , GEAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 93 a suflicient amount of ivvciur. to cure for lh,e range as well as to put some n'vonuo m the local ti\'usin-y. Now, und(>r that aiTangdJicnt, anvDoily could go m thorc unil file a homestead on any tiact open to entry as he might sec 1it, Don't you l)eli( ve that hettei' r(^siilts would lie ol)t:>med under that airaiirgment than hv having large tracts piaeed underlease and lencrd'^ Sccr;taiT FusiiEi!. I do ncit. Unde,- this plan you wouh; have f'nstant and immediate supervision of the lauds, you world htxr a lorce 01 s].ecial ollicers on this eiitiir ra.iisrc continually, with suiter- yision of cv, ry herd luid flock in there, and al.le to uiv i.r..|)er i.i otcc- tion to any homcslc-aders. The minute yei. sev llej ruvone cen go on tnat rang, and oastuiv his flocks and henis a. he :'< es fit, and charge him so much |.er h<-ad, you make his only obiect a iijeuioial one to get inmiediale resuhs. il<- has no induce imiif to pastuie the range in a certain way for its prc.leciion and improvement, because he call see that he is going to gain uothiuL'- hv it. Mr. Raker. But (hat could be controlled by regulation, just the same as we control the use of foiage lands. In our lv)ii e counly we have forest reserves, and m between these forest reserves there are large areas of public lands that are being taken up and used by farm- ers, whii settle in ihe vahevs where the land is wi-11 adapted to agri- culture. On both sides of these settlements in the valle> s there are large areas of land, a part of it in fore;*! reserves and a iiart not reserved, and on the lands not resiMved the people are ab: olutely free to go in and locate their homesteads. Now. if this land is to be fenced in under a 10-year lease, it would greatly retard their fettk^uieut. and I believe the people sliould be ])ermitted to go in (here and locate their houM'steads and build up the couiidy as fast as possible. Secretary Fisher. I believe that evei"\'wlierc Congre-: should pass laws which would vest larger authorit}' in the Sec retary of the Intiuioi with regard to the use of the public clomain, giving liij;i authority to control the use of it by sheepmen and cattlemen. I think every exist- ing condition should be fully met. I do not believe, howcA'ei, that a proper leasing law would deter settlement Mr. Raker (interposing). I am trying to give an illustration that will present an actual condition. As I said, there are large areas of the public domain on each side of these settlements, a part of it in forest reserves and a part of it not reserved, and every day this land is being filed on. Now, if you permit them to inclose these lands for 10 years under fence, would it not tend to decrease the ultimate improvement of the remaining portion of the pubhc domain there ? Secretary Fisher. It does not seem to me so. I think we could take care of all these things under a proper leasing law. Of course, the department should have discretion in the administration of the law, and if there should be presented any situation where it would be more advantageous not to lease the lands, it would not be done. I think the administration of the law ought to fit the facts. I can conceive of situations where it would be perfectly obA^ous that the land should be held for settlement by farmers, and m such a case, of course, the lands should not be leased for grazing purposes. On the other hand, lands adapted for grazing purposes and not to agricul- tural purposes, should be leased. The circumstances m each case should control, and the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of' 94 GRAZING OJSr THE PUBLIC LANDS. Agriculture would make his administration of the law fit the facts in each case. Air. Rakee. Do you beheve that this bill would cover the condition I have suggested ? Secnitary Fisher. I liave not examined the bill witii a view to meeting tlie precise point you raise, but mj' impression is that it would. Mr. Iv.vKER. I believe that tlie Government ought to receive some revenue from the use of the public domain, but where a man has settled one of these valley homesteads, and has been tliere perhajps for 10 or 20 years, we ought not to permit a man to lease all the back lands right up to his home place, because that would prevent larger improvements and would prevent new homesteaders from coming in. ' Secretary Fisher. Well, I wi)uld not have the law administered in any such fashion. I do not see why the situation you speak of covlcl not be taken care of Ijy administrative discretion. \^ e have had a great deal of discussion concerning the Canadian law. Now, tlie great advantage the Canadian law possesses f)ver yours is that it vests large administrative' discretion in the responsible minister, and he makes rules to fit the facts. The trouble with our laws relating to the public domain is that they set out too many details that should be left to administration. We make tJiese details the subject of legislation, and, consequently, we have no flexibility in the law. We can only do it this way or that way. We give no administrative discretion. I think that is a grave mistake that we make in this matter. The Chairman. Are there any other questions? ]\Ir. MoxDELL. You have referred to what you have denominated, I believe, as water-hole withdrawals. Under M'hat authority of law do you make withdrawals from homesteads entry, desert entry, or other agricultural entries, lands containing water holes, springs, or lands bordering on running streams ? Secretary Fisher. Under the general withdrawal act. Mr. !MoxDELL. The general withdrawal act authorizes the President to temporarily withdraw from settlement, locations, sale, or entry in any of the public lands and reserve the same for water-power sites, irrigation, classification of lands, or other public purposes to be speci- fied in the orders of withdrawals. Do you assume that to be a pub- lic purpose ? Secretary Fisher. I do. Mr. MoNDELL. Do you think it is in the interest of the public to withdraw from homestead settlement every tract of land on the pub- lic domain that borders on a creek or stream or that has a spring upon it or a small basin in which water settles ': Secretary Fisher. I do not see why you find it necessary to ask such a f|uestion as that — most emphaticahy no. Mr. AIoNDELL. ^Miere do you ih'aw the line? Secretary Fisher. I draw the line when ever the withdrawal of the water holes is absolute] v essential to the use and occujiation of adja- cent lands, and where its possession, if it were not ^nthdrawn, would enable the holder to absolutely dominate several square miles of terri- tory. GBAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 95 .^Ir MoNDELL. Then why arc you not authorized and justified in withdramng every spring and every water hole, and every piece of land that bordci-s on a stream if, in your opinion, the control of such water would affect the use of adjac^-nt lands? Secretary Fisiiek. Chiefly for the reason that they do not, m my opinion, have that effect. ^Ir. MoNDELL. Who has brought to the attention of the depart- ment the desirability of doing this thine ? Secretary Fisher. Who has brought'it to the attention of the de- partment >. Mr. MoNDELL. Yes, sir. Secretary Fisher. It has been brought to the attention of the department from quite a number of sources. Mr. MoxDELL. Have you ever had aiiv homesteaders or home seekers, mtendmg to establish homes on the public domain, to ask to have such witlulrawal made ? Secretary Fisher. I can not answer your question in that form. Mr. MoNDELL. Don't you believe ^ Secretary Fisher (interposing). I assume not, because I do not believe that the lands connected with these water holes are such as the people you describe are interested in. Mr. MONDELL. Don't you believe it would be to the interest of the large stockmen--that is, sheep men and cattlemen — to have all the watef holes considered that way and withdrawn from entry ? Secretary Fisher. Xo, sir. I do assume that no man will turn his cattle ou on the range without knowing that the cattle will be able to get to water. If there is a small area of watered land, and that small tract is taken by a man under the guise of a homestead entry, I assume that the rest of them on the adjacent lands will be under his absolute domination and control. Under such conditions, it is certainly to the public interest to withdraw it as quickly as it can be done. Mr. MoNDELL. Is not that a rather wide assumption of authority? Secretary Fisher. I did not think so, or I would not have done it. Mr. MoNDELL. Don't you know that in the past homestead set- tlements in all the areas that have been settled have been made upon lands contaming some water ? Secretary Fisher. Yes. Mr. MoNDELL. And therefore would not such withdrawals in the East have prevented many of the homestead settlements that have een made along the water ? Secretary Fisher. It all depends on what you are tallong about. The trouble with you, Mr. MondeU, is that you state an extreme case which does not exist, and then proceed to base an argument upon that , -r , Mr. MoNDELL (interposmg). I will say that I have asked a certain question, and the Secretary has made the argument. Now, I wdll argue the matter somewhat. I have hved m a country where men were raising cattle and sheep for something like 40 years, and I have had sometliing to do with these industries. I know that m these regions it would be to the interest of the people who are m the business of raising cattle and sheep in a large way to have^ all the water in the country withdrawn from entry so they could use it ; and I know also that the very first acts of settlement in any new country 96 GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. that the settler has gone into to conquer — and it always looks hard at the beginning — as I have said, the very first acts of settlement are upon lands containing some water, and if }ou withdraw in the interest of the big slorkmen all tJie water holes in the country, by so doing you preclude Jiomestead settlements and the development of the country. Tiiei'c^ is no question about that. i\lr. Graham. Are these wtiter holes of such a character that the first homesteader who came along and settled would thereby acquire absolute control of what you call the water hole ? Mr. MoNDELL. If a man entered the ])iece of land Mr. Graham (huerrupting). In other words, is it so that only one settler could locale Ihere? Mr. MoxDELL. If it were a sjnall water hole — and many of ihem are about Ihc size of this room — of course the hoiin-stetider would control it. The homestead settler usually settles there, becau.'^e he has a. few head of stock on his hands. If these water holes ;.re with- drawn, you will have no hoiiiestead settlements, but the entire area would be used for stock-ran!i,e purposes. You would never have any settk'ment of that region, but it would always be controlled by the large slock intei'esi:-. Secretary Fishf.i;. Ml of that illustrates wlmt I said a few mo- ments ago. Of course, if you withdraw all th<> water hole , you would have no homestead entries, but no one |i)-orjoses to do such a thing. In a section wliere there is water iaail.'ible for ov on. hind which could be taken up for agricultural purpo-es, but which is much more valuable because of its affording iicce-s io water in con- nection with the development of a hn-ge area wliich is suitable for grazing purpose.-, it seem- to trie that the question is not suscei)tible to argument that the ivnter should be ke[)t a^';iilable for that large grazing territory. Mr. MoNDELL. The Secretary used the ^\■ord "development" in connection with grazing lands. There is no development achieved by simply grazing the lands, and keeping the water holes open so that cattle may go to them freely does not lead to development. What leads to development is to have somebody come into the country and establish a home. The Chairman. Pardon the interruption, but it seems that the matter has assumed an argumentative turn, and I would like to take up another matter with the Secretary. If there is no objection, I would like to call the Secretary's attention to the bill (H. R. 242fi6) to authorize the sale of burnt timber on the public domain. This bill was referred to the department for a report. The committee, in considering the bill with a view to reporting it, noted the provision in line 8 which includes in the terms of the bill ceded Indian lands. We would like to have the benefit of your vicv.s upon that matter. If you are prepared to answer, the committee would like to know whether or not it is true that during recent years the proceeds of ceded Indian lands have gone for the benefit: of the Indians, and whether, in your opinion, that provision is a proper one — that is, whether the proceeds from the sale of burnt timber on ceded Indian lands should be covered into the Treasuiy ? Speretary Fisher. I can not answer that question now, be. ause I am not familiar with the procedure in siich cases as tl:;i.! . It m;:y be that the proceeds go to the beuelit of the Indians and it may be also GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 97 fmf- ^^^^^ r^^^y S" "^*° *^^^ Treasury and are appropriated for the w ; r!i ^^^'■^ '^^^ f""'^"" ^^'^^^'^'i ultimately go to tlie Indians, and to NMUcii they arejust y entitled, that are covered into the Treasury ana are appropriated to them l)y general or special appropriation laws. tionT ^^'^^^^''^^- " ^^^ y^'^^ look that up and furnish us the informa- n f !!'^"®^^'"^^\u^^?^f; "^ '^-'' ^ii'J I ^^'ill do so. Did the department make a report on the bdl '. ^ ,vl, ^i^^^'^^^^'^^^A "^ '^'''' -^^' *^^'^' department made a report on it, but \hen the committee took the bill up for consideration, they desired inlormation on this pomt. Secretary Fisher. I will have a report made on it at once. STATEMENT OF HON. GIFFORD PINCHOT. The CuAiiniAX. Mr. Pinchot, we would like to have your views on the sul)ject of this leasing biU. Mr. Pinchot Mr. Chairman, I shall just take a moment or two of your tune ior a brief discussion of the bill. I shall not take your time to enter upon a general discussion of tlio matter. First of all, it seems to me that m deahng with this quostion wc have not to consider the desires of the stockmen ii; j)ai ticular i-or of anv other class in particu- lar Here is an enormous area of pubho land'which ought to be con- tributing to the public welfare, aiul, in my judgment^' it can be so handled'by the Xational Government as to'approximatelv double its value. The Chairmax. V^hat have you to say about the proposition, or rather the necessity, of classifying the lands so as to exempt areas that are suitable for agricultural ciitr}' from the terms of the bill? ^Ir. PixcHOT. Xo one can tell now what is going to be valuable for agricultural purposes. We shall find water m a great many places where it has not yet been developed- and the bih as I understand it, provides that the land shall be open to entry. The Chairmax. Have you consitlered the question of which depart- ment should have the administration of this law? ^Ir. PixcHOT. I have some views on that matter which differ some- what from those exj^ressed by Secretary Fisher. It seems to me that the situation is a fairty obvious one. There are three kinds of depart- ments under the Government — ministerial departments, like the Treasury, which deal with routine business ; next, departments which have to do with production and then the departments which have to deal with distribution. iVow, the Agricultural Department is pri- marily a department which has to do with production and the Depart- ment of Commerce and Labor has to deal with distribution. Now, the more we can put together those things which deal with distribution and place them under one department, the better adminis- tration of such affairs we will have, in my judgment. Then, I differ also from Secretary Fisher on the question of the division of land laws. You have got to make a division somewhere between the Interior Department and the Agricultural Department in the handling of these public lands. Now, no one proposes to take the question of title from the Interior Department. The easiest place, or the place where less difficulty would be had in making that division, is along the line of 58222—12 7 98 GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. titles, and the question of the disposition of land or questions affecting the title to land would remain where they are now. But the question of production from lands should be handled in that department which has to do with production — that is, the Agricultural Depart- ment. In other words, the administration of any law having to do with production should be adnxLLiistered by the department dealing with that question, and laws relating to titles should be administered by the General Land Office. The difference between the line and staff, to which the Secretary referred, illustrates my point very clearly. The staff, wliich is entirely m the War Depa' ,ment, is entirely separate from the line, and there is a marked division between the field and office work. I think there is nothing niore clearly established in regard to administration than that any bureau or department should have a union of its scientific work and executive work. Examples of that kind abound all around us in the Government service. The Ch.meman. The question of administration, or the question of what department shall administer the matter, is more of a collateral question than a fundamental one, is it not ? Mr. PiNCHOT. It is not fundamental, but it is closely connected with the elficiencv of the service to be performed, and is, of course, a very important matter. Congressman Raker brought that matter out in a way that was practical and conclusive. His illustration was that of a valley which had been settled lying between two national forest reserves. Here you would have a division under which one range would be handled 1)\ one department, while another adjacent ranee would be handled by another department. Under a division of that kind, you would have the summer range of the stock handled by one department while the winter range of the same stock would be handled by another department, ■ndth a separate set of officers. Of course that would be very much more expo isi^-e and difilcii'it. At the same time you have in the Department of Agriculture all the machinery that is needed now — that is to say, you have in that de- partment experts on poisonous plants, on forage crops, the health of live stock, on soil erosion, and, in fact, on all the matters involved here. You have experts in that department who can furnish all the technical information required to handle the problem presented here, together with more actual knowledge regarding the ranges themselves than you will find anywhere else. You would have to duplicate a ^reat deal of that in the Interior Department, because you could not well separate and use the technical information of one department in another. Mr. Raker. Suppose this entire scheme should be placed under the Interior Department !Mr. PiNCHOT (interposing). That could only be done at the sac- rifice of separating this pecuhar part of the problem I have termed production from all relation mth the Department of Agriculture. The Forest Service has need of the services of experts in other bureaus of the De])artment of Agriculture. For instance, some very impor- tant work is done iii connection with the Bureau of Plant Industry^ The Chairman. You have heard the discussion here this morning concerning the advantages of the leasing system over the proposed granting of grazing homesteads, or the acquisition of title in fee by the grazers to definite areas of land. Will j^ou state briefly your views on that phase of the matter 1 GEAZIKG ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 99 . Mr. PiNCHOT. A very large part of the present open range will go mto private ownership, and I am strongly in favor of having the lands go into private hands as rapidly as can be done effectively. But most of the range lands have got to go into private hands in largo Holdings if at ,all, with the result that they will not be entirely de- veloped. -^ . Mr. Geaham. Yvhat, in your judgment, would be the result if they went into the hands of homesteaders ? Would there probably be a concentration of the lands later on in the hands of a few men « In } our opinion, would they remain as homesteads or be consolidated into large holdings 1 Mr. PiNCHOT. They would be consolidated to a considerable ex- tent; much of the land could not go into grazing homesteads for the lack of ^^ ater. s s s Mr. Raker. Mr. Pinchot has had a great deal of experience with these matters, and I hope he may have an opportunity later on to go into the matter more thoroughly. Thereupon, at 12.15 p. m., the committee adjourned to meet on Friday, May 31, 1912, at 10 o'clock a. m. House of Representatives, Committee on the Public Lands, Tlursday, July 11, 1912. The committee this day met, Hon. Joseph T. Robinson (chairman) presiding. The Chairman. The hearing on the grazing bill (H. R. 19857) will be resumed, ilr. Kent, of California, is present and wishes to present some views concerning the subject matter of the bill. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM KENT, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. The Chairman. Pardon one suggestion. We have had very lengthy hearings concerning this bill, and we would be glad to hear your suggestions particularly with reference to the form of the bill and any specific recommendations you desire to make. j[r. Kent. In that case, I shall take up the question from the standpoint of the cost of beef and show the bearmg of the present condition of grazing on such cost. My partner in the business of cattle feeding, Mr. Burke, of Genoa, Nebr., has prepared a statement which I should like to have put in the record. He is probably as good an authority as there is m the country on the cost of producing beef and has no personal interest whatever in the range proposition — cattle growing on the range. He has at various times been in every part of the range country purchasing cattle for our feed lots, and has bought them all the way from Mexico to California, in every grazing State in the West. 100 GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. The communication referred to is as follows : Genoa, Nebh., July S, 1912. THE DECLINE OF THE CATTLE INDUSTRY AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LIVE- STOCK INDUSTRY AND THE PUBLIC LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES; ALSO STATEMENTS SHOWING COST OF PRODUCING BEEF CATTLE AND ACTUAL COST OF BEEF TO THE PACKERS. I msh to make it clear to your honorable committee that I appear before you as a beef producer of the iliddle West, a man who for the past 25 years has devoted his life to the fattening of cattle and hogs for the market and who during that period, as a purchaser of cattle from the western ranges, has had unexcelled facilities for observing live-stock conditions in the West in their relationship to the public range. I have no personal interest in having a lease law or any other legislation covering the public lands enacted, except as such a law might benefit any citizen by increasing the supply of live stock and reducing the price of meat of all kinds, besides conserving the public lands and putting them to the greatest beneficial use. In order to give you a proper idea of the extremely high cost of production during the past wintei', I wish to call your attention to the attached statements, which show not only the narrow margin of a beef producer, but also the bi,u' increase of cost to the packer •i\"hich increases on the kind of animal referred to from an a^'crage of .?7.7-5 per hundredweight of dressed beef for the 10-year period 1901 to 1910, inclusive, to Sill. 55 per hundredweight of dressed beef, as an average for the past winter. Prices have been steadily advancing during the spring and summer months, so that now the cost in the beef for good 1,300-pound steers must be fully .?12 per hundred- weight. There is the greatest confusion in the minds of the public as to the cause of the constantly advancing prices for meat, especially beef. The many investigations of the so-called Beef Trust and the continual prosecution of the packers has tended in public estimation to place the entire responsibility for high prices nf meat on them instead of distributing it where it properly belongs. The real reasons for the high prices are rather obscure to the general public, but are really economic, as only within narrow limits can the packers control the prices of meats. First of all, the high prices of beef are caused by the decline of the cattle industry at a time when the population of our country is increasing by leaps and bounds, the number of cattle actually retrograding slighth' in recent years. Now what are the causes for the decline in the cattle industry? (.)n its face it looks like an anomaly for an industry to retrograde while prices are steadily advancing, but such has really been the case, and tor the simple reason that the business of raising cattle and pre- paring them for market has been less profitable than other lines of business, consider- ing risk and capital invested . Many causes have contributed . The principal ones are : First. The rapid rise in the price of feeding stuffs and as a corollary a rapid advance in the price of lands — both grazing and farm lands — the increase in the price of feed outrunning the advance in the price of cattle, thereby enormously increasing the cost of production. Second. Overproduction of both beef and mutton, causing at times glutted markets and very low prices. Third. The shortsighted policy of the packers in their attitude toward the beef producers. The>- ha\c usually pressed their advantage to the utmost on overcrowded markets, losing sight of the tact that eventually the producer might out of the ground. With the loss of feed there is continual necessary reduction in nunil)e]s of stock. I see no means of preventing this waste and destruction except through a leasing bill, and this is a start in the right direction. Mr. Taylor. Have those mountains any forest reserves? Mr. Kent. No; on Steens Mou; tain there is hardly a tree. Mr. Feegusson. This bill is of very great importance to New Mex- ico, Vv'hicK has, I presume, as much unoccupied land as any other State. As I understand your strictures, the bill in its present shape, if put in operation as now drawn, would operate to retard the settlement of farm lands in any section that might be withdrawn from entry. Mr. Kent. I can not see where this bill will do any harm to home- stead entries. Mr. Feegusson. Would not this be a restriction, that if a cattleman or a sheepman inclosed and fenced these tracts, of more or less extent, that he would have to go through the fence — that is, the homestead entryman ? Mr. Kent. Yes; and he ought to see that there is a proper gate there and keep that gate closed. Mr. Feegusson. I was impressed with your view as to classification. Do you not think that before the bill is enacted the public lands should be very carefully classified ? I think there are grazing lands in New Mexico that will never be fit for agricultural purposes, and I am not averse to seeing stockmen fence large tracts of grazing land; but, as I say, the bill puts it within the power of the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw the whole of the public lands of New Mexico from the operation of the homestead laws unless the settler cuts through the fence to get out. In other words, ought there not to be a strict clas- sification first ? Mr. Kent. Nobody is going to fence that land unless it is worth fencing. People do not generally fence it for fun, and to get the highest value out of it for the good of the whole country it seems to me the homestead entryman could afford to go through the fence and close the gate. Mr. Feegusson. Do you not think there should be a classification of the lands for farming and grazing, and that the power to withdraw from homestead entry should be limited only to lands that are ascer- tained to be fit mostly for grazing purposes ? Mr. Kent. I do not see any hardship in going through a fence. I have opened manj^ wire gates and have closed an equal number. Mr. Speee. As I understand it , you think they should be allowed to enter under lease ? Mr. Kent. I should like lo sec this bill passed. I do not want to say anything that will prevent its passage, but it seems to me that under this bill there is not enough protection to the man who goes to the expense of building fences, and I think the homestead oiitrjanan, if permitted inside, ought to be required to use a gate and keep it closed. The Ci-LAiEMAN. Would not Ihe effect of that bo to absolutely pre- vent the establishment of homesteads within leased areas (! Would not that be practically the result of it? How many homesteaders do GBAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. Ill you imagine would go inside of one of these large ranges that was rencod if they had to incur the additional expense of paying the dam- ages that might accrue to the lessee? It seems to me that would P^'^ctically deny the right of homestead entry within the leased area. Mr. Kent. Under this bill it would be a picnic for the homestead entrymen, because they would have the right to graze their domestic stock on the improved area. I am trying to consider the general welfare, and there is no use in trying to deny that much land m par- ticular parts of the country has its highest value for stock growing. The Chairman. You take the position that within certain areas the paramount use and the most important use is grazing, and for that reason the occupancy of the land by settlers should be subordi- nated to grazing purposes ? ilr. Kent. Exactly. The Chairman. And that any bill that can be practically operated must recognize that principle 1 YiT. Kent. Yes, sir. This bill is tremendously important to the present situation, and I want to see it passed. I merely come here to make these suggestions for your consideration and get amendments which will justify the stockman in spending money to improve the range. ilr. Raker. Is it not a fact that in Nevada, Oregon, and Califor- nia — and I take those States because of my personal knowledge of the country — practically every rancher and farmer and small stock- man is against leasing out the public domain ? Mr. Kent. No. On the contrary, I started out in Nevada as a missionary on that proposition about 10 years ago; then I was abso- lutely all alone, but the opinion of the people has entirely changed. People have found more safety in the forest reserves than on the open range. Most men I know now favor a lease law. Mr. Taylor. In that connection, do you not think it would be highly proper to refer this bill to the various States of the West, the western 15 States where there is public domain — that is, to the gov- ernors of those States — and request them to submit it to the legisla- tures at the sessions this winter and ascertain which, if any, of the Western States desire to have this leasing bill applied to them, and if any of them do, then next winter make the bill applicable to those States that desire a leasing of the publiclands, and if public senti- ment approves of it and the general public is in favor of it, why not frankly meet the issue in that way and pass it up to theqi? If they recommend it, adopt the law at least as to all the States that recom- mend it. But if they should come back here and report against it, we would be justified then in withholding it, would we not ? Mr. Kent. I think that it is perfectly obvious that we are false to the public interests if we permit the forage on the public domain to be destroyed as it is being destroyed. Mr. Taylor. If we permit the people to have something to say about it ? „ . , _ .^ 'Mr. Kent. I do not think we ought to refer it to the States. I would not do it. Vi. Taylor. Your idea is to just inflict tliis on the Western States whether they want it or not ? Mr. Kent. It is not an infliction. Mr. Taylor. The people who come from there think it is. 112 GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. Mr. Kent. There is nothing in this bill that provides such a rental as causes an infliction. Mr. Taylor. You are opposed to consulting these various States \ Mr. Kent. Not at ah. Mr. Taylor. And are opposed to ascertaining the mshes of the people of those States ? Mr. Kent. Xot at all; save the feed and consult them afterwards. Mr. Taylor. In the meantime, what would happen to us men who re])resent tlio-se vStates f' ^Ir. Kext. I am one of them. My position is that the ranges are destroyed by inconsiderate use. Mr. Raker. How do the ranchers destro}- them '. ]\Ir. Kent. Where a piece of territory is not defined for the use of a single individual, everylxuly struggles to get that piece of land; and I can use as an example the land we control in Xevada. We do not put a head of stock on our land until the grass has gotten to where it can stan<_l grazing. Then we put the stock on there and Mr. Raker (interposii;"). Wliere do you have your stock in the meantime I Mr. Kext. The cattle are down on the river, eatirg liay, ai:d travel- ing up through the foothills; the sheep down on the foothills largely living on l^rowse. It is the best kind of a range, and is grass country. Now, if this grass country were open to all, we would be compctiug with other sheepmen wlio tried to get the grass first. Anylxxlv who knows anything about grazing knows that it is inconsiderate grazing that causes all of the damage and difficulty. Mr. iloxDELL. Ml'. Chairman, I present, at the request of Mr. I. S. Bartlett, of C'lieyenne, Wa'o., a statement to l>e printed in the hearint;^, |)rcparc(l l)y him, expressing his views with regard to the proposition of leasing the pidilic lands for grazing purposes, ilr. Bartlett has lived in the Wi.-st many years, has l)een a close student of public questions, and has written extensiveh^ in regard to western matters. STATEMENT OF I. A. BARTLETT, OF CHEYENNE, WYO. Leasing the Public Lands. a proposition which, ip adopted, would prevent homestead settlements and paralyze the industrial development of the west. To the House Commitice on Public Lands. Gentlemen: In discussing the land-leasing proposition I propose to give some facts and figures showing the effect of such legislation upon the settlement and develop- ment of the public -land States, taking Wyoming, which has the largest grazing areas of any State in the Union, as an example. The same facts, conditions, and arguments will apply to all the public-land States. Wyoming has, in round numbers, 63,000,000 acres of land. Of this area at least 40,000,000 acres would be classed as range lands, although a large part, probably one- third, is good, dry farming land and is rapidly being settled up. Within the last few years over 10,000 dry-farm settlements have been made on these lands in this State, and such settlements are now rapidly increasing. In fact, these are now the only class of lands open to homestead settlement in this country, as all the rich agricultural lands of the humid areas have already been appro- priated . The passage of a leasing bill, therefore, would at once paralyze all homestead settle- ment and arrest the development of the Western States. It would simply put these lands in the possession of a few cattle barons and make it impossible for the land- hungry settlers of our country to come to Wyoming or any of the arid-land States and take up a home. GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. ' 113 ^J'other important fact is this, and it is indeed strange it has never been considered: Ut the 40,000,000 acres of range lands in this State over one-half, at least 20,000,000 *"^^> 18 underlaid with valuable mineral deposits, such as coal, iron, oil, natural gas, phosphates, asphaltum, etc. In Wyoming alone scientific exploration by the United btates Geological Survey shows over 15,000,000 acres of coal lands, and the Govern- ment estimate gives us 424,000,000,000 tons of coal, which, if valued at 10 cents per ton m the ground, is worth over $42,000,000,000. Our oil areas are equally large, but not so thoroughly explored . One oil company alone has contracted to supply the east- ern market with 8,000 barrels of oil per day. All these oil and coal lands are on the ^°"ri^? desert and would be classified as range lands. Thus the bill would not only wipe the homesteader off the map, but would kill the development of the vast mineral deposits of the West, because the cattle barons would make no leases which would be subject to mineral exploration. ■".either would they accept a bill which gave the settler the privilege of going onto their leased lands and entering a homestead. A bill which would give the settler an opportunity of making a home on leased lands would be of no earthly use to a land leasor, as it would disintegrate his holdings. This is so apparent that after the proposition had been fully thrashed over by Mr. Pmchot and President Roosevelt in collusion with the cattlemen from 1905 down to 1910 the Burkett bill was introduced, which absolutely prohibited the homestead settler from going onto such leased lands. Section 3 of that bill reads as follows: "The land upon which buildings, corrals, reservoirs, wells, or other improvements owned or lawfully controlled by the holder of a grazing permit have been established shall not, when such improvements exceed $100 in value, be subject to settlement or appropriation under the public-land laws during the permit period without the consent of the owners of such buildings, corrals, reservoirs, wells, or other improve- ments. " The permit period in the bill was 10 years with a right of renewal, which made the lease really perpetual. Three land-leasing bills have so far been introduced and each one of them has kept this section inserted in the precise language here given. The Burkett bill was introduced in December, 1907, the American National Live Stock Association bill on January 22, 1908, and the Curtis bill on February 18, 1908. Every one of these bills practically prohibited homestead settlements, and the stock- men have declared that any bill without such a provision would be worthless to them, as they would never know when their holdings would be cut up and taken away. The conspiracy of Pinchot, the cattle barons, the Beef Trust, and the National Live Stock Association to rob the citizens of the IJnited States of the right to homestead our public lands is so plain that a wayfaring man though a fool need not err therein. Roosevelt with his insane lust of power and disregard of the Constitution and laws, urged on by Pinchot and his bureau of misinformation, was only too glad to advocate the scheme which practically relegates the arid-land States back to a condition of conquered colonies, and he constantly urged the passage of the leasing bill in speeches and messages. That the Western States should surrender their jurisdiction and sovereignty over three-fourths of their domain to a Federal bureau is almost inconceivable. The land States under a leasing bill would have no more control over their own territory than they would over the District of Columbia or any United States military reservations, excepting that they would be allowed the privilege of criminal jurisdiction and of paying the accompanying expenses thus entailed. If the people of Wyoming should vote on the question to-day from 85 to 90 per cent of our people would oppose such leases. Our people have discussed this question for six years, and we know the impossibility of framing a bill that would be just to the mining interests, the homestead settlers and small ranchmen, and at the same time satisfy the big cattlemen. . „ , ^ , . Some years ago the secretary of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association publicly stated that "Wyoming needed more cattle and less men." The land-leasing bill expresses this idea in an effective, concrete form. The only hope of the rapid settlement and development of the West is in the com- mon people. The leasing bill is practically a high tariff protection bill, putting a tremendous monopoly in the hands of a few men with unlimited capital. Our arid lands are now settling up rapidly with a good class of hardy, intelligen f Americans. Eventually with the small ranchmen, these settlers in addition to agri- cultural crops, will produce more cattle, sheep, and horses than would be possible if the land is kept in a wild and desert range for the large herds. 58222—12 8 114 GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. What is the argument for leasing? Mr. Pinchot gave as a reason for revolutionizing our land system that the western ranges were overstocked; that the grass supply was exhausted by reckless pasturing of the stockmen and farmers. This was a pure fabri- cation as the facts will show. In 1909 when Pinchot made this absurd statement, it is shown by the State offi- cial reports that in Wyoming, the leading range State, the ranges were in splendid condition notwithstanding the fact that the State was pasturing more than twice as many sheep and cattle then than the State had 10 years before. This was true of the other range States. For instance, the official figures of the State auditor show that there were grazing on the range in 1899 cattle to the number of 311,629, while in 1909 there were 792,797 on the range. The number of sheep in 1899 was 2, 130, 143, while in 1909 they numbered 4,878,125. The aggregate value of sheep and cattle was $23,276,623 in 1909, against $7,211,843 in 1899, an increase of 300 per cent. At that time no one was complaining of the shortage of gra.ss. Since then it is true, we have had two years of drouth, but that is not owing to any fault of the laws or of the cattlemen, sheepmen, or home- stead settlers, as it is not possible to make laws which will avert the acts of providence or control the forces of nature. This bill is only another step in the march of socialistic imperialism. The extraor- dinary powers already granted the President, the power of unlimited withdraw al of lands, both agricultural and mineral, hskve already arrested the normal develop- ment of a new land and put sovereign States in the position of conquered provinces and made their development dependent upon the whims or caprices of some bureau chief who knows little or nothing of the conditions in the arid-land States, and we know that during the last two national administrations there has been no sympathy or cooperation given the pioneer settlers of our western wilderness by the Federal Government. The ordinary < 'ongressman seems to have no cenception of the marvelous resources of the arid-land States. These resources, so varied and extensive, have hardly been touched, and yet so great has been the development in irrigation, dry farming, fruit raising, stock raising, in the mining of metals, the production of oil, coal, iron, asphaltum, phosphates, and other valuable deposits that it is the wonder of modern civilization. Nine-tenths of all these resources are on our pastural ranges. This region is a new land and must of necessity become the field of our future national expansion. If it is to be retained as range land and given over to the pastur- age of cattle and sheep,, all its magnificent resources will be left to slumber and a calamity visited upon our people and the entire Nation too great to be expressed in human language. If there is any serious effort to be made for passing this bill, let us have a refer- endum. Let the land States have a chance to vote upon a proposition that so ^-itally affects their future prngress and destiny. It can not be possible that the eastern and southern States would wish to fcirce such a measure of despotism upon the sov- ereign States of the mountain and plain against their interests and wishes. The American policy of land administration down to within 10 years ago has been to encourage individual initiative and enterprise, b>- parting with the Government title and giving the settler, prospector, and miner such lands and mines as they could improve and develop. Under this policy our Nation has wonderfully prospered. For the past 10 years this policy has been exactly reversed, and we now have a system of modern feudalism, enforced by decrees, orders, and instructions which practically nullify the best features of our land laws. The passage of a leasing bill would just about complete the metamorphosis of this system of free homes fur the people to a system of Federal landlordism, and we should have about 25,000 new ofiiceholders swarming in the West, collecting rents and haul- ing settlers into the Federal courts and having them fined and imprisoned for fancied violations of some imperial decree of a land bureau at Washington. That is what a land-leasing law means. I. S, Bartlett. National Conservation Association, Washington, D. C., May 5, 1912. Hon. Joseph T. Robinson, House of Representatives, Washington, D . C. Dear Sir: To my regret it is necessary for rne to leave Washington before the next hearing of your committee upon Mr. Lever's bill for the improvement and regulation of grazing upon the public lands. I must, therefore, take this way of communicating to you the vigorous and unquaUfied indorsement of Mr. Lever's bill by the National Conservation Association, of which I am vice president. 5EAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 115 . The principle of reasonable foresight and thrift in the use of a great natural resource IS so clearly embodied in this bill as scarcely to call for comment. But the following defanite questions naturally arise regarding the advisability and practicability of the proposed measure, which 1 will discuss briefly: Is the condition of the public range so seriously impaired by misuse as to make the control of grazing by the Federal Government an urgent public necessity? I think this question has already been convincingly answered by the testimony before your committee, of gentlemen like Mr. Potter and Mr. Tomlinson, who posaesa an intimate, first-hand knowledge of public-range problems and conditions. While no exact records are available to show in detail the rate of deterioration in the forage crop upon the public lands through excessive uae, I beheve the statement to be well witliin the facts that the carrying capacity of the public range has been generally reduced not leas than one-half by overgrazing. That I believe to be the consensus of opinion among those men best qualified through actual observation and practical experience in the western stock business to estimate the degi'ee of damage already done. Without a system of leasing and regulation this deterioration in the forage value of the public lands will inevitably continue. The demands for the use of our grazing lands are sure to increase in the future, as they have increased in the past. Unless the Federal Government regulates the use of the 300,000,000 acres of grazing lands within the public domain of which it is the custodian, no reasonable basis exists for the hope that their usefulness will not become steadily lower year by year. Another practical question which arises with regard to this bill is this: Granting that range regulation is necessary in order to maintain and improve the forage crop, can it be put into effect under this bill without great expense and with the definite assurance of efficiency? The answer to that question lies, as I see it, in the results of range control within national forests by the Forest Service, ^^^len the Forest Service began to administer grazing within national forests some six years ago, much injury had already been done to the range through misuse. Conditions were much the same as on the unappropriated public domain to-day. There was, however, at that time, on the part of a majority of the stockmen, the doubt whether range administration by the Government was a practicable thing. It was held by many that the problem was too vast and too complex to be solved satisfactorily, and that the stockmen would get no adequate return in range improvement for the payment of their fees, and that nothing was left but to let present conditions continue and to permit range deterioration to go on. ^^'hat has been the result? In these six years the Forest Service has established on national-forest ranges a system of control and regulation which is one of the most successful examples of })ractical administration to be found in any branch of the Federal Government. The condition of these ranges has steadily improved, and as the result they are carrying an increasing number of stock each year. Range wars have been eliminated, and a fair allotment of the different classes of range made to sheep and to cattle. Predatory animals which prey upon live stock have been largely killed off. Successful experiments are going forward in the improvement of the range by reseeding, and the eradication of plants injurious to live stock. A generally whole- some condition has been restored with direct benefit to the general public as well as to the stockmen, and all this has been accomplished not only without one cent of cost to the Federal Government, but with a net return from grazing fees of about $500,000 a year. The regulation provided for by Mr. Lever's bill would not entail new and elaborate administrative machinery. In the Department of Agriculture the organization already exists in the Forest Service for putting its provisions into immediate effect. The only additional expense involved would be the employment of the men actually needed on the ground to supervise the use of the range and to handle the details of the work. This expense would be much more than covered by the fees for which the bill provides. . As has been shown clearly in the testimony given before this committee, the repre- sentatives of the stock industry are themselves asking for regulation of the public range These gentlemen are urging legislation which will impose a charge upon them for the use of the public range, and which will put that use under Federal con- trol both as to the kind and the number of stock grazed. The reason hes in the fact that the stockmen clearly see that in this regulation lies the only possible assurance not only for the wholesome growth, but in many localities, for the actual existence of their industry. . , ^. ^ ^, ,, The provisions of the bill which you have under consideration are not the result of desk work and of theory. They are the final expression of the conviction which has been growing steadily for many years among the stockmen, and among Govern- offlcers, that range regulation must come outside the national forests as it has within them. This bill simply proposes that the nation shall do for the grazing lands within 116 GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. the public domain what the thrifty farmer does when he limits the number of head he turns upon his pasture lot to that which it can carry through the season without reduction in its carrying cajjarity another year. Other countries, like New Zealand, Australia, South Africa', and South America, either already have leasing systems in effect for their public ranges, or in process of adoption. The time has longeince come. . as I see it, when this Government must conserve not only the forests but also the ranges which it holds in trust. Sincerely, yours, Overton W. Phicb. American National Live Stock Association, Denver, Colo., June 13, 1912. Hon. Joseph T. Robinson, Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. Robinson; I have the honor to send you herewith a copy of a letter from Mr. A. E. Goodwin, of Fort Colling, Colo., reciting at some length the difficulty he has encountered and the annoyance and losses to which he has been subjected in trying to use part of the open range adjacent to the land which he owns. I am sure that the same difficulties and objections obtain in other locations all over the ^^'est, and it is because of these most unsatisfactory conditions that the stockmen hope your committee will act favorably on the Lever bill now pending before you. I would be glad to have you make this letter of Mr. Goodwin's a part of your printed record of your hearings. If it will not be transgressing too much on your time , I wish you would kindly inform me the present status of this bill and any other information regarding it of interest that you may care to write. Yours, respectfully, T. W. Tomlinson, Secretary. Fort Collins, Colo., June 5, 1912. Mr. T. W. ToMLiNSOX, Denver, Colo. Dear Sir: I have written Hon. Edward T. Taylor and also Hon. A. W. Rucker, of this State, in regards range conditions which I have to contend with. Taylor's letter, in answer to mine, seems to be of a much different opinion than I. He says he does not wish to convert Colorado into a pasture. A. W. Rucker feels as I do, and I can not see how a sane man can feel as Taylor does unless laws made can not be enforced . At this present moment my old partner and I own 6,500 acres of land, of which you know Government land must be the alternating sections of a great deal of it, and we have fenced outside, thus laying ourseh"es liable to United States laws. These con- ditions existed when we purchased the land, ^\'e did own 325 head of cattle. A man just north of us with a desert filing on 80 acres of land has 175 head of cattle and lives in a cabin on our land. He at one time purchased two sections of land, paying $2.75 per acre. Afterwards, thinking this too high, he turned the land back, and we then pmxhascd it, paying -iio per acre. Then he deliberateljr told us, when we pro- ceeded to fence, that if we did so, he would notify the United States Government that we had Government land fenced. Thus he kept us from fencing last year, and he has had the use of $6,400 wnrlh of property of ours without a cent's cost to him, we even paying the taxes on it. Also three sections that we leased of the same man we bought the two sections of is out in the open, and he has pastured this, which we paid sl20 a year for the use of. As you will see, SlJOO is about what we are out for leasing and interest for the benefit uf a scoundrel who takes advantage of conditions of otir national laws. Now, we did not ^\'ish to be placed in the position of a hog, when it came to Government land. (^ne other fellow on the east has a bunch of about 100 head of cattle and owns one section and 160 acres and has the use of the balance of the section where his ICO is fenced. IIc' deliberately turned his cattle in my pastiu-e. I turned them out. He also told me he would notify the United States Government. I tried to get him to confer with all the neighbors and allot the Gmernment land adjoining, which is as near equitable as is possible to do. He would not do this. I agreed to build a fence, giving him 320 acres of Government land of a section we had previously, before we purchased this land, been divided between the owner and another neighbor. This is right in the mountains and costs us at least !?200 to build the fence, and he would not agree to lie then satisfied, although I offered to allow him to put ray partners and my proxy in the conference with the neighbors, and I came to the conclusion we were up against a peculiar proposition, and it seems to me it ought to be overcome by legisla- tion in some manner. While he has not done anything yet, I believe it is because he is ashamed to notify the Government. But I don't care how soon it comes. If it is a GEAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 117 mot>f'"^°V™'^' ^^^ ^ ™"^'' 'l"^* *^® '^^**'^® business and take up sheep. That is a metnod that any man can get even with his neighbor with. But I am naturally a cattleman and do not wish to do this. My partner and I dissolved partnership in oraer to particularly overcome the conditions of fencing, which seems an absolute sname, because the ranch was about the right size to handle a nice bunch of cattle. 1 explained all these conditions to Taylor and to Rucker. Rucker has referred me K n,°?i,*^ secretary of the American National Live Stock Association. I suggested to Dotn that a bill might be passed whereby one man could lease 5 sections or 10 or even less that join his land, thus not creating a monopoly for one man. Mr. Rucker says tne Lever bill will probably remedy the evil with which I have to contend. It is not to be wondered at if sheep and cattle men take their revolvers and settle their aitterences when we send intelligent men to Washington to make our laws and can not receive some legislation whereby land which it is impossible for a man to make a v!"^^v,°'^r~*5 homestead— can not be redeemed by any further act of Congress, wnereby land adjoining could be leased in some manner. Makes the land he already has practically valueless. We are in the foothills, where the fencing is an awful expense. _ Would like to know what is incorporated in the Lever bill. Senator F. E. Warren IS north of us, and you know the rest. Mv home State is Wisconsin. Am in touch with the State senator, who is a personal fnend of La Follette and Lenroot. I had arranged with this State senator to go to Uashington and try and get a bill passed covering the ground I have stated to you, but my partner did not feel as though we could stand the expense. Anything I could do that you would suggest I would be only too glad to do. The trouble with the, people in Washington, I believe, is the fact that they do not understand western conditions. Taylor does, and why he should write me as he did I can not understand. I can see Warren would not want a bill passed to lease Gov- ernment land, because in the sheep business he can get it without leasing, which is cheaper. The first man I mentioned has more than one-half the number of cattle we have and has not a dollar invested in land, and we have $30,000 or .?40,000 invested. There is something wrong with the system, and it is liable to make any man show his teeth. Yours, truly, A. E. Goodwin. Oakland, Cal., April 24, 1912. Hon. Joseph T. Robinson, Chairman Committee on Public Lands, House of Representntires, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: H. R. 19857, a bill for the improvement of grazing on the public lands of the United States, and to regulate the same, and for other purposes, is, 1 believe, before your committee . The bill is the result of many years' work and practical experi- ence on the part of men who have only the public interests at heart. As the chairman of the conservation commission of the State of California, and speaking for the commission, I indorse the bill very heartily, and sincerely and ear- nestly hope that your committee may see its way clear to report the same out with the recommendation that it do pass. Very truly, yours, " ' Geo. C. Pardee. Paul E. Vernon & Co., 22-24-26 Reade Street, New York, May 24, 1912. Hon. William Calder, Sou.se of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: Let me call your attention to the desirability of the passage of bill S. 3462 or H. R. 19857, having in view the conservation of our public grazing range. One or both of these bills are now under consideration by your honorable body. I do not know whether Congress has any power in the matter of granting the city of San Francisco the right to use the Hetch Hetchy Valley for the storage of water, but as you have a very great, although perhaps indirect influence, I venture to write my opinion that San Francisco should be given that right. I lived in San Francisco four years and know that the city was in great need of a cheap and largely increased water supply. The city is built on an arid, treeless penin- sula, and some years ago the only source of water supply was two ponds among the sand hills a few miles south of the city. These ponds were owned by the Spring Valley Water Co. and the price paid for water in the office where I worked was ten times the 118 GKAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. cost of an equal amount in Brooklyn, reckoning by the number of faucets, etc . During several months of the year no rain falls in San Francisco and the sewers become foul and the dust-laden streets very disagreeable when blown upon by the summer trade winds. Few are more interested in natural scenery than I am. I have visited Alaska, Central America, the mountains of Norway, the Alps, and the Pyrenees, and am a member of a New York Mountaineering Club and the Alpine Club of Canada, but, nevertheless, believe that the scenery of the Hetch Hetchy Valley should be sub- ordinated to the crying needs of San Francisco, which is now struggling to be free of a Ramajjo ring. Very respectfully, yours, Howard W. Vernon, 58 South Portland Avenue, Brooklyn. Northwest Development League, Helena, Mont., May IS, 1912. Chairman of Committee on the Public Lands, Souse of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: I am advised from several sources that your committee has before it for consideration a measure providing for the leasing of portions of the public domain in western States for grazing purposes. I am writing as an officer of the Northwest Development League to enter the emphatic and unqualified protest of this organiza- tion against the passage of the bill now in question, or any measure of similar intent and purpose. Such measure would work great hardship to our league and to all forces engaged in the colonizing of western and northwestern territory. V\'e are working with heaity cooperation of all the railroads entering this territory, and I feel sure that the officials in charge of the immigi'ation work of the various lines will agree with me that almost any obstacle which we could encounter would be preferable to the con- dition which would be brought about by this proposed legislation, namely, the con- fronting of settlers which we have brought in, and who are anxious to either purchase or settle upon Government domain, with large tracts of the latter out of their reach and under control of large and powerful stock concerns. I would much appreciate an expression of opinion as to the status of this bill and any information you could gi\'e me regarding the same. Yours, very respectfully, Lewis Penwell, President. Executive Office, Helena, Mont., May IS, 1912. Public Lands Committee, Hov^e of Representatives , Washington, D . C. Gentlemen: I am informed that there will be presented to your committee a res- olution adopted at a meeting of the executive committee of the Public Lands Con- vention, requesting that action upon the Lever bill be deferred until the meeting of the people of the public-land Stales to be held at Boise, Idaho, about the 1st of August, next. I heartily concur in the resolution referred to and join the committee in urging upon your committee that iii.tion be postponed as requested. Yours, truly, Edwin L. Norris, Governor of Montana. At a meeting of the executive committee of the Public Lands Convention, com- prising the States of Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, ()regon. South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, held at Salt Lake, May 2, 1912, the following resolution was unanimously adopted : "\\'hFrcas the governors of the Western States will convene at Boise, Idaho, on August 1, 1912, at which time and place questions pertaining to public lands and the con- servation of the natural resources will be discussed and the position of the Western States will be defined and made known to the Congress of the United States: There- fore be it ' ' Resolved, That it is the sense of this committee that further action upon the Lever bill or legislation of a like character be deferred until the people of the public-land GRAZING ON THE PUBLIJ LANDS. 119 States may be heard and their positions on the great questions made known through their governors at the convention to be held at Boise, Idaho, August 1, 1912. "J. W. MussBH, Secretary.'' I heartily concur in the above resolution and join with the committee in requesting that action be postponed until the wishes of the Boise convention has been made known. W. C. McDonald, Governor of New Mexico. [Telegram.] Salt Lake, Utah, May S, 1912.' Public Land Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C: At ■■' meeting of the executive committee of the Public Lands Convention, com- prising the States of Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and ^^ yoming, held at Salt Lake May 2, 1912, the following resolution was unanimously adopted ; " AMiereas the governors of the western States will convene at Boise, Idaho, on August 1, 1912, at which time and place questions pertaining to public lands and the con- servation of the natural resources will be discussed and the position of the western States will be defined and made known to the Congress of the United States: There- fore be it ^ ' ' Resolved, That it is the sense of this committee that further action upon the Lever bill or legislation of a like character be deferred until the people of the public -land States may be heard and their positions on the great questions made known tlirough their governors at the convention to be held at Boise, Idaho, August 1, 1912. "J. W. MussEE, Secretary." I heartily concur in the above resolutions and join with the committee in requesting that action be postponed until the wishes of the Boise convention have been made known. William Spry, Ooremor of Utah. Law Offices Ames & Crane, 483 Bloompield Avenue, Montclair, N. J., May 21, 1912. Hon. Joseph T. Robinson, Chairman Home Public Lands Committee, Washinr/ton, D. C. Dear Sir: Out attention has been called to a bill introduced in the House by ilr. Lever, of South Carolina (H. R. 19857), on which public hearings are now being held before the House Public Lands Committee. I wish to urge with all the force of which I am capable that this bill be passed, as I believe the objects sought to be obtained by it are most necessary and desirable. Yours, very truly, Wm. Whitney Ames. Lewisburg, Pa., May 21, 1912. Hon. Joseph T. Robinson, Chairman House Public Lands Committee, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: ;\Iy information is that a bill has been introduced in the House by Mr. Lever, of SouthCarolina (H. R. 19857), to conserve the public grazing range, and that public hearings on it are now being held before the House Public Lands Committee. The passage of this bill seems to me to be of great importance, and I wish to assure you of my interest in the passage of this bill, and to urge favorable action thereon on the part of your committee. Very truly, yours, Philip B. Linn. 120 GEARING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. New Yoek, May 20, 1912. Hon. Joseph T. Robinson, Chairman Public Lands Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. Dear Mb. Robinson: Together with many others throughout the country, I^ am very much in hopes that the bill H, R, 19857, introduced by Mr. Lever, of South Caro- lina, and now before your committee, will be reported favorably. It is of very great importance, and wholly to the public interest. Yours, sincerely. Miles M. Dawson. F. W. Kelsby Nursery Co., 150 Broadivay, New York, May 20, 1912. Hon. Joseph T. Robinson, Chairman, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: Having given the subject of the conservation of our natural resources considerable attention, permit me to express a decided conviction in favor of the prompt passage of bill H. R. 19857, relative to conserving public grazing lands, and the hope that the bill will appeal to your committee and colleagues and thus insure its early enactment into law. Thanking j'ou in advance for your good offices to this end, Very respectfully, Fredk. W. Kblsey, President. American Assurance Co., Philadelphia, May 20, 1912. Hon. Joseph T. Robinson, Chairman House Public Lands Committee, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: I notice that public hearings are being held on the bill known as H. R 19857. As a citizen of these United States I am greatly interested in this bill, because, as I understand it, it gives promise of carrying out the recommendation of the National Conservation Association. On account of personal business I shall not be able to reach Washington so as to back up my recommendation in person, and therefore would be glad to have you consider this letter as an expression of my personal feeling in regard to this important subject. Yours, very truly, Rbinhold R. Koch, President. The Bell Telephone Co. or Missouri, St. Louii, May 22, 1912. Hon. Joseph T. Robinson, Chairtnan House Public Lands CommiUee, Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. Robinson: Allow me to urge upon you the importance of the passage of bill H. R. 19857, to conserve our public gi-azing range. It appears to me that this is one of the most important steps in the coiifervation of our public assets, and I trust your committee will be able to .secure its prompt passage. Very respectfully, Fritz Nisbet. The Survey, 105 East :'2d Street, Nero York, May 23, 1912. Mr. Joseph T. Robinson, Chairman House Public Lands Committee, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: Will you count me in as one of those urging the passage of legislation to conperve a public grazing range (S. :j462 and H. R. 19857). Yours, very truly, Paul U. Kellogg. Pennsylvania Department of Forestry, Harrisburg, May 2,3, 1912. Hon. Joseph T. Robinson, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. My Dear Mr. Robinson: As a member of the Pennsylvania Conservation Com- mission and one who is interested generally in the preservation of all things relating to the future good, I write you in behalf of the grazing bill (H. R. 19857), which was introduced in the House by Mr. Lever, of South Carolina. GEAZINQ ON THE PtTBLIO LANDS. 121 I believe this ia a highly important meaBure and should be enacted into law by the present Congress. I trust that there will be no hesitancy on the part of the members ot your committee in realizing that a bill of this character is basea on the general good tor all the people, and will be especially productive of valuable results in the regions where the national forests lie. In Pennsylvania we have no serious grazing problem, but we thoroughly realize what it means to the people of the West. In this State we are also interested in an appropriation carried by the general agri- cultural appropriation bill amounting to $80,000 for the suppression of the chestnut ^l^ght, and particularly to be used by the department in preventing the advance of this destructive disease. This effort will therefore natm'ally be exerted among the States of the Southern Appalachian region. Mr. Lever, who introduced the above grazing bill, is one of the conferees who will determine on the part of the House whether or not the full amount of the chestnut-blight appropriation will be allowed. We who are m this work feel that this full amount should be allowed, and if you can induce Mr. Lever to see the matter in this light, we in Pennsylvania will be very greatly ap- preciative for your courtesy and help. Very truly, yours, I. C. Williams, Deputy Commissioner. Maekus Evangelical Lutheran Church, St. Louis, Mo., May ^2, 1912. Hon. Joseph Robinson, Chairman House Public Lands Committee, Washington, D. C. Honored Sir: I understand that at the present time a bill as to the conserving of the public-grazing range is being considered before the House Public Lands Commit- tee. Now, since this bill is, in my estimation, of the greatest benefit and value to the conservation of a vast natural resource, I would kindly ask you to lend all your enei^y to the passage of this bill. Trusting that you will personally favor this bill and so do all in your power to have it passed, I am, Yours, very respectfully, W. Halleebeeq. Law OrriCES, 321 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, May 23, 1912. Hon. Joseph T. Robinson, Chairman House Public Lands Committee, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: I understand that the bill to conserve the public-grazing range (H. R. 19857) is before your committee. I am writing to say that I hope this bill will receive favorable consideration of your committee and that they will see their way clear to recommend its passage. Yours, truly, Percy H. Clark. State Geological Survey, Urbana, III., May 22, 1912. Hon. Joseph T. Robinson, Chairman House Public Lands Committee, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: I have the honor of addressing you on behalf of House bill 19857 intro- duced by Mr. Lever, and referring to the conservation of the public-grazing range. Although this act does not affect land in Illinois I feel sure that its enactment, together with other desirable conservation measures, is greatly to be desired by all of our citizens. On behalf of the American Association of State Geologists, of which I am secretary, I have the honor to request your careful consideration and approval of this measure if possible. Yours, very truly, F. W. He WoLp. The J. & P. Baltz Brewing Co., Philadelphia, May 23, 1912. Hon. Joseph T. Robinson, Chairman Public Lands Committee, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: I understand that public hearings are now being held before the House Public Lands Committee of the bill H. R. 19857, to conserve the public-grazing range, introduced in the House by Mr. Lever, of South Carolina. I would respectfully urge 122 GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. your assistance in securing the passage of this most important measure, which looks to the conservation of a great natural resource in the interest of all the people. I have the honor to remain, sir. Yours, respectfully, Harry R. Baltz. The Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co., Philadelphia, May ^4, 1912. Hon. Joseph T. Robinson, Chairman House Public Lands Committee, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: All who are concerned in the future welfare of this nation are deeply interested in House bill No. 19857, introduced by Mr. Lever of South Carolina, upon which, I understand, hearings are now being held before your committee. I sincerely hope that favorable consideration will be given to this measure and that it may meet with the approval of your body. You realize, I am sure, the importance of this bill, and I bespeak your favorable influence. Yours, very Iruly, F. H. Garrigius. RoBT. H. Ingersoll & Bro., New York City, May n, 1912. Hon. Joseph T. Robinson, Chairman House Public Lands Committee, Washington, D. C. Sir: Referring to Mr. Lever's bill, H. R. 19857, on the subject of conservation of grazing lands, while my information is of a quite general character, I am impressed that there is growing up in this country a system of land monopolization and specula- tion which, when it is fully developed, as it will be in a few years, will be simply appalling in the conditions which will then be shown. I have heard of one so-called ranch which extends through 3 States, one of which is California, which comprises some millions of acres — my impression is 15 or 20 — and on which single ranch cattle may be driven for 1,000 miles. And while this is perhaps the largest instance that^may be cited, except as to size, it is typical of hundreds that exist. My belief is that the flindamental remedy is clearly that of taxation, i. e., the single tax, which, applied to such a situation, will make use the only basis on which land can be held in a large amount. Meantime I trust your committee will gaive most careful attention to any plans of conservation of such lands as still remain public. Yours, very truly, C. H. Ixgersoll. Leopold Desk Co., Burlington, loiva, May 21, 1912. Hon. Joseph T, Robinson, Chairman House Public Lands Committee, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: I am very much interested in a bill or bills now before Congress for the preservation of public grazing range. I think one is S. 3466 and the other H. R. 19857. I am rather closel)' connected with parties in the West, and I know it is of greatest importance to the whole country from the Missouri River west that e^'erything be done to preserve the range on public land for the benefit of the people. The Gov- ernment has been entirely too economical in the care of its ranges and forests. Stop to think how valuable this property is to the people and how little it would cost to pre- serve it properly from destruction by fire or reckless use. No reasonable person should oppose a much more liberal policy from the Go\ernment in regard to the preser\ation of this property. Trust you will do e\er\'thing you can toward this end by getting more liberal appro- priation in the future. Very truly, Carl Leopold. Ridenour-Baker Grocery Co., Kansas City, Mo., May 22, 1912. Mr. Joseph T. Robinson, Chairman Public Lands Committee, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: I ask your careful consideration to the bill (H. R. 19857) which was introduced by Mr. Lever, of South Carolina. In the preparation of this bill the National Conservation Association has taken an active part. This means that it has GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 123 brought to bear all the knowledge which has been developed in recent years by a scientific study of conservation problems. No organization in this country commands the same abundance of skilled counsel, unselfishly and patriotically given, as the National Conservation Association, and its advice on all public questions of this character, namely, the conservation of the public grazing range, ought to have much weight. Yours, truly, J. C. Lester. The Ckosby Co., Buffalo, N. Y., May 2S, 1912. Hon. Joseph T. Robinson, Chairman House Public Lands Committee, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: There is now before your committee House bill No. 19857, designed to conserve the public-grazing range. As a member of the National Conservation Association, I am interested in its passage and urge your committee to report it favorably. Yours, very truly, William H. Hill. American Missionaiiy Association, ■ New York, May 24, 1912. Hon. J. T. Robinson, Chairman House Public Lands Committee, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: I write to urge the passage of the bill (S. 3462) the purpose of which is to conserve the public-grazing range. It seems a very important matter to those of us who are lookLog forward to the future of our Nation and who desire to have such public utilities fairly open for the use of those who need them. The passage of this bill, if I understand it, will contribute to this important end. Yours, respectfully, C. J. Ryder. Colorado Springs, Colo., May 25, 1912. Hon. Joseph T. Robinson, Chairman House Public Lands Committee, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: H. R. 19857, a bill to conserve the public-grazing range, should be promptly passed by Congress. It is an unquestioned fact that the overstocking of the range has resulted in making the range almost useless for any purpose. One of the greatest needs of the West is the regulation of public grazing so that the ranges will support the maximum number of cattle which can be adequately cared for. Yours, very truly, Dunbar F. Carpenter. San Francisco, Cal,, May 24, 1912. Hon. Joseph T. Robinson, House Public Lands Committee, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: I would respectfully urge you to work for the passage of bill S. 3462, to conserve the public grazing range, or a similar bill, H. R. 19857, introduced by Mr. Lever, of South Carolina, public hearing of which is now being held before the House Public Land Committee. Very respectfully, yours, Chas. W. Fisher. Leland Stanford Junior University, Stanford University, Cal., May 24, 1912. Hon. Joseph T. Robinson, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: A bill (H. R. 19857) introduced by Mr. Lever for the preservation of public-grazing range seems to me an admirable one. I ask you to give it favorable attention. Very truly, yours, David Starr Jordan. 124 GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. St. Louis, Mo., May 27, 1912. The Hon. Joseph T. Robinson, Chairman House Public Land Committee, Washington, D. C. Dear Sik: In regard to the bills (H. R. 19857 and S. 3462) for the conservation of public-grazing ranges permit me to say that meat prices are to-day 50 per cent higher than warranted by present economic conditions and the people are fully aware of it, although few know the correct underlying causes. People in general hope, however, that these prices may be made normal by some means. However, it the grazing lands are allowed to go out of the control of the Government and cattle were to be fed by different methods, the present high prices would become justifiable and may even go higher. For many wage earners the present prices are the limit, and the question would soon arise either to buy back this land or, like England, become dependent on other nations for our meat supply. In the meantime we will be confronted by social disturbances and man)' expressions of dissatisfaction with the wasteful and unsystematic management of our Government. As our Representatives in the House, I hope that you and the members of your com- mittee will recommend and urge the support of these bills. Respectfully, yours, L. (jutmann. Davenport, Iowa, May 23, 1912. Hon. Joseph P. Robinson, Chairman Ilou^e Public Lands Committee, Washington, D. C. My Dear Mr. Robinson: Pardon me for infringing on your time to the extent of asking, if agreealjle to your \'iews, to work and vote in favor of the passage of a bill (H. R. 19857) intended to conserve the public grazing range. I believe there is also a bill (S. 3462) for the same purpose in the Senate. I am an owner of land in a number of States and a big ranch of 8,000 acres in the north part of Mi-