■111 
 
H3> 
 17/ 
 
 G7£ 
 
 CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
Cornell University Library 
 HD171.A4 G78 1914 
 
 Grazing homesteads and the .regulation of 
 
 olln 
 
 3 1924 030 040 715 
 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 
 ^Pftfcl 
 
 19701" 
 
 t 
 
 
 m\. 
 
 &c- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 j 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYL.ORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN U.S A. 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030040715 
 
GRAZING HOMESTEADS AND THE REGULATION OF 
 GRAZING ON THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 HEARING 
 
 BEFORE THE 
 
 COMMITTEE ON THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 SIXTY-THIRD CONGRESS 
 Second Session 
 
 ON 
 
 H. R. 9582 and H. R. 10539 
 
 A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE DISPOSITION OF GRAZING 
 
 LANDS UNDER THE HOMESTEAD LAWS, AND 
 
 FOR OTHER PURPOSES 
 
 PART I 
 
 MARCH 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, and 11, 1914 
 
 & 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTT3SG OFFICE" 
 1914 
 
IV 
 
 COMMITTEE OX THE PUBLIC LANDS. 
 
 House of Representatives. 
 
 SCOTT FERRIS, Oklahoma, Chairman. 
 
 JAMES M. GRAHAM, Illinois. 
 EDWARD T. TAYLOR, Colorado. 
 JOHN E. RAKER, California. 
 HARVEY B. FERGUSSON, New Mexico. 
 CARL HAYDEN, Arizona. 
 SAMUEL M. TAYLOR, Arkansas. 
 LATHROP BROWN, New York. 
 TOM STOUT, Montana. 
 ANDREW R. BRODBECK, Pennsylvania. 
 DENVER S. CHURCH, California. 
 
 JACOB A. CANTOR, New York. 
 MATTHEW M. NEELY, West Virginia. 
 IRVINE L. LENROOT, Wisconsin. 
 BURTON L. FRENCH, Idaho. 
 WILLIAM L. LA FOLLETTE, Washington. 
 WILLIAM KENT, California. 
 NICHOLAS J. SINNOTT, Oregon. 
 JACOB JOHNSON, Utah. 
 CHARLES M. THOMSON, .Illinois. 
 JAMES WICKERSHAM, AlaskaV 
 
 D. C. Campbell, Clerk. 
 
 33&//5~£ 
 X 
 
 
GRAZING HOMESTEADS AND THE REGULATION OF GRAZING 
 ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 
 
 Committee on the Public Lands, 
 
 House of Representatives, 
 
 Tuesday, March 3, 1914.. 
 
 The committee was called to order at 10.30 a. m., Hon. Scott Ferris 
 (chairman) presiding. 
 
 The Chairman. It will be remembered that on February 10 a hear- 
 ing was ordered on the Fergusson grazing homestead bill, H. R. 9582, 
 and Mr. Kent's bill, H. R. 10539. The committee is therefore con- 
 vened this morning for the purpose of having hearings and gaining 
 all the light we can on this particular subject. Mr. Fergusson, will 
 you indicate to the committee what your preferences are and what 
 arrangements you desire in reference to this matter? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. The Kent bill, as now introduced in this Congress, 
 was up for hearing, and a very extensive hearing was had on it in 
 the Sixty-second Congress. That hearing was reported and is a mat- 
 ter of record and is accessible to everybody, as it is printed. After 
 that hearing I never heard any more about that bill. I have come to 
 Congress, after 30 years of life in New Mexico, with a thorough con- 
 viction of the necessity of conserving the public grazing lands of the 
 United States and of restoring to those lands their capacity to pro- 
 duce the meat that is so much desired now. This is a question that is 
 involved in what should be done to conserve the public grazing 
 capacity of the semiarid lands of 'the West. I had watched the prog- 
 ress of Mr. Kent's bill very carefully and took some part in asking 
 questions of the' secretary of the National Live Stock Association, 
 which, I understand, is in the nature of an association composed of 
 the smaller associations of the different States in New Mexico, Ore- 
 gon, California, Montana, and Utah — what are recognized as the 
 grazing States — and I came to the conclusion that a 640-acre grazing 
 homestead bill would solve that difficulty to a very great extent. 
 
 I speak of my State of New Mexico, because I have lived there 
 30 years and have been in almost every precinct in the State on mat- 
 ters of law and politics and in fishing and hunting trips and am 
 thoroughly well acquainted with the country there. When I first 
 went down there, there was starting a big new cattle ranch called 
 the Carrizozo Ranch. The Rocky Mountains are not great, large 
 mountains running northwest and southeast, but it is an immense' 
 elevated plateau making the backbone section many miles across, with 
 mountain ranges 50 and 60 miles in length and running generally 
 northwest and southeast. That is the Rock Mountain country. NeW 
 Mexico is just that sort of country. In between these different moun^ 
 tain ranges are great sweeps of valleys with the richest soil in the 
 world when there is water on it. Coming out of these mountain 
 
4 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 ranges are magnificent springs. Now and. then these springs will 
 appear in the center of one of thesei valleys, and they are from S 
 to 15 and 20 miles apart. This Carrizozo Range Co, owned by 
 parties in England, had about 10 magnificent springs from 3 to 1U 
 miles apart on both sides of this valley, a valley something like 75 
 miles long and from 10 to 20 miles wide. That company, by virtue 
 of owning that ranch, which they did by entering and patenting 40- 
 acre tracts, covering all the watering places— just enough to control 
 it— absolutely controlled all the grazing capacity of the public lands. 
 They did not want to own anything but enough to control the water, 
 so that they might keep anyone else out who wanted to come in 
 there for grazing or otherwise using the public land. 
 
 Mr. Rakek. Did not any of the water from the springs escape and 
 run over adjoining lands where other cattle could get at it? 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. Very little; and that accounts for the under- 
 ground lakes we have now. There are lakes formed, and I will de- 
 scribe one of these valleys to you as a sample. The range was nat- 
 urally overstocked, because when they got land hungry some entry- 
 man would come there and dig out a seep or indication of water place 
 and make a little spring that would give him enough water, and he 
 would get a 40-acre tract ; he would get it in some way, and he would 
 have a small herd. It led to a great many prosecutions for stealing 
 cattle. The little cattlemen and the big cattlemen were at war. I 
 have known where cowboys in a night would collect from 2,000 to 
 3,000 roving sheep in revenge and drive them off these public lands, 
 It is shown to me in this pamphlet of hearings on a similar bill in. 
 the Sixty-second Congress, and Mr. Kent's grazing bill last year 
 convinced me, and it will convince any one of you, that the grazing 
 capacity of the West — the meat-producing capacity of beef and mut- 
 ton — is not what it once was. The meat-producing capacity has 
 been reduced two-thirds by overgrazing the domain, and their argu- 
 ment is strong from their standpoint only that it is necessary to cut 
 up what is left of this grazing country into tracts from 10,000 to 
 50,000 acres each, and they will not overgraze theni but conserve 
 them and make a range of many thousand acres, and in a few years, 
 before the lease expires, they will produce three times as much beef 
 and mutton, because, instead of letting the range be overgrazed, 
 they will conserve the grass. 
 
 I am coming to the keynote of the situation, and the reason I 
 am fighting for this 640-acre grazing homestead bill is that it 
 will increase the growth of the population as well as restore the 
 grazing capacity. It will make homes for the land-hungry people 
 who are overcrowded in our cities. I am fighting for the growth 
 of my State, for a grazing country for small cattlemen and sheepmen. 
 Those are the people who will conserve the public domain, and 
 this English company that I speak of, with its 50,000 acres, say, has 
 a large advantage over the small cattlemen. I have introduced a 
 bill to allow each man to take a 640-acre grazing homestead. Imag- 
 ine one of these small men now who has been struggling in that 
 country against the great cattle and sheep herds, where murder ex- 
 isted and where there were felony charges and bitter prosecutions 
 and the shooting of sheep, and all that sort of thing. This conflict of 
 interest must be settled. Will it bring peace to adopt this fence 
 system? It will restore the capacity of the range lands to produce 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 5 
 
 meat, and not only let the native grasses grow clown there again — 
 where wheat and corn and such products could not grow at all — but, 
 in addition to that, it will promote the great work done by the Agri- 
 cultural Department. I have been in correspondence with Dr. Gal- 
 loway, and have to thank him for his fairness and breadth of view 
 in this matter. He has been sending out these new grass seeds ob- 
 tained from foreign countries, and I have been sending it to my 
 people, and I have had reports back something like this : " Do, for 
 God's sake, send me some of that sort of seed you sent John Smith 
 last year, because I watched what he did with it. The rainfall here 
 would not make the alfalfa grow, but the grass seed you sent has 
 been splendid." 
 
 Take the small man with his 640 acres. He will, in the first place, 
 have a garden. He will try all kinds of experiments, and he will cul- 
 tivate his garden, and he will save his seed, and next year will plant 
 more, and he will conserve the native grasses on his 640 acres. He 
 will try to produce more beef the next year than this by not over- 
 grazing. 
 
 But I am met with the statement from the opponents of this bill 
 that on 640 acres a man can not raise enough cattle and beef and 
 mutton to amount to anything. That is not our experience as to New 
 Mexico. I am not speaking of Nevada, where my friend Kent lives 
 and where he owns immense ranches. I am not speaking of that; I 
 am not acquainted there; but I am speaking of New Mexico, which 
 is more like the Panhandle of Texas in the eastern part. The Rocky 
 Mountains are farther over to the west. The eastern portion of New 
 Mexico slopes from Texas for more than a hundred miles inwardly 
 to the mountains proper. This is part of the country that supported 
 buffalo, and when I first went there I saw antelope — 500 to- 600 of 
 them in a bunch — scurrying through grama grass 6 and 8 inches 
 high. In regard to the rainfall, in about one out of three sea- 
 sons we have sufficient rain to make the grass luxuriant. 
 
 Mr. Raker. What is the "average rainfall in this region? 
 
 Mr. Fergttsson. I would not say exactly. I am talking of this 
 country in general ; some seasons are fine. 
 
 Now, the great question before this committee is to restore the 
 grazing capacity of such ranges. We have lost in New Mexico, as 
 estimated by my friends, not less than 5,000 people who had gone 
 there and tried to make homes on 160 or even 320 acres of this land. 
 On 320 acres they had to plow 80 acres, and thus destroyed that 
 much sod ; and if the rainfall was meager, they lost even the seed 
 planted. I see the room here full of men who represent the great 
 live-stock interests. The people I represent, the small cattlemen and 
 farmers, can not come here ; I represent such people. They can not 
 come, as they can not afford it; they have not the money. I have 
 seen men come into my town and get work breaking rocks on the 
 streets who had the year before a 160-acre farm 40 miles east of my 
 town, and had lost every cent they had. I have seen such a man 
 come to my town, leaving his wife and children on his entry, and 
 work on the streets to get a sack of flour and the things necessary 
 for bare existence to live until next year when he hoped it might 
 rain more. Now, before this committee, is this question, and we 
 may just as well understand it plainly. All agree that the produc- 
 
6 DISPOSITION OF GKAZING LANDS. 
 
 tion of the semiarid domain must be restored, and, if possible, 
 
 i ncr P 9. S P (l 
 
 Mr. Rakee. Your view is that the homestead, as provided in your 
 bill, would bring relief to the West? 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. I am not prepared to go into details at this tune, 
 but I will say this, that I have a provision in this bill that where 
 a man lost his 160 acres he can now take 640, and I think this com- 
 mittee will let him do it, because he is hanging around there now 
 on the verge of starvation. We talk about overcrowded cities, that 
 men ought to go to the country. You give them no chance when 
 they go to the country. You might say I am oversanguine about 
 what these 640 acres may do. I have a lot of letters and telegrams 
 here; I have been writing letters to men of intelligence who, I knew, 
 had been there for years to send me the results of their experiences 
 and observations as to whether 640 acres is enough to allow a man 
 to live when his crops do not grow, and whether he can on 640 acres 
 raise beef and mutton enough to live on when the dry years shut 
 him out from a crop; and I have a stack of letters and telegrams, 
 received this morning's mail, claiming that it can be done. 
 
 I want to quote Mr. Kent's position, so far as he stated it to me, 
 that there is no incompatibility at all between my 640-acre grazing 
 homestead and the, say, 50,000-acre ranch under his leasing bill. 
 Let a man get the 640 acres for his home, and he will conserve it 
 better than the man who has this 50,000-acre lease. Mr. Kent claims 
 that his bill provides that the homestead may be permanently estab- 
 lished within such leased area; that the homesteader may go and 
 locate his homestead within it if he wishes to. In the first place, 
 he has to fence his homestead with a fence, as I have heard it de- 
 scribed, horse high, bull strong, and pig tight, to keep the herds and 
 cattle surrounding his little homestead out; and he has to provide 
 his water.' Again, how is he going to get his children in and out 
 for school purposes ? Within a great ranch, say of 50,000 acres, the 
 cowboys will be guarding the herds of their master, who may be 
 living in Boston or England, and the herds will be roaming therein 
 all around the little homestead. 
 
 Another thing, we are gradually discovering that the dairy in- 
 dustry is very successful there. These men will improve their herds. 
 They will raise butter and cream and cheese. They are the workers; 
 they are struggling for their lives, for homes, for their wives and 
 children. This is a question we must face, whether we are going to 
 turn this great semiarid West over to the grazing of big cattle men 
 or whether you are going to help the small cattleman and farmers, 
 the poor devils who can not come here; but later I will show you 
 what they say in their petitions to me. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, to save time and in a spirit of fairness, I have 
 not the slightest criticism to make because these two bills have hear- 
 ings at the same time. I know I have to adapt myself to the great 
 crush of business in Congress, and it is a spirit of fairness on the part 
 of the chairman to give everyone a fair show that these bills, are 
 heard at the same time, and for the purpose of saving time I realize 
 we can get along very well in that way. 
 
 Mr. Rakee. May I ask you a question right there? 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. Kindly wait until I get through, Judge. From 
 all over the country men representing the large cattle and sheep in- 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 7 
 
 terests are here in person. None of the people praying for the graz- 
 ing homestead, as I said before, were able to come here on account of 
 difficulties or expense, and so I have only testimony in a rough docu- 
 mentary way, in the way of telegrams and petitions gotten up in their 
 rough way. My bill has been submitted to the Department of the 
 Interior and favorably reported. Mr. Kent's has not, unless it has 
 been the last day or so ; it had not been at the time I spoke of. But 
 in view of the fact that there are people here who have come a long 
 distance, who will be heard, and that they are under expense every 
 day they are here, I am perfectly willing— and I think the committee 
 will decide so ; because I acquiesce completely — that my evidence 
 should wait, and I am perfectly willing for Mr. Kent's people to be 
 heard and let these gentlemen here present their side of the case. 
 Now, I will be glad to answer any questions. 
 
 The Chairman. Just a moment. Your bill was introduced, I be- 
 lieve, December 1, 1913, and is H. B. 9582. Do you think it should 
 go in the record at this point ? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Yes, sir. My bill has been submitted to the de- 
 partment and the report proposes a substitute bill — not a change at 
 all of the general features, but as to such details as to whether a man 
 can take additional land anywhere — he has only 160 acres now — 
 or whether he can only take additional land contiguous to his first 
 entry. I think it would be well to put in the record my bill and the 
 substitute' bill, which I think the committee will surely amend, as 
 I want them to do, in certain little particulars. 
 
 The Chairman. Unless there is objection, the bill introduced by 
 Mr. Fergusson and the bill with some modifications suggested in the 
 report on that bill will both be incorporated in the record. How 
 about the report of the department? 
 
 Mr. Baker. It has been printed in these hearings before. 
 
 The Chairman. I think the report has considerable meat in it, 
 because it discusses the law and the necessity for the law. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I think so. 
 
 The Chairman. I think that report should go in right following. 
 
 Mr. Baker. That has already been printed in volume 1 of these 
 hearings. 
 
 The Chairman. That is true. 
 
 Mr. Baker. It is marked that way. 
 
 The Chairman. Unless there is objection, the report of the com- 
 mittee on these bills will be incorporated in the record at this point. 
 
 (The report and bills referred to are as follows:) 
 
 Department of the Interior. 
 
 Washington, January 30, 1911f. 
 Hon. Scott Ferris, 
 
 Chairman Committee on the Public Lands, 
 
 House of Representatives. 
 Sir: Referring to H. R. 6637 and H. R. 9582, bills designed "to modify tlie 
 homestead laws as to public-land areas to which present laws are deemed not 
 well adapted, I have to advise as follows : 
 
 The exisfing homestead laws of the United States show an evolution or adapta- 
 tion to conditions which developed, or were found to exist, as public-land settle- 
 ment and entry progressed. The general homestead laws carried into sec- 
 tions 2289-2291 of the Revised Statutes, and under which the public lands in 
 the Mississippi Valley and in other portions of the United States where soil 
 rainfall, and climate justified it, were entered, limited the maximum area which 
 might be entered and acquired to 160 acres. In irrigation projects constructed 
 
8 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 by the United States under the provisions of the act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat, 
 388), the area which might be entered was fixed by the Secretary or cne in- 
 terior through the establishment of farm units, each supposed to De sumLieni 
 for the support of a family, and in no case exceeding 160 acres, in ome .sec- 
 tions of the -country, particularly high plateaus of the intern ? ou °* a ™^?" e i; 
 there are areas which will not produce remunerative crops under me orcunary 
 methods of farming, but which will, through the soil-fallowing and moisture- 
 conservation methods of dry farming, produce profitable crops ol wneat ana 
 other grains. For this class of lands Congress enacted what are known as the 
 enlarged homestead laws of February 19, 1909 (35 Stat., 639), and June 17, 
 1910 (36 Stat., 531), under which not exceeding 320 acres may be entered, upon 
 condition of the cultivation to agricultural crops of a prescribed acreage 
 annually. ... 
 
 In the sand-hill country of western Nebraska, an area to which none of the 
 laws heretofore described were found adapted, Congress by the act of April 
 28, 1904 (33 Stat., 547), permitted the entry of not exceeding 640 acres of 
 land, upon condition that entrymen comply with the homestead laws as to 
 residence, improvement, and cultivation, and also place upon the land entered 
 permanent improvements of the value of not less than $1.25 per acre. The 
 settlement, home-making, and agricultural development which followed the 
 enactment of these laws is well known and need not be here described. There 
 remain, however, as indicated, vast areas of the public lands to which none 
 of the foregoing laws seem well adapted, and I am of opinion that the time has 
 arrived when a new form of homestead law should be enacted peculiarly 
 adapted thereto. The lands I have in mind, because of their arid or semiarid 
 character, or because of their location on mountain tops or sides, will not 
 produce agricultural crops for sale or exportation in sufficient quantities to 
 justify acquirement thereof and residence thereon under the existing laws. 
 They do, however, possess some value for grazing purposes and often include 
 tracts of greater or less extent upon which might be grown forage crops, such 
 as kaffir corn, milo maize, fodder, or other rough feed, of little value for sale 
 and transportation, but valuable for winter feed or for the fattening of range 
 stock. I believe that with this class of lands a homestead of 640 acres of land 
 would enable bona fide home seekers to establish and maintain homes for the 
 purpose of stock raising and for such farming operations as will enable him to 
 raise their own supply of rough feed for the stock pastured upon the remaining 
 lands entered or acquired. 
 
 Therefore, instead of enacting H. It. 6637 and H. K. 9582, I recommend the 
 enactment of a general measure applicable to lands of this character wherever 
 found in the public domain, and I inclose for your consideration and for intro- 
 duction, if you deem advisable, draft of bill designed to accomplish this result. 
 
 For the protection of the entrymen, as well as to prevent the entry of lands 
 susceptible of irrigation, containing valuable merchantable timber, or princi- 
 pally valuable for purposes other than those expressed in this act, it is pro- 
 vided that lands shall, before being subject to entry, be designated by the 
 Secretary of the Interior. All minerals within the land are reserved to the 
 United States, together with the right of qualified persons to prospect upon, 
 locate, and enter such deposits under such restrictions as will prevent the 
 destruction or injury of permanent improvements of the entrymen or patentees 
 or of crops upon their lands. This provision, like the requirement that the 
 lands shall first be designated for entry, will operate to protect entrymen from 
 protests and contests, either by individuals or the United States, because of 
 character of the land and which would otherwise result in cancellation of 
 entries made. Another reason for the reservation of the minerals is that this 
 law will induce the entry of lands in those_ mountainous regions of the United 
 States where deposits of minerals are known to exist or are likely to be found. 
 To issue unconditional patents for these comparatively large entries under the 
 homestead laws might withdraw immense areas from prospecting and mineral 
 development and without such reservation the disposition of these lands in the 
 mineral country under agricultural laws would be of doubtful advisability. 
 
 The farmer-stockman is not seeking and does not desire the minerals, his 
 experience and efforts being in the line of stock raising and farming, which 
 operations can be carried on without being materially interfered with by the 
 reservation of minerals and the prospecting for a removal of same from the 
 land. 
 
 Because of the fact that the lands designated will be principally valuable 
 for grazing and that the farming operations will be limited to the growing of 
 
DISPOSITION OF GKAZING LANDS. 9 
 
 forage, no specific requirement is made as to cultivation of the land, but in- 
 stead the entrymau is required to place permanent improvements upon the 
 land entered, tending to increase its value for stock-raising purposes, of not 
 less than $1.25 per acre, one-half thereof to be placed on the land, within three 
 years after entry. Those who have already entered lands of tbis character 
 under existing laws in amounts of less than 640 acres, or who have acquired 
 such limited areas by purchase from others, should, in my opinion, be placed 
 on an equal footing with those who make entry after the passage of this law, 
 and provision has therefore been made for the making of additional entries 
 for contiguous lands by such entrymen or landowners, upon condition that the 
 entrymau or landowner is the head of a family or has arrived at the age of 
 21 years and is a citizen of the United States and resides upon and occupies 
 the land entered or owned by him. In some cases it may not be possible~?or 
 such entrymen and landowners to exercise the right of additional entry because 
 of the fact that no vacant lands adjoin. In such cases the bill provides for 
 the surrender of the lands so held and owned to the United States, after which 
 the party so relinquishing or reconveying may make original entry under this 
 act of not exceeding 640 acres of land, upon which he must comply with all 
 the requirements of this act and of the homestend laws. 
 
 This provision will cause an adjustment of holdings in such areas, and the 
 lands so surrendered to the United States may in turn be entered by th<e 
 entrymen or owners of the adjoining tracts. In this connection, provision is 
 made for the exercise of a preference right of entry within 90 days after tb» 
 passage of the act by the entryman or owner of adjoining land, and provision 
 made that where vacant lands contiguous to the tracts owned and held by 
 two or more persons entitled to additional entry are not sufficient in amount 
 to enable each to secure the maximum amount to which entitled for an equita- 
 ble division of the lands applied for among the several entrymen or owners. 
 The purpose of the law being to secure the establishment of permanent homes 
 upon the land entered, the bill provides that the commutation provisions of 
 the homestead laws shall not apply to such entries. A bill introduced in the 
 House of Representatives (H. It. 6637) proposes to provide for a grazing home- 
 stead of not less than 640 acres and not exceeding 1,280 acres in area. The 
 bill herewith transmitted is not designed to apply to or provide for the entry 
 of lands suitable only for grazing. The maximum area permitted to be entered 
 thereunder, and even the maximum area prescribed in H. R. 6637, would 
 be wholly insufficient for the support of a homesteader and bis family upon 
 lands of that character. As already explained, the measure I have prepared 
 is believed to be adapted to lands which possess a grazing value, which also, 
 in part at least, may be utilized by the homesteader for the raising of forage 
 crops. It would be an exceedingly difficult and expensive task to attempt at 
 this time to classify and designate areas or blocks of land suitable only for 
 grazing and set them apart for disposition in areas sufficient for the support 
 of a family. Existing appropriations and the present force of the department 
 are wholly inadequate for this purpose. It is believed that for the present 
 this classification should be accomplished through the method already de- 
 scribed, whereby the lands will be open to disposition under the existing laws 
 and under the bill herein proposed, after which, with the information then 
 before it, Congress may enact such other and additional laws as may be de- 
 termined to be best adapted to the development and disposition of the remaining 
 areas suitable only for grazing. 
 
 As intimated at the beginning of this letter, I believe that this particular 
 bill will meet a situation not covered by any of the existing land laws and will 
 result in the early development of a very large area of our public lands, which 
 will otherwise remain in an uninhabited and unproductive condition. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 A. A. Jones, 
 First Assistant Secretary. 
 
 A BILL To provide for stock-raising homesteads. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
 of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the passage of this act 
 it shall be lawful for any person qualified to make entry under the homestead 
 laws of the United States to make a stock-raising homestead entry for not 
 exceeding six hundred and forty acres of unappropriated public land in reason- 
 
10 DISPOSITION OF GRACING LANDS. 
 
 ably compact form: Provided, however, That the land so entered shall there- 
 tofore have been designated by the Secretary of the Interior as stocK-raising 
 lfliids." 
 
 Sec. 2. That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized, on application 
 or otherwise, to designate as subject to entry under this net lands, me suirace 
 of which is in his opinion chiefly valuable for grazing or raising forage crops, 
 and which in his opinion do not contain merchantable timber and are not sus- 
 ceptible of irrigation from any known source of water supply. 
 
 Sec. 3. That any qualified homestead entryrnan may make entry under the 
 homestead laws of lands so designated by the Secretary of the Interior, accord- 
 ing to legal subdivisions, in areas not exceeding six hundred and forty acres, and 
 in compact form so far as may be subject to the provisions of this act, and 
 secure title thereto by compliance with the terms of the homestead laws: 
 Provided, That instead of cultivation as required by the homestead laws the 
 entryman shall be required to make permanent improvements upon the land 
 entered tending to increase the value of the same for stock-raising purposes, 
 of the value of not less than $1.25 per acre, and at least one-half of such im- 
 provements shall be placed upon the land within three years after the date of 
 entry thereof. 
 
 Sec. 4. That any homestead entryman of lands of the character herein de- 
 scribed, who has not submitted final proof upon his existing entry, shall have 
 the right to enter, subject to the provisions of this act, such an amount of 
 contiguous public lands designated under this act as shall not, together with 
 the amount embraced in his original entry, exceed six hundred and forty acres, 
 and residence upon and improvements made on the original entry shall be 
 credited on both entries, but the improvements must equal $1.25 for each acre 
 within the original and additional entries. 
 
 Sec. 5. That persons who have submitted final proof or acquired title to 
 lands of the character hereindescribed under the homestead laws, and who 
 own and reside upon the land so acquired, may, subject to the provisions of 
 this act, make additional entry for and obtain patent to contiguous public lands 
 designated for entry under the provisions of this act, which, together with the 
 area theretofore acquired under the homestead law, shall not exceed six hun- 
 dred and forty acres, on proof of expenditure on account of permanent im- 
 provements upon the original or additional entry of the required amount 
 reckoned on the area of both entries. 
 
 Sec. C. That any person who is the head of a family, or who has arrived at 
 the age of twenty-one yeais and is a citizen of the United States, who has 
 acquired title to lands of the character herein described, by purchase or under 
 agricultural public-land laws other than the homestead law, and who owns 
 and resides upon the lands so acquired, may, subject to the provisions of this 
 act. make additional entry for and obtain patent to contiguous public lands 
 designated for entry under the provisions of this act, which, together with the 
 area theretofore acquired and held, shall not exceed six hundred and forty 
 acres, and obtain patent therefor upon proof of the expenditure on account of 
 permanent improvements upon the land so owned, or the additional entry, of 
 the required amount reckoned on the area of all lands so acquired and held, 
 and upon proof that he has maintained residence upon either the privately 
 owned land or the land embraced within the additional entry for not less than 
 three years from and after the date of the additional entry. 
 
 Sec. 7. That any person who is the head of a family, or who has arrived at 
 the age of twenty-one years and is n citizen of the United States, who has 
 entered or acquired, under the homestead laws or otherwise, prior to the 
 passage of this act, less than six hundred and forty acres of land, and who 
 is unable to exercise the right of additional entry herein conferred because no 
 vacant lands adjoin the tract so entered or acquired, may, upon submitting 
 proof that he resides upon and has not sold or incumbered the land entered 
 or acquired, recoiivey to the United States the land so occupied and entered or 
 acquired, and in lieu thereof enter and acquire title to not exceeding six hun- 
 dred and forty acres of land designated under this act. but must show com- 
 pliance with all the provisions of the homestead law and of this act respecting 
 the new entry. 
 
 Sec. 8. That the commutation provisions of the homestead laws shall not 
 apply to any entries made under this act. 
 
 Sec 9. That any person who has made entry under the homestead laws 
 but from any cause has lost, forfeited, or abandoned the same, shall be 
 entitled to the benefits of this act as though such former entry had not been 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 11 
 
 made, and any person applying for a homestead under this act shall furnish a 
 description of his former entry: Provided, That the provisions of this section 
 shall not apply to any person Whose former entry was canceled for fraud. 
 
 Sec. 10. That any homestead entrymen or landowners who shall be entitled 
 to additional entry under this act shall have for ninety days after the desig- 
 nation under this act of lands contiguous to those entered or owned and oc- 
 cupied by him. the preferential right to make additional entry as provided in 
 this act : Provided, That where vacant lands contiguous to the lands of two or 
 more entrymen or landowners entitled to additional entries under this section 
 are not sufficient in amount and area to enable such entrymen to secure by addi- 
 tional entry the maximum amounts to which they are entitled, the Secretary of 
 the Interior is authorized to make an equitable division of the lands applied 
 for hereunder among the several entrymen or landowners, applying to exer- 
 cise preferential rights, such division to be in tracts of not less than forty 
 acres, and so made as to equalize as nearly as possible the area' which such 
 entrymen and landowners will acquire by adding the tracts embraced in addi- 
 tional entries to the lands originally held or owned by them : Provided further, 
 That where but one forty-acre tract of vacant land may adjoin the lands of two 
 or more entrymen or landowners entitled to exercise preferential right here- 
 under, the fact in question may be entered by the person who first submits 
 to the local land office his application to exercise said preferential right. 
 
 Sec. 11. That all entries made and patents issued under the provisions of 
 this act shall be subject to and contain a reservation to the United States of all 
 the cofl and other minerals in the lands so entered and patented together with 
 the right to prospect for, mine, and remove the same. The coal and other 
 mineral deposits in such lands shall be subject to disposel by the United States 
 in accordance with the provisions of the coal and mineral laud laws in force 
 at the time of such disposal. Any person qualified to locate and enter the coal 
 or other mineral deposits, or having the right to mine and remove the same 
 under the laws of the United States, shall have the right at all times to enter 
 upon the lands entered or patented, as provided by this act, for the purpose of 
 prospecting for coal or other mineral therein, provided he shall not injure,' 
 damage, or destroy the permanent improvements of the entryman or patentee, 
 and shall be liable to and compensate the entryman or patentee for all damages 
 to the crops on such lands by reason of such prospecting. Any person who has 
 acquired from the United States the coal or other mineral deposits in any such 
 land or the right to mine and remove the same, may reenter and occupy so 
 much of the surface thereof as may be required for all purposes reasonably 
 incident to the mining or removal of the coal or other minerals, (1) upon 
 securing the written consent or waiver of the homestead entryman or patentee ; 
 
 (2) upon payment of the damages to crops or other tangible improvements to 
 the owner thereof, where agreement may be had as to the amount thereof; or 
 
 (3) in lieu of either of the foregoing provisions, upon the execution of a good 
 and. sufficient bond or undertaking to the United States for the use and benefit 
 of the entryman or owner of the land, to secure the payment of such damages 
 to the crops or tangible improvements of the entryman or owner, as may be 
 determined and fixed in an action brought upon the bond in a court of compe- 
 tent jurisdiction against the principal and sureties thereon, such bond to be 
 in form and in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the Secre- 
 tary of the Interior and to be filed with and approved by the register and re- 
 ceiver of the local land office of the district wherein the land is situate, subject 
 to appeal to the Commissioner of the General Land Office: Provided, That all 
 patents issued for the coal or other mineral deposits herein reserved shall con- 
 tain appropriate notations declaring them to be subject to the provisions of 
 this act with reference to the disposition, occupancy, and use of the surface of 
 the land. 
 
 Sec. 12. That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to make all 
 necessary rules and regulations in harmony with the provisions and purposes 
 of this act for the purpose of carrying the same into effect. 
 
 [H. R. 9582, Sixty-third Congress, second session.] 
 
 A BILL To provide for the disposition of grazing lands under the homestead laws, 
 
 and for other purposes. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the passage of 
 this act it shall be lawful for any person qualified to make entry under the 
 homestead laws of the United States to make a grazing homestead entry for 
 
12 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 not exceeding six hundred and forty acres of unappropriated public land, in 
 reasonably compact form: Provided, hoivercr, That the lands so enterea snail 
 either be such lands as theretofore have been designated by the secretary 01 
 the Interior as "grazing homestead lands"; or such lands as shall tneretoiore 
 •have been designated by the Secretary of the Interior as not being, in ms opin- 
 ion, susceptible of successful irrigation, at a reasonable cost, from any Known 
 source of water supply, as provided in section one of an act entitled An act to 
 provide for an enlarged homestead." approved February nineteenth, nineteen 
 hundred and nine. . , 
 
 Sec. 2. That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized, on applica- 
 tion or otherwise, to designate lands, the surface of which is, in his opinion, 
 chiefly valuable for grazing, which do not contain merchantable timber and 
 which are not susceptible of irrigation at reasonable expense from any known 
 source of water supply, as grazing land subject to entry under this act. 
 
 Sec. 3. That any qualified homestead eutryman may make entry under the 
 homestead laws of lands so designated by the Secretary of the Interior, accord- 
 ing to legal subdivisions, in areas not exceeding six hundred and forty acres, 
 subject to the provisions of this act, and secure title thereto by compliance with 
 the terms of the homestead laws: Provided, That in lieu of cultivation, as re- 
 quired by the homestead laws, the entryman shall be required to make perma- 
 nent improvements upon the lands entered, tending to increase the value of the 
 same for agricultural and stock-raising purposes of the value of not less than 
 $1.25 per acre. And the inclosing by a substantial fence of the land so entered, 
 and the discovery of water in a well or wells within the boundaries of such 
 entry, shall be held to be permanent improvements under the terms of this 
 act. 
 
 Sec. i. That any homestead entryman of lands of the character herein de- 
 scribed, who has not submitted final proof upon his existing entry, shall have 
 the right to enter, subject to the provisions of this act, other lands contiguous 
 to, or within ten miles of his said homestead entry, which shall not, with the 
 lands so already entered, owned, and occupied by him, exceed the aggregate of 
 six hundred and forty acres; and residence continued and improvements made 
 upon the original homestead subsequent to the making of the additional entry, 
 shall be accepted as equivalent to actual residence and improvements made 
 upon the additional land so entered; but the improvements must equal $1.25 
 for each acre within the original and additional entries: Provided, That per- 
 sons who have acquired title to lands of the character herein described under 
 the homestead laws and who own and reside upon the lands so acquired, may, 
 subject to the provisions of this act. make additional entry for and obtain 
 patent to public lands, designated for entry under the_ provisions of this act, 
 contiguous to or within ten miles of their said original entry, which, together 
 with the area theretofore acquired under the homestead laws, shall not excceed 
 six hunched and forty acres, on proof of expenditures on account of permanent 
 improvements upon the original or additional entry of the required amount 
 reckoned on the area of both entries. 
 
 Sec 5. That any person who has made entry under the homestead laws, but 
 from any cause has lost, forfeited, or abandoned the same, shall be entitled to 
 t lie benefits of this act as though such former entry had not been made, and 
 any person applying for a homestead under this act shall furnish the descrip- 
 tion and date of his former entry: Provided. That the provisions of this sec- 
 tion shall not apply to any person whose former entry was canceled for fraud. 
 
 Sec C. That all entries made and patents issued under the provisions of this 
 act shall be subject to and contain a reservation to the T'nited States of all the 
 minerals and coal in the lands so entered and patented, together with the right 
 to prospect for, mine, and remove the same. The mineral and coal deposits in 
 such lands shall be subject to disposal by the United States in accordance with 
 the provisions of the mineral and coal land laws in force at the time of such 
 disposal. Any person qualified to locate and enter mineral or coal deposits, or 
 having the right to mine and remove the same under the laws of the United 
 States, shall have the right at all times to enter upon the lands entered or 
 patented, as provided by this act, for the purpose of prospecting for minerals 
 or coal therein, upon the approval by the Secretary of the Interior of a bond or 
 undertaking to be filed with him as security for the payment of all damages to 
 the crops and improvements on such lands by reason of such prospecting. Any 
 person who has acquired from the United States the mineral or coal deposits in 
 any such land, or the right to mine and remove the same, may reenter and 
 occupy so much of the surface thereof as may be required for all purposes 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 13 
 
 reasonably incident to the mining and removal of the mineral or coal, upon 
 payment of the damages caused thereby to the owner thereof, or upon giving 
 a good and sufficient bond or undertaking to be approved by the court in an 
 action instituted in any competent court to ascertain and fix said damages 
 
 Sec. 7. That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to make all 
 necessary rules and regulations in harmony with the provisions and purposes 
 of this act for the purpose of carrying the same into effect. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. My bill does not specifically provide that a home- 
 steader may go into the forest reserves, as they exist now, but I 
 think that is covered in by law already, if I am not mistaken. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You think it is what? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I think that is corered in a way. But in practical 
 operation these forest reserves, so called, many of them containing 
 hundreds of thousands of acres, without any' timber on them, are 
 now leased generally to the big cattle and sheep owners, and the 
 same difficulty with the homesteader going in there has existed, as 
 I pointed out, in these grazing reserves. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I would like to say this: That I understood this 
 hearing was set for the Fergusson bill. The record so shows, and I 
 do not believe that the' committee ought to confuse the idea of the 
 homestead bill, grazing or otherwise, with the questions of leasing 
 the remaining part of the public domain to large stock interests, and 
 while I do not say it in any spirit of reflection at all, I can not help 
 but feel that the question of stock interests, being brought in here 
 in connection with the homestead grazing bill, is for the purpose of 
 confusing the committee's mind in regard to the question of dis- 
 posing of the legitimate homestead bill or the bill in question, be- 
 cause if you are going to look up and investigate whether or not we 
 should digress from the policy of 60 years, or a 160-acre homestead, 
 then to a 320-acre homestead, and then to the reclamation home- 
 stead, which would be divided into units of 120 acres to 160 acres, 
 and now whether we believe, in the condition of the remaining 
 public land, that we had better use it by making it 6.40 acres and 
 not requiring cultivation of it at all, but only part of it. and then 
 have improvements placed on it and the balance for the ranch- 
 man's stock, as whether this is advisable, I would say that I do not 
 believe that ought to be connected with or made a part of it, or 
 covered up by a question of leasing the remaining public land, and 
 I do not think it presented the matter to the committee right. We 
 might be in hearty accord on the question of increasing the home- 
 stead proposition, but the question of a grazing homestead — in other 
 words, not a homestead, but turning over all the remaining public 
 land and permitting it to be fenced, which this bill does — is a con- 
 fusion, and I can not help but believe it is for the very purpose of 
 confusing, and, therefore, so far as this hearing is concerned, upon 
 the other matter I shall object. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Let this be a hearing on Mr. Kent's bill. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Very well, if that is your view. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. That is what I meant to suggest; not that there 
 is any postponment of mine, but mine is documentary, and can be 
 put in later. 
 
 The Chairman. I think it would be fair to say for the benefit of 
 the people, in view of Judge Fergusson's generosity, that after the 
 conference that Mr. Fergusson and Mr. Kent had, it was agreed be- 
 tween them that the course pursued, was agreeable to both. There 
 
14 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 has been no effort on the part of the committee, and certainly not 
 on the part of the chairman, who is keeping an open mind on both 
 these questions, to shelve anybody. The thought was, Judge Kaker, 
 as you will recall, at the time this hearing was set— and it has just 
 been reiterated by Mr. Fergusson — that it was in the interest of 
 economy of time to allow these men to go on, thinking it would 
 economize the time of the witnesses and of the committee, and after 
 these gentlemen have gotten through with their arguments and after 
 they have retired, I think you, Judge Raker, will recall that the 
 committee will have to thresh out all these questions in our own way, 
 and, now, if we can pursue the course of simply gaining all the in- 
 formation that is possible, and in the last analysis judge, the case 
 after the testimony is all in, I believe, that would be the proper 
 proceeding. With that in mind, do you think of anything further to 
 present at this time, Mr. Fergusson ? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Let this be a hearing on the Kent bill, supple- 
 mental to the hearing held in 1912. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And your bill not to be considered at this time? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Would not the statement made by the chairman to 
 the stenographer at the opening of this hearing contain a clear idea of 
 the situation, and the gentlemen here this morning are here in the 
 interest of the Kent bill. My recollection is that it does. 
 
 The Chairman. I really have not in mind just what I said. I really 
 do not recall having said that particular thing, but I do not think 
 it is a matter of great consequence. We invited the gentlemen to 
 come here to be heard on these two bills, and it has been agreeable to 
 Mr. Fergusson and Mr. Kent to have this course pursued, and, as 
 I now understand you, it is your thought that your opening state- 
 ment should stand, you retaining the right to offer anything later 
 on, and that Mr. Kent may put on his witnesses and proceed in that 
 way. Am I right? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I acquiesced with the fair disposition suggested 
 by the gentleman, and in view of the fact that these witnesses are 
 here in person at their own expense, I agree perfectly with the pro- 
 gram suggested. 
 
 The Chairman. With that in mind, Mr. Kent, will you make such 
 statement as you desire and afterwards call such witnesses as you 
 wish to be heard. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM KENT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I will 
 state now what I have stated before, that I am interested, as Mr. Fer- 
 gusson is. in the settlement of the western country by those who wish 
 to make their homes there. The question arises as to what would 
 constitute a practical grazing homestead. If in certain parts of the 
 country, as in parts of the country where Mr. Fergusson resides, 640' 
 acres or 1,280 acres will grant permanence of livelihood to a family 
 through an average of the years and would not condemn that family 
 to hopeless misery by the impossibility of it making a living on such 
 a tract, I should stand strong with Mr. Fergusson for such a bill. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 15 
 
 This bill of mine, so called, has been under construction for some 
 nine years. It is not definitely formed in the interest of any class 
 of our people; that is, of any financial classification of our people. 
 It is definitely formed in the interest of all the people. It, to my 
 mind, designates the only way whereby proper utilization can be 
 made and proper conservation established over a very large part of 
 the public domain of the United States, which part of the public 
 domain remains public domain largely because it is unfit for home- 
 steading. It can not be brought under any of our present laws. 
 Most of it is practically valueless. Its value depends on the forage 
 it will supply to stock. The question next comes up as to how that 
 forage can be conserved, how it may be increased so as to produce 
 more stock ; and that through all time, not for a brief period of years 
 to be followed by a desert void of food for domestic animals. 
 
 I have had a large experience in the grazing country. I have been 
 over a great part of it, riding over much of it on horseback. I have 
 put in 25 years in the stock-growing business and claim to know 
 something about it. 
 
 The idea of our homestead laws was, of course, that homesteads 
 should be given to persons who could make a living out of 160 acres 
 of agricultural lands, and then there came the 320-acre farms, and 
 then, subsequently, of course, the irrigation reclamation schemes. We 
 have never coherently attacked the grazing proposition. The strife 
 and the lawlessness has only been one side of the difficulty throughout 
 all this ranch country. A serious matter to all the people of the 
 country is the destruction of the grass. Men having no certainty of 
 tenure, rustling to get what they could in the way of forage, have put 
 their sheep and cattle on grass before it was matured, receiving little 
 or no benefit from it, and tramping it out. A large portion of the 
 country with which I am familiar is practically ruined, at least for 
 the time being. It will probably take four or five years to get it 
 back to a productive capacity. To say that the meat production of 
 the range country can be increased 25 per cent is minimizing the 
 result that can accrue ; it can be increased 50 per cent. 
 
 This bill goes along the same lines as are followed in the present 
 grazing regulation in the national forest, and every man who knows 
 anything about the forest regulations and the forest reserves knows 
 it is the practice to prefer the small man wherever he appears, if he 
 has some responsibility, if he has any chance to carry his stock dur- 
 ing that portion of the year when it is not in the forest reserve. The 
 man who is known as a tramp, who has no homestead and no land, 
 who wanders through the country taking a chance, is more or less 
 of a nuisance. He pays no taxes, and that man does not receive the 
 benefit that the other small man would get in the forest reserve. I 
 believe that is a proper rule. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. If, in addition to that, he has a wife and children, 
 do you not think he should be entitled to consideration ? 
 
 Mr. Kent. I think he should be entitled to the consideration we 
 give him under this bill. 
 
 Mr. Church. Has not the practice of the forest reserve heretofore 
 been that they would not permit him to locate there unless the man 
 was the owner of stock on the reserve ? 
 
 Mr. Kent. I guess that is true. I know they have twice cut down 
 my allotment of stock for the benefit of the small man, but have re- 
 
16 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 fused to recognize tramps— men who have no place where the y^ 
 take care of sheep in the winter. Having no location and no piace, 
 they discriminate against them; and I think it is proper that .they 
 discriminate always in favor of the smaller man, who is responsible 
 and taxable. . . , •. _ . 
 
 In talking about this small-man proposition, we must get down to 
 what we call the economic unit of stock production. Granting that 
 by some provisions for leasing or otherwise that Congress has con- 
 ceived that that production is to be increased, we come to the propo- 
 sition of who is the man who can most economically produce meat? 
 And in this consideration I would not gainsay Mr. Fergusson s prop- 
 osition of joint maintenance of agriculture and stock, because that is 
 another proposition; but in the straight stock business, practically 
 without agriculture other than cutting a little hay for winter, I 
 believe it has been demonstrated that the small man with enough 
 cattle to support his family, which has been in the past not less than 
 300 cattle, or a man with sheep, with not less than 3,000 or 4,000, 
 can make a living; and, moreover, that he is subject to less loss than 
 the bigger man. I have had all sorts of trouble in my absence from 
 my business in the West with sheep herders and cowboys. If a man 
 is not on the ground and does not have a good manager, things are 
 apt to go to wreck and ruin. 
 
 Sheep herders may not care very much whether they lose sheep or 
 not ; and with cattle, the men may be careless about the branding, 
 about looking up stock and getting it in. Your stock tends to stray 
 farther away, and the losses in both cattle and sheep under hired help 
 are very much larger than they are where the individual has his live- 
 . lihood depending upon it and can get over the ground. For that 
 reason, irrespective of the other reasons, I believe in the theory of 
 the smaller herds. In addition to which there is the more vital ques- 
 tion of the development of the country through its use by more men, 
 with more families, and a larger and a better citizenship. So I am 
 in favor of anything that can help out the small man. 
 
 As I understand, under this bill the land has to be classified by 
 the mere act of specific withdrawals. That would exclude from 
 leasing land subject to any one of the methods of entry and of all 
 land reasonably capable of producing crops, from the operation of 
 this law. 
 
 Now, if we get down to fee simple or private ownership of lands 
 unfit for cultivation, if we try to deliver title to those lands, enor- 
 mous tracts will be required, and I do not believe it is the policy of 
 the Government to pass title to pastoral lands at prices now obtain- 
 able and in adequate tracts, for the simple reason that we can not 
 absolutely determine that such lands may not be fit at some future 
 time for higher purjioses. 
 
 This bill provides for leases not to exceed 10 years. That is short 
 enough time for the roughest areas. Among the many troubles that 
 come to the sheep man are the coyotes. It has been found by the 
 Forest Service and by others that coyotes can be kept out of given 
 areas by the construction of proper fences. These fences are justified 
 only where the feed is abundant or where, through cooperative work, 
 a large number of the owners of adjacent tracts can act together, or 
 where the Government, as it might under this bill, could endeavor to 
 take upon itself the construction of fences to protect an entire region. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GBAZING LANDS. 17 
 
 « 
 
 In regard to this coyote proposition, I want to say my sheep losses 
 from coyotes have in some years exceeded 6 per cent. Protection 
 against them can be often afforded by fences. 
 
 Mr. Graham. How high does the fence need to be? 
 
 Mr. Kent. You need a mesh wire about 3£ feet and then some 
 barbed wire on top. Mr. Graves can give you all the detail in regard 
 to the experience of the Forest Service. 
 
 Another matter in this proposition of fencing : It make little dif- 
 ference in regard to cattle whether they are fenced or not so far as the 
 destruction of forage is concerned. They scatter about and do not 
 have to be herded. The benefit accruing to the cattle industry by 
 fencing is to keep them from drifting beyond the reach of their 
 owners — to keep them from getting off into a foreign country — and 
 the cattle that are farthest from home are always the cattle chiefly 
 preyed upon by any one who wants beef without paying for it. Such 
 people pick out stray brands, and the mere fact of cattle getting far 
 from home and being lost is due to lack of fencing and due to present 
 laws, which prevent any fencing of the public domain. 
 
 The question of fencing for sheep is another proposition, for when 
 sheep are herded they bunch together continuously instead of sepa- 
 rating, and they do a vast amount of destruction to the grass by 
 tramping close together and raising and cutting the ground to pieces 
 and destroying the feed. So that fencing is often a great economic 
 benefit. There is no question about that. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Would a question bother you right there? 
 
 Mr. Kent. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Do you know any place where sheep are not herded, 
 even where the parties own their own lands in California ? 
 
 Mr. Kent. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Where? 
 
 Mr. Kent. In Mendocino and Sonoma Counties they run over 
 1,000 to 1,500 and sometimes 2,000 in a pasture. Those are two 
 counties I know about. The country from time to time was invaded 
 by coyoites, and they so disturbed those unherded sheep that the 
 owners paid as high as $35 a head as bounty. 
 
 Mr. Raker._ There are no coyotes there now ? 
 
 Mr. Kent. They are practically eliminated. There used to be 
 men there who did little else than hunt coyotes. 
 
 Mr. Graham. I should think an enterprising fellow would go 
 hunting coyotes. 
 
 Mr. Kent. I do not want to take up the time of the committee any 
 more than is necessary. I have tried to show the necessity in the 
 interest of all the people of this country in preserving the forage and 
 increasing the forage in the grazing areas unfit for agriculture. 
 I have tried to show that what we want is the small stockman who 
 is self-supporting. We do not want the small stockman who is 
 starving his family to death. We want settlement throughout the 
 semiarid and the arid West and law and order. We wish to have 
 knowledge of where a man is going to obtain feed for his stock, 
 and a moderate certainty, which is now an uncertainty, of being able 
 to turn out a certain amount of stock per year without unnecessary 
 losses; and I am not hostile — I am in facor of the homestead that 
 
 35074— pt 1—14 2 
 
18 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 can be self-supporting, self-sustaining; and wherever anyone can 
 show me a place where a man can support a family on a homesteaa 
 without curtailing the proper use of forage I shall be glad to lavor 
 him. I shall be glad to favor a measure to so classify the lands mat 
 the highest use in the aggregate may be obtained. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. About classifying lands, are you acquainted with 
 the Mimbres "Valley ? 
 
 A£r "Kent Y"gs sir 
 
 Mr! Fergusson.' Are you acquainted with the present conditions in 
 that valley? 
 
 Mr. Kent. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Do you know that it is filled up with a hundred 
 prosperous farms of 100 acres each, some of them as small as 40 
 acres, that can support a family? 
 
 Mr. Kent. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Do you know the reason for that is that they dis- 
 covered an underground lake where they sink wells 60 feet deep and 
 reach water in that way? 
 
 Mr. Kent. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Do you not know that this classification you speak 
 of would have prevented this notable agricultural demonstration if 
 made 15 years ago? 
 
 Mr. Kent. -Excuse me. I said it would be wrong to convey by 
 patent large tracts of land that in the future might be used for so 
 much higher purposes, and that if this bill had been operative 20 
 years ago or 15 years ago the leases would have been terminated, 
 the lands reclassified, and the property would have been dedicated, 
 as it is now, to homesteaders. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Do you think homesteaders would have gone into 
 a 50,000-acre leased tract and made the same success? 
 
 Mr. Kent. I do not think there would have been any 50,000-acre 
 tracts. There were homesteaders there before who got water from 
 the stream above. 
 
 Mr. Church. Are the forest reserves touched in this provision? 
 
 Mr. Kent. No, sir; they are not disturbed in any way. Finally, 
 the idea of this bill was to put the handling of the grazing and the 
 other features relating to grazing product, in such part of the pub- 
 lic domain as would be touched by grazing leases, into the charge of 
 the Agricultural Department. After conference with Secretary 
 Lane, he informed me he had no objection to that procedure. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like here in my remarks to intro- 
 duce a statement by Mr. Thornber, of Arizona, a scientific man who 
 has done great work experimenting with grasses and grazing, and 
 I should like Mr. Heard, of Arizona, to make in his time a further 
 brief statement concerning Mr. Thornber and what he has done and 
 what he has stood for. 
 
 THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THE KENT GRAZINC BILL TO WESTERN AND SOUTH- 
 WESTERN GRAZING RANGES. 
 
 Prof. J. J. Thornber. Mr. President and members of the American National 
 Live Stock Association, my studies with grazing plants on the grazing ranges 
 have brought me into close contact with the stockman. I have the greatest 
 sympathy for him and his business. I am not a stockman, but, gentlemen, I 
 will fight for a stockman every time, and I will trust to his being right. My 
 interest in grazing plants led me to investigate other phases of the grazing 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 19 
 
 problem, thanks to this American National Live Stock Association. I have 
 come to appreciate to the depths of my heart some of the fundamental princi- 
 ples which underlie this grazing problem of the western prairies hills and 
 mountains. Stockmen of the West have been asking for some kind of range 
 administration for upward of 13 years, or ever since I have known them. 
 Unfortunately, they could not agree in the beginning upon a measure that 
 would work good for all concerned. The little stockman was afraid of the 
 big stockman, the big stockman was afraid of the drv farmer, and I guess the 
 sheepman was afraid of everybody. We ought to congratulate ourselves to-day 
 that we are united in our efforts and that we are committed to a definite policy. 
 That policy is intelligentM-ange administration. I need not tell you that for 
 more than 20 years the carrying capacity of the western grazing ranges has 
 been decreasing. I know that considerable areas nf the better class of these 
 lands have been homesteaded and brought under cultivation. In the aggregate, 
 these cultivated lands carry as much stock now, along with the production of 
 some agricultural crops, as they did in their uncultivated state, so that the 
 decrease in beef cattle in the United States has been due to range deterioration 
 and not to the selection of homestead lands, as some have thought. 
 
 This decrease in beef cattle has taken place mainly during the last 10 years, 
 while population has ever been on the increase. I seldom quote statistics, be- 
 cause they are tedious and are apt to be misleading ; but I can not refrain from 
 mentioning some here. The proportion of beef cattle to population in this 
 country in 1890 was 84 per cent, while in 1910 it was 75 per cent. At this rate, 
 can any of you tell me what it will be in 1920? Since 1910 the population has 
 Increased faster and the ratio of decrease in beef cattle has been greater. In 
 the last 7 years the value of cattle in the United States, notwithstanding their 
 decrease in numbers, has increased $129,000,000, and the export of meat prod- 
 ucts has fallen from $72,000,000 to almost nothing. It is easy from this to see 
 why the price of beef has been going up. You do not have to be a political 
 economist to find that out. 
 
 Gentlemen, we have here in a condensed form the situation of the country 
 as relates to its beef supply. Bad as your lot has been on the open range— 
 and I appreciate something of your difliculties— the lot of the consumer is worse 
 to-day, and it may be worse yet in three or five years. This decrease in the 
 number of beef cattle in the country has to be stopped. It is a matter of na- 
 tional importance. Instead of a decrease there must be an actual increase in 
 the number of beef cattle, and this increase must keep pace with the increase in 
 population. I am not now speaking of meat supplies for foreign markets. I 
 have in mind home consumption only. You know, various would-be philosophers 
 come forward from time to time with suggestions that we substitute for beef 
 horse flesh, goat meat, poultry, fish, and even peas and beans; but not any one 
 of these, nor all of them combined, can take the place of beef as a staple food. 
 We must have beef. Now, what is the simplest and most reasonable solution 
 of this problem? I answer: Grow more beef, and grow it on these western 
 ranges. There is not any other place to grow it, and. besides, there is not a 
 thing that we can do half so well. I regard this as the only possible solution 
 of the problem of the scarcity of beef. Think of the absurdity of a great agri- 
 cultural nation like this, in the prime of its youth, calling upon Australia and 
 Argentina for its meat supplies. I said to you last year at Phoenix that the 
 western grazing ranges were the pastures of the Nation, and we must make 
 them so. 
 
 Now, with high prices for meat and this shortage of beef staring us in the 
 face, let us look for just a moment at the awful condition which confronts the 
 stockman to-day, with free and unrestricted grazing. He can not fence part of 
 the public domain. No. no. that is criminal. He is not allowed to count upon 
 his grazing resources one month in advance. That is bad business manage- 
 ment, due to our Government's negligence. If he stacks up feed on the public . 
 domain for a famine period, develops additional water supplies, improves the 
 quality of his herds, eradicates poisonous weeds, seeks to improve the carrying 
 capacity of the land, or tries to prevent erosion or cutting and overgrazing, he 
 does so at his own expense, and his neighbors may derive as much benefit from 
 this work as he without sharing any of the outlay. Gentlemen, I call this rank 
 injustice. I condemn it. If the stockman has water and grass on the public 
 domain for a thousand cattle, no matter how long he has been a resident, 
 another stockman, and perhaps a nonresident, can put down there beside these 
 cattle another thousand head of stock, and the resident stockman can have no 
 
20 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 recourse. He must share, and share alike, his losses with the intruder, regard- 
 less of his improvements and his foresight. , 1T „.p<«t rioted grazing has 
 Besides this injustice to the individual stockman urn est noted J^.^ ^ 
 done infinitely greater harm to our country "***£*" the best and most 
 suited in overstocking and overgrazing, and in des .^°y n ?S Quality and qU an- 
 nutritious grasses on the ranges, thereby reducing »»* ^ *™ aI Suowlble the 
 tity of the remaining forage from year to year. It also ^^'Xctlon and 
 alternate grazing and resting of areas tommnvztvirtjee&wri^^M 
 it has beer! directly responsible in the past, and it is no less responsibly i to day 
 for the heavv losses of stock from starvation on the ranges In Anzona more 
 than three-quarters of a million head of cattle, to say nothing of sheep have 
 perished from famine in 30 years' time. I condemn free grazing as unsafe for 
 that one awful truth alone. 
 
 Gentlemen, here we have the reason for the greatly lessened carrying ca- 
 pacity of your langes, and likewise the reason for the decrease in numbers of 
 beef cattle on these ranges. Are you surprised that there is a shortage of beef 
 animals, that prices for meat are high, and that we have nearly stopped export- 
 ing meat supplies, and have begun to import tliemV Here is the key to the 
 whole situation. This condition has been going on for more than 20 years, 
 and it will continue until we get some relief from Congress. Think of the 
 awful losses of stock on the ranges, of the devastation that has come to the 
 country, and of the wanton waste of natural resources! 
 
 The operation of a Federal lease law similar to the Kent bill, granting to 
 stockmen, both sheep and cattle growers, reasonable protection, would com- 
 pletely change this condition. Confidence in the grazing industry would be 
 restored. The grazing ranges throughout the West would carry far more stock 
 than they do now, and carry them safely, and beef cattle, instead of decreas- 
 ing, would increase in numbers. I believe every practical stockman here will 
 tell you that he can carry more animals on his range if he can have something 
 to say about its management. I know he will say that his annual losses on 
 ranges would be less if he could know his grazing resources six months in 
 advance. I am sure his interest in his business will be infinitely greater if 
 he can lease ranges for a period of years, with the privilege of fencing them. 
 
 During the last six years the American National Live Stock Association has 
 devoted endless time and energy to secure the passage of a bill by Congress 
 regulating, through Federal control, grazing on the unappropriated public lands. 
 It is a compliment to the ability and integrity of this great association that the 
 bill which it originally adopted at its meeting in the city of Denver six years 
 ago, and which has been before Congress ever since under one name or another, 
 was so well drawn in its fundamental features, as also in most of its details, as 
 to be practically unassailable, even by it occasional opponents. You stockmen 
 should all get copies of this bill and study it carefully. If it meets with your 
 approval, or if you believe that your present unsatisfactory condition will be 
 improved by this bill, write your Congressman now and tell him to get inter- 
 ested in it. 
 
 Among other things, this bill proposes to give stockmen permission to lease 
 and fence portions of the public range for a period of 10 years, to encourage 
 development and improvement of these grazing lands. It gives preference to 
 homesteaders and present occupants of the range who have provided water and 
 other improvements on the public lands. It guarantees to stockmen a reason- 
 able pro rata value for improvements made on the land. It specifies that where 
 improvements to the extent of $100, including buildings, corrals, reservoirs, 
 wells, etc., have been made on a 40-acre tract, such land shall not be open to 
 settlement during the period of the lease without the consent of the owner of 
 these improvements. It provides for a maximum grazing fee of 4 cents per acre 
 and a minimum fee of one-half cent per acre. While this is what the stockman 
 pays for the grass, he gets in addition value received for protection in his busi- 
 ness. It puts, as far as possible, the stockman's industry on a moderately safe 
 basis. He is not looking for a famine. At the same time this bill guards care- 
 fully the rights of bona fide settlers to homestead lands for agricultural pur- 
 poses and makes provision for them to graze their domestic animals on adjacent 
 public lands. Best of all, it secures a large amount of local government in the 
 administration of these grazing lands. I believe it provides, as far as can be 
 seen in advance, for every other legitimate feature connected with the public 
 lands. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 21 
 
 It has been suggested that the minimum rate of one-half cent per acre is too 
 much for the poorest class of grazing lands in these Western States. I am free 
 to admit that there are bodies of land in Arizona and New Mexico that under 
 present conditions are not worth one-half cent per acre for grazing purposes, 
 and I have no doubt but that this is true in Colorado and other Western States. 
 I believe, therefore, it would be well to omit any mention of a minimum charge. 
 I know this would help out very much the wpolgrowers in Arizona. 
 
 Gentlemen, before I leave this bill I want to note a few of the advantages to 
 stockmen of leasing and fencing over open range grazing, which will result from 
 this bill. (1) To begin with, stockmen will be able to handle the public range 
 very much as they would their own land. They will know in advance how 
 many animals they can feed, and how many to carry over. Yearling steers and 
 2-year-olds can be kept for 3 and 4 year olds. (2) The cost of handling: 
 stock and the losses under fenced conditions are lesa than on the open range. 
 
 (3) During prolonged droughts weak and emaciated animals can be kept nearer 
 supplies of feed and water ; likewise better care can be given to the calf crop. 
 
 (4) On inclosed ranges the improvement of herds by breeding with high-grade 
 animals is practicable.. (5) There is no incentive to overstock protected ranges, 
 since every man gets all that is coming to him all the time. (6) On protected 
 ranges it is practicable to carry on a systematic alternate grazing and resting 
 of the plants. This makes reseeding possible under natural conditions, and it 
 is absolutely necessary for range improvement on a practical scale. 
 
 Quite recently two other bills, looking toward a solution of the grazing prob- 
 lem on the public lands, have been introduced in Congress. One of these, known 
 as the Gronna bill, provides for leasing of the public grazing lands in suitab'e 
 areas for periods of five years, during which time such land shall not be subject 
 to homestead entry for agricultural purposes. After this lease has expired, the 
 land may be homesteaded for limited time by bona-fide settlers. Failing in this, 
 it is again leased for a similar five-year period. This bill is dangerous, because 
 it practically prohibits permanent settlement of the land, and this settling of 
 the land is the identical thing that we most of all desire and strive for. I be- 
 lieve that such a bill is unwise, and I feel assured that Congress could not be 
 induced to pass it. 
 
 The other bill is known as the Mondell bill. This is an attempt at long range 
 to provide in the West a grazing homestead of sufficient size to support an ordi- 
 nary family. The minimum entry for this shall be 640 acres, and the maximum 
 entry 1,280 acres, or two sections. The lands shall be valuable chiefly for 
 grazing, and shall not contain commercial timber nor be susceptible of irriga- 
 tion from known water supplies. There is little grazing land in the western 
 and southwestern States that has a stock-carrying capacity ^uch that even four 
 sections of it would maintain a family in ordinarily comfortable circumstances. 
 To make this bill acceptable, the entries must be much larger, and the lands 
 should first of all be classified carefully. This could be done best after the 
 lands had been under lease for 10 years, as provided for in the Kent grazing 
 bill. Again, in Arizona and New Mexico it is not possible to say at this time 
 whether or not land is susceptible of irrigation from one or more of the pro- 
 posed irrigation projects. Therefore while this bill has a splendid object in 
 view, it is in advance of the times, and it is not practicable now. 
 
 Now, with the Kent bill in mind, concerning what the stockman may do with 
 a piece of grazing range under his control, I invite your attention briefly to 
 some things that have actually been done in a practical way in range improve- 
 ment in Arizona. Through cooperation with the Department of Agriculture 
 and the Department of the Interior, the Arizona Agricultural Experiment Sta- 
 tion obtained permission to inclose with fence an area of 50 square miles in 
 a diversified grazing conntrv. This land varied in altitude from 2,900 feet to 
 nearly 4,800 feet, and in rainfall from 12 inches to about 20 inches. The land 
 is typical, in a general way, of large areas of the better class of grazing lands 
 in Arizona. With the exception of the upper part of it, which consists of foot- 
 hills, it was extremely badly overgrazed. The lower one-third of it was also 
 badly eroded. It had been in this condition for at least 15 years, being grazed 
 by sheep, horses, and cattle. When the fence was constructed there was not 
 enough grass anywhere on it to feed a horse, and when I drove the old gray" 
 university horse across it to study the grass I had to carry baled alfalfa for my 
 horse. There were occasional, closely grazed, half-dead bunches of perennial 
 grasses scattered here and there over the surface, and some grass, principally 
 black grama, among the shrubs and cacti. Of course, there was six-weeks 
 grass, which never amounts to very much. Altogether, the proposition was S 
 
22 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 very uninviting one. In fact, after one year we issued « statement warning 
 people not to expect too much from the work. _ ~„f„_-j 
 
 With protection, the bunches of grass grew up, increased in size, and matured 
 seed. This dropped and found its way into the ground without any assistance, 
 though I think that harrowing the surface would have been a good thing after 
 the first seed crop was matured. The next year there were anywhere from 5 
 to 25 seedling plants for every old one. The old plants continued growing and 
 seeded heavily, and, likewise, the young plants matured a crop of seed, so that 
 now there was a good amount of seed for further growth. You know in our 
 southwestern country, where there is plenty of warmth, perennial grasses will 
 mature a crop of seed at the end of their first season's growth. This continued 
 for several years, every season the stand of grass getting heavier and the seed 
 crop larger. At 5 years the grass covering was practically restored. There 
 are more than 30 species of perennial grasses growing in this pasture now, chief 
 of which are black grama, hairy grama, side-cats grama, Havard's grama, low 
 grama, spruce-top grama, and wire grama; also about an equal number of 
 triple lawn grasses, and spreading mesquite or southwestern buffalo grass, 
 galleta grass, blue stem, fox-tail, and other miscellaneous grasses. You see, in 
 the Southwest we have the finest grama-grass country in the world, and these 
 grasses are a very important feature on this range. Naturally there are other 
 forage plants, including browse and cacti, but perennial grasses are the im- 
 portant plants. 
 
 It would be diflicult to say how much the carrying capacity of this range had 
 been raised, but it is certainly much more than 100 per cent. After five years' 
 protection on the better class of this land we gave stockmen permits to cut hay 
 over considerable areas, which yielded anywhere from 500 to 2,000 pounds of 
 hay to the acre, though the latter figure is much in excess of the average. Per- 
 haps 1,000 to 1,200 pounds of hay per acre would be a fair average for the better 
 land. I feel sure we can duplicate this work over large areas in Arizona. I 
 refer now to our vast areas of grama-grass and mesquite-grass lands. I think 
 this can be done also in New Mexico and other Western States. 
 
 Further work showed us conclusively that there was no occasion, nor good 
 reason, for excluding entirely grazing animals from such an inclosure after the 
 second year at most, so long as they are kept off the land until the grass makes 
 Its growth, matures its seed, and the seed falls to the ground. Of course, one 
 must not overgraze. The secret of the success of this experiment lay in the 
 fact that the grass plants were allowed to mature their growth and also their 
 seed, ungrazed and undisturbed. This growth strengthened the plants them- 
 selves, and in addition kept the seed from blowing away. You can protect your 
 grazing areas from now until doomsday without results if you do not make 
 provision for the seed to ripen and fall to the ground before stock get to it. 
 Most of you know how cattle eat grass heads and seed in the late summer and 
 fall. The damage from this source is as great as from their hoofs. This is why 
 I insist upon the grazing ranges being fenced. Now, I can see nothing difficult 
 about this experiment. It is practical. I believe it can be applied to a large 
 percentage of the grazing ranges in the West and Southwest. I have often been 
 asked why there should be any difference between winter grazing and summer 
 grazing on the ranges in connection with range improvement. My answer is 
 that in order to have grass you must have plants, and plants, you know, grow 
 from seed. Therefore, the maturing of seed under natural conditions on the 
 range is fundamental and basic in principle. A reduced seed production means 
 fewer plants the following year to take the places of the older ones that have 
 died out, or that have been grazed or trampled out. When this reduction of 
 plants continues for some years, the carrying capacity of your range- is per- 
 manently lowered, perhaps entirely through lessened seed production. You 
 may have the soil, you may have the rainfall and the sunshine, but you can not 
 have grass without seed. 
 
 Gentlemen, to summarize: T have noted briefly the ever-decreasing beef sup- 
 ply of the country. I have examined your condition on the open range to-day, 
 and I have shown you why the grass is disappearing, and why it has disap- 
 peared in the past. I am sure you are convinced that under present conditions 
 you have nothing to hope for in the way of improvement. There has been no 
 change for the better during the past 20 years with the open range, and you 
 have no reason to look for any now. It does not matter to you from this time 
 on — except as you consume meat — how high the price of beef goes ; if you do not 
 have any grass, you will not have any stock to sell. If you are going to do any- 
 
DISPOSITION OF GKAZING LANDS. 23 
 
 thing, you had better do it right now. The longer you put it off the worse it is 
 going to be for you. 
 
 I have noted some of the advantages that would certainly come to you as 
 stockmen if the principles of the Kent grazing bill were applied to your grazing 
 ranges. I have called your attention to the advantages of the Kent bill over 
 those of others now pending in Congress. Finally, I have shown you what has 
 actually been done in a practical way on an arid grazing range in Arizona. 
 My friends, we have the goods to show for it. This range has been examined 
 by scores of people interested in grasses — people from Australia, South Africa, 
 our various States, and the Department of Agriculture ; and they all pronounce 
 it a splendid example of successful range restoration under arid conditions. 
 Any stockman, with intelligent management, can get the same results. I could 
 cite you a score more similar cases, though on a smaller scale. I need go no 
 farther than to mention the advantages of grazing on the forest reserves under 
 Federal control, as compared with grazing on the open range. 
 
 The many fine advantages of this Federal lease law would apply to approxi- 
 mately 400,000,000 acres of grazing lands in the West and Southwest — an area 
 equal in extent to one-fifth of that of the United States. If the carrying capac- 
 ity of but one-half of this magnificent grazing empire were increased 25 per 
 cent — and I believe it can be made fully 50 per cent — enough more beef would 
 be produced annually in this country to take care of all of our wants for many 
 years to come; and, gentlemen, I argue that this is the logical solution of this 
 vexed problem of the importation of meats from foreign countries. Build up 
 these ranges as it is possible to build them up, and we shall begin once more 
 to ship beef products out of this country instead of shipping them in. I sin- 
 cerely believe that this is the greatest question before the American people 
 to-day, and I will make no exceptions. It affects both the East and the West, 
 the consumer and the producer. It threatens the future economic policy of this 
 country. It is all important to you stockmen. It lies with you to go before 
 Congress now and demand reasonable legislation. If you continue to show in- 
 difference in the future as you have in the past, if you refuse to get together 
 and lend your hearty support to the passage of this Federal lease law, we shall 
 buy more of our meat products abroad every year, and we shall permit, know- 
 ingly, under our very eyes, the dissipation of the wealth of our own States and 
 the destruction of one of the most valuable of our natural resources — a national 
 asset — the grasses of these western plains and hills, which have no equal in any 
 country anywhere, either North or South. • [Applause.] 
 
 Following is the Kent grazing bill : 
 
 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 and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America in Congress assembled, 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, unappro- 
 priated public lands of the United States, conforming 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 administration 
 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 eradication of poisonous plants and by the extermination of predatory 
 animals and otherwise ; eradicate and prevent infectious and contagious diseases 
 injurious to domestic animals; issue permits to graze live stock thereon for 
 periods of not more than 10 years, which shall include the right to fence the 
 same, giving preference when practicable to homesteaders and to present occu- 
 pants 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 10 years after the passage of this act such charge 
 for grazing shall not exceed 4 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 reestablish maximum and minimum rates of 
 charge for grazing for each succeeding period of 10 years. 
 
24 DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 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 Agri- 
 culture, on the public lands affected hereby : Provided, That after the establish- 
 ment of any such grazing district no form of location, settlement, or entry 
 thereon shall give a right to grazing privileges on public lands except when 
 made under laws requiring cultivation or agricultural use of the land: Pro- 
 vided 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 improvements owned or controlled by a- prior occupant until he has 
 paid such prior occupant a reasonable pro rata value for the use of such im- 
 provements. If the parties interested can not agree, then the amount of such 
 payment shall be determined under rules of the Secretary of Agriculture : And 
 provided further, That when buildings, corrals, reservoirs, wells, or other im- 
 provements, except fences, shall have been established on any 40-acre tract to 
 the value of more than $100, as determined by rules of the Secretary of Agri- 
 culture, such 40-acre tract shall not be subject to settlement or appropriation 
 under the public-land laws during the permit period without the consent of the 
 owner of such buildings, corrals, reservoirs, wells, or other improvements. 
 
 Sec. 3. That all water on public lands or subject to the jurisdiction of the 
 United States within such grazing districts may be used for milling, mining, 
 domestic, or irrigation purposes under- the laws of the State or Territory 
 wherein such grazing districts are situated, or under the laws of the United 
 States and the rules and regulations thereunder. 
 
 Sec. 4. That no grazing permits issued under this act shall prohibit settlers, 
 prospectors, and others from entering upon such grazing districts for all 
 proper and lawful purposes, including the use and enjoyment of their rights 
 and property, and prospecting, locating, and developing the mineral resources 
 of such districts ; and wagon roads or improvements may be constructed thereon, 
 in accordance with law, and all persons shall have the right to move live stock 
 from one locality to another within such grazing districts under such restric- 
 tions only as are necessary to protect the users of the land which will be driven 
 across. 
 
 Sec. 5. That the users of the public lands under the provisions of this 
 act may select a committee of not more than four members from the users 
 of any such grazing district, which committee shall represent the owners of 
 different kinds of stock, and, with the officers appointed by the Secretary of 
 Agriculture in charge of such grazing district, shall constitute an executive 
 board, which shall determine whether the permits for 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 distribution of the range shall be by individual or 
 community 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 districts 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 30 days' notice by publication, 
 shall also determine the preference in the allotment of grazing privileges 
 provided for in section 1 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 provisions of this act 
 in the administration of the same. Fences, wells, 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. Any differences 
 between a majority of the executive board and the officer in charge shall be 
 referred to the Secretary of Agriculture and shall Tje adjusted in the manner 
 prescribed by him. Any interested party shall have the right to appeal from 
 any. decision of the board to the Secretary of Agriculture. If the users of the 
 land fail to select the committee as herein provided, the President of the United 
 
DISPOSITION OF GKAZING LANDS. 25 
 
 States shall name such committee from such grazing districts, representing 
 the owners of the different kinds of stock, as above provided. 
 
 Sec. 6. That the Secretary of Agriculture shall fix a date which shall not be 
 less than one year from the establishment of any grazing district, and after 
 such date the pasturing of any class of live stock on public land in said grazing 
 districts without a permit, or in violation of the regulations of the Secretary 
 of Agriculture, as herein provided, shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall 
 be punishable by a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $1,000, or by im- 
 prisonment for not less than 10 days nor more than one year, or by both such 
 fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court. 
 
 Sec. 7. That 25 per cent of all moneys received from each grazing district 
 during any fiscal year shall be paid at the end thereof by the Secretary of 
 the Treasury to the State or Territory in which said district is situated, to be 
 expended as the State or Territorial legislature may prescribe for the benefit 
 of the public schools and public roads of the county or counties in which the 
 grazing district is situated : Provided, That when any grazing district is in 
 more than one State or Territory or county the distributive share to each from 
 the proceeds of said district shall be proportional to its area therein. The sum 
 of $500,000 is hereby appropriated, to be available until expended, for the pay- 
 ment of expenses necessary to execute the provisions of this act. 
 
 Sec. 8. That the President is hereby authorized to modify any proclamation 
 establishing any grazing district, but not oftener than once in five years, to take 
 effect in not less than one year thereafter, and by such modification may reduce 
 the area or change the boundary lines of each grazing district. 
 
 URGING FEDERAL CONTROL OF THE UNAPPROPRIATED AND UNRESERVED SEMIARID 
 
 GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 The American National Live Stock Association, in convention assembled, at 
 Denver, Colo., January 20-22, 1914, hereby declares that — 
 
 We believe that the prosperity and development of the stock-raising industry 
 on the public grazing lands of the arid and semiarid West are seriously 
 threatened by the present indiscriminate methods of grazing, and that thereby 
 the permanent value of such lands is greatly impaired ; and we strongly recom- 
 mend the early passage by Congress of a bill providing for Federal control of 
 these unappropriated public grazing lands, and a just and reasonable method 
 of leasing such lands. 
 
 We favor the adoption of the Kent bill, House bill No. 10539, now before 
 Congress, as the best possible measure to protect and build up the live-stock 
 industry, except that we recommend that the words "not less than one-half 
 cent per acre " (in sec. 1, italicied) be stricken from said bill. 
 
 " Build up these ranges as it is possible to build them up, and we shall begin 
 once more to ship beef products out of this country instead of shipping them in. 
 I sincerely believe that this is the greatest question before the American people 
 to-day, and I will make no exceptions. It affects both the Bast and the West, 
 the consumer and the producer. It threatens the future economic policy of 
 this country. It is all important to you stockmen. It lies with you to go before 
 Congress and demand reasonable legislation."— (Extract from Prof. Thornber's 
 address. ) 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Kent has offered for the record two other 
 communications, addressed to him, which, without objection, will be 
 printed at this point. 
 
 Omaha, Nebr., March 1, 191-1. 
 
 Hon. William Kent, 
 
 Washington, D. G. 
 Dear Will: Since I wrote you a couple of weeks ago regarding the lease 
 bill, my ideas have taken a little more definite form, and I take pleasure in 
 submitting them to you, in the hopes that possibly they may help a little In 
 securing legislation at Washington which would be for the interests of every- 
 body concerned. For many years there seems to have been a practical deadlock 
 between the advocates of a lease law on the one hand and the advocates of 
 
26 DISPOSITION OF GKAZING LANDS. 
 
 the homesteader's rights on the other. I am thoroughly satisfied that the 
 whole trouble is due to a misapprehension, and that there is in reality no 
 conflict between the two interests. Nevertheless, in the hearings this week 
 I believe the advocates of a lease bill for the public lands are going to meet 
 with much the same sort of opposition as they have encountered for the last 
 10 years, unless the two interests can be reconciled, and it is toward that end 
 that I believe your efforts should be directed. 
 
 After reviewing the previous hearings before the Public Lands Committee 
 in 1912, and considering public sentiment on the question, I am convinced 
 that radical concessions from the Kent bill will have to be made in favor of 
 homesteaders and local interests before a lease law can be passed by Congress. 
 I refer particularly, first, to the length of tenure; second, to lines 4 to 8, in- 
 clusive, on page 3 of the Kent bill ; third, to lines 24 to 25 on page 3, and lines 
 1 to 4 on page 4; and, fourth, to lines 22 to 25 on page 4. 
 
 Referring to the first, 10 years will have to be reduced to either 5 or 7. 
 Second, if a grazing homestead bill passes, homesteaders should have the pref- 
 erence to the grazing privilege on neighboring public lands. Third, this feature 
 would enable lessees to keep homesteaders off of all the best locations and re- 
 tard development, > I don't believe it can stand in its present shape. Fourth, 
 four stockmen out of five on the executive boards is out of proportion, as it 
 appears to ignore all the other interests. I would suggest in place of one of 
 the stockmen that the county boards of each grazing district select one man 
 who may or may not be a stockman. The proper selection of these executive 
 boards is most important, as on them very largely would depend the success 
 or failure of the whole scheme. 
 
 You have no doubt seen J. J. Thornber's Grazing Ranges of Arizona. On 
 page 353, under Nos. 1, 2, and 3, he offers supplements to the old Lever bill. 
 It seems to me Nos. 2 and 3 are particularly valuable and should be incor- 
 porated in any lease bill. 
 
 There seems to be a very strong popular sentiment in favor of some form of 
 grazing homestead bill, and without the cooperation of the advocates of that 
 kind of a bill I believe it will be impossible to pass a lease law. 
 
 Personally, it seems to me that a lease law and a grazing homestead bill 
 would work out very well together. They would really supplement one an- 
 other in localities where grazing homesteads are practical. It is very difficult 
 to educate the public to' realize that by far the greater part of our unappro- 
 priated public lands can be utilized to advantage only in large units. People 
 have been educated to appreciate the advantages of decreased units under in- 
 tensive agriculture, but they have not yet realized the great economic advan- 
 tage of operating large grazing units on the arid and semiarid lands of the 
 West. For the last 25 years people have been endeavoring to make agricultural 
 lands out of lands that were never intended for agriculture, with infinite harm 
 to themselves and untold loss to the public by retarding development along the 
 proper lines, thereby decreasing the production of live stock. East of the Mis- 
 souri River this condition of things is not generally appreciated. 
 
 It seems most unfortunate that heretofore the advocates of a lease law have 
 been on the defensive, placed there by certain men on the Public Lands Com- 
 mittee, who, arrogating to themselves all virtue and disinterestedness, have as- 
 sumed the roll of champions of the public and particularly of the homesteaders, 
 thereby placing those in favor of a lease law in a false position. If the Public 
 Lands Committee would be made *to realize that a lease law means the greatest 
 good to the greater number, the tables might be turned. Since the hearings be- 
 fore the committee in 1912 the situation has been very much clarified. Just as 
 was predicted at that time in the event no lease law was passed, the live-stock 
 business in the West has retrograded, production has been reduced, and prices 
 of meat to the public have continued to advance. Since then the system of 
 grazing under permits in the forest reserves has proven even more of a success 
 than before. At that time it was doubtful how the Kinkaid law would work 
 out. Now we know that the Kinkaid lands are going rapidly into the hands of 
 the larger cattlemen. This is due to two causes : 
 
 First. The Kinkaid homesteader is usually a man of very small means, and 
 has not the necessary capital to properly improve his homestead and stock it. 
 
 Second. The average Kinkaid homestead of 640 acres or less is not adapted 
 to support a family by itself. Most of the homesteads consist altogether of 
 grazing ground, giving the homesteader nothing but a summer pasture which 
 will support from 50 to 75 head of cattle during the grazing season. Without 
 an opportunity to lease additional lands in the vicinity and secure winter 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 27 
 
 feed the homesteader can not make a living for his family, as these home- 
 steads are -usually surrounded by larger stock men who wish to eliminate the 
 homesteader. They take good care that he remains bottled up so that event- 
 ually he is compelled to sell. 
 
 Without doubt a great many of the Kinkaid homesteads have been taken up 
 for the express purpose of selling them as soon as title is secured. And so 
 we have seen the very object of the Kinkaid law defeated. The experience 
 gained in connection with this law becomes invaluable in framing suitable leg- 
 islation for our public lands. Exactly the same thing would take place under 
 any grazing homestead bill which would be likely to pass Congress, unless it 
 were supplemented by a lease law which gives to the homesteader the prefer- 
 ential right to lease public lands in his neighborhood for grazing purposes 
 in sufficient amount in conjunction with his homestead to support a family. I 
 assume that two sections is the maximum acreage that can be secured under 
 a grazing homestead bill. In 9 cases out of 10 that would not be nearly suffi- 
 cient to support a family and should be supplemented by a lease on public land. 
 In my opinion, grazing homesteads are not adapted for men of very limited 
 capital. In order to succeed, capital is absolutely essential for fencing, build- 
 ings, water development and stocking the ranch. On account of lack of capi- 
 tal, .the ordinary granger homesteader would almost inevitably come to grief 
 .before he could establish himself on these arid and semiarid homesteads. The 
 fact must not be lost sight of that our western country is adapted by nature 
 for certain uses and the minute Congress enacts laws that go contrary to na- 
 ture we as a people have to pay the penalty. 
 
 With best wishes for the success of the bill, I am, 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 Edwakd L. Btjkke, 
 
 Of Kent & Burke. 
 
 Roswell, N. Mex., February 23, 191J/. 
 Hon. William Kent, 
 
 1925 F Street NW., Washington, D. G. 
 
 Mr Dear Sik : In order that you may place me, I would say that I am the 
 president of the Southspring Ranch & Cattle Co., a corporation which owns about 
 1,000 acres of irrigated land near Roswell, N. Mex., and has a fenced range of 
 about 150,000 acres some 25 miles east of Roswell. Of this 150,000 acres, about 
 136,000 are deeded land; the balance is land leased from the State of New 
 Mexico at 5 cents per acre per annum. In 1906 and 1907 I was governor of 
 New Mexico, and at that time became interested in the range problem in the 
 State generally. 
 
 I am inclosing herewith for your information a printed copy of a memorial 
 recently drawn up by the stockmen of this district and addressed to the Presi- 
 dent of the United States. The original of this document will be typewritten 
 and free from the typographical errors in this printed copy. The original has 
 not yet been sent to the President, but will be, we hope, within a week or 10 
 days. We would request you, therefore, not to use this document except for 
 your own information until the original shall have been sent to the President. 
 The people of the district referred to in the memorial are almost unanimous 
 in their indorsement of the statements contained therein, and the paper is 
 being signed by nearly all the stock men, large and small, in the district, as 
 well as by great numbers of the farmers, business men, and even the home- 
 steaders in this part of New Mexico. The document was the outcome of two 
 different meetings of the cattlemen held not long ago in Roswell. The imme- 
 diate cause of calling these meetings was to protest against the immediate en- 
 forcement of certain orders from Washington for the taking down of drift fences 
 in parts of this district. Gov. McDonald and Judge Richardson went to Wash- 
 ington to try to postpone action on these fences. You may have seen them 
 while they were there. It was my opinion, as well as that of many others at 
 these meetings, that the objections of the stockmen here to the destruction of 
 drift fences would be much more effective if their sentiments in regard to the 
 control and leasing of the range by the Government were known. I drew up 
 this petition in conformity with the general sentiment of the meetings, and. 
 as stated above, the document has received the enthusiastic support of the 
 whole country, a fact which I think is significant. It would have been impos- 
 sible five years ago to secure the united support of this district to such a state- 
 ment. 
 
28 DISPOSITION OF GKAZING LANDS. 
 
 I regret verv much new that at the time we drew up this document we did 
 not have .1 copy of the bill which you introduced in the House of Representa- 
 tives on December 15 last. A copy of this bill has just come to me through 
 Mr T TV Tomlinson secretary of the National Live Stock Association, of 
 Denver If we had had a copv of it when the petition was drawn up, we should 
 have undoubtedly included iii the statement to the President our indorsement 
 of your bill and 'would have had the actual support of a large number of indi- 
 viduals to this bill. It is perhaps as well in some ways that we did not have 
 your bill when we drew up the paper, as you will see the petition is in most 
 striking accord in almost every respect with the provisions of your measure. 
 You will notice, however, in the fourth paragraph of the second printed page 
 we do not recommend any specific- method of procedure or any definite- legisla- 
 tion. I desire to say to you confidentially, however, that we thought it more 
 politic to draw up the paper this way. because we are of the opinion that the 
 State administration here, as well as some or all of our representatives in the 
 Senate and House, are not in favor of a real leasing system, such as you advo- 
 cate. What the people in this district want, however, is a real lease law, such 
 as you advocate. This being a fact, we have called another meeting of the 
 stockmen for next Friday evening, at which it is our intention to read your 
 bill and the other bills which have been presented, including Mr. Fergussou's, 
 and I have no doubt the meeting will actively and enthusiastically indorse your 
 bill. 
 
 What we want to do is to help you in every possible way we can in your fight 
 for its pass:if.'t j , Mr. Tomlinson has sent me a copy of his letter to the stand- 
 ing committees of the National Live Stock Association, in which he quotes you 
 as to the serious necessity of having the sinall stockmen well represented at 
 the committee bearings in Washington. I very fully realize the soundness 
 of your position on that point. The stockmen wanted me to go to Washington 
 for them and I told them I would be glad to do so, but only in company of 
 others who have smaller holdings than I represent. Upon this point we shall 
 insist next Friday, and have no doubt the meeting will arrange to send some 
 of the smaller stockmen. We will try to arrange to get two or three of the 
 old-timers who are thoroughly acquainted with the district and conditions, 
 and who have now small holdings. In the meantime we will gather in the sig- 
 natures for the petition and probably send it direct to the President. Before 
 sending it, however, we will copy the names and, as suggested by Mr. Tomlinson, 
 analyze and classify them according to the respective size of the holdings of 
 the various signers. We will send you a copy of this list, as it may be of use 
 to you. 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson says in his letter that the committee hearings will begin 
 on March 3. and intimates that they will probably continue for two weeks from 
 that date. We wiH try to make arrangements to send our representatives from 
 here at such a time within that two weeks that you may indicate would be the 
 best. The men who will go can not afford to spend any more time away than 
 will be absolutely necessary. We will be glad if you will let us know at once 
 just when you would like to have us come, and also give us any further sug- 
 gestions or information that you think will be of use to us that you think would 
 help in the passage of the bill. 
 
 Wishing you the greatest success, I am, 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 H. J. Hagerman. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I should like to ask a question before you conclude. 
 Do you know of any small stock raisers of cattle or horses, who own 
 from 25 to, say. 100 head, who are asking to have the public domain 
 leased ? 
 
 Mr. Kent. Mr. Raker, in the country where my ranch is there are 
 no such people, The country is not fitted at the present time. In 
 New Mexico, in the Black Range, I know a large number of very 
 small men who are delighted with the forest reserve policy. 
 
 Assistant Secretary Galloway is here and has waited patiently, 
 and after he finishes I shall want to say a few words more, but I 
 would like you to hear Dr. Galloway now. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 29 
 
 STATEMENT OF DR. B. T. GALLOWAY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY 
 
 OF AGRICULTURE. 
 
 The Chairman. You are aware, , Doctor, that we have under con- 
 sideration two bills here, and the bill, I presume, you wish to be 
 heard on is H. R. 10539. You may proceed in your own way. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
 have no formal statement to make. We have carefully considered 
 this bill and have made certain suggestions, which you have as a 
 matter of record. 
 
 The Chairman. Yes ; your communication came this morning and 
 I have not had a chance to look at it. It reads as follows : 
 
 March 2, 1914. ' 
 Hon. Scott Ferris, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Public Lands, 
 
 House of Representatives. 
 
 Dear Sir: I wish to acknowledge receipt of a copy of the bill H. R. 10539, 
 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," with the 
 request that this department submit a report thereon with such suggestions 
 and recommendations as it may see fit to offer. 
 
 It is clear that a condition exists on our public range which requires the 
 immediate attention of Congress to prevent further loss from abuse of this 
 natural resource and to provide a constructive plan for its use and develop- 
 ment. 
 
 I inclose a statement from the Forester, which sets forth in detail the pres- 
 ent situation on tho range and what has been accomplished under similar con- 
 ditions through the administration by the Forest Service of the national 
 forests. This statement also contains certain recommendations looking to con- 
 structive administration of the public ranges by a system of regulated grazing. 
 The principles of this system of public control of the range are contained in 
 the Kent bill, H. E. 10539. 
 
 This department approves the principles of this bill and recommends its 
 passage, provided certain changes and amendments are made, as follows: 
 
 I recommend that on page 2, line 8. after the word " animals," there be 
 inserted : 
 
 '• erect and maintain fences, wells, tanks, reservoirs, and other like improve- 
 ments necessary either to open up and develop these lands or assist in their 
 proper use and protection." 
 
 The purpose of this addition is to enable the Government to make improve- 
 ments similar to those made in the national forests, which will benefit the 
 public in the use of the range. 
 
 On page 2, line 17, insert after the word " such : ' the word " animal." This 
 was obviously an inadvertent omission. 
 
 On page 6, line 8, it would, in my opinion, be wise to substitute the words 
 "Secretary of -Agriculture " for "President of the United States." It would 
 seem unnecessary to have this matter acted on by the President. 
 
 In my judgment, the local board provided for on page 5 should be an ad- 
 visory board, whose action should be subject to the approval of the Secretary 
 of Agriculture, rather than a board of control with as large powers as is indi- 
 cated in the bill. It is therefore recommended that the words ■" subject to the 
 approval of the Secretary of Agriculture " be inserted on page 5, line" 3, after 
 the word " which " ; on page 5, line 9, after the word " board " ; on page 5, line 
 17, after the word " board." In line with this change the term " advisory 
 board " should be used, in my judgment, rather than " executive board." 
 
 I believe, further, that the Government officer should be chairman of the 
 board, and suggest that on page 5, line 2, after the word " districts," there be 
 inserted the words " who shall be chairman." 
 
 In regard to the return to the States of a share of the receipts, I believe that 
 all the surplus above cost of administration and improvement by the Govern- 
 ment should be returned for the benefit of the States in some form or other. 
 I will make no specific suggestion what form this should take, as I am informed 
 
30 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 that the same question is under consideration in regard to receipts from coal, 
 oil, and phosphate lands. 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 J (Signed) B. T. Galloway, 
 
 Acting Secretary. 
 
 Inclosure. 
 
 February 27, 1914. 
 The Secretary of Agriculture. 
 
 Dear Mr Secretary : I wish to place before you the situation relative to the 
 public grazing ranges and the necessity for legislation which will bring them 
 under some form of Government control comparable with that already given 
 the grazing areas on the National Forests. 
 
 The public range.— Excluding Alaska, the total unreserved and unappropri- 
 ated public lands lying directly within the States west of the Missouri River 
 amount in round numbers to 300,000,000 acres, practically all of which lies 
 within the boundaries of the following range States, namely, Washington, 
 Oregon, Montana, Idaho, California, Nevada, Utah, North and South Dakota, 
 Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nebraska. Most of these lands are nat- 
 ural grazing lands, either treeless or but sparsely timbered, and with scanty 
 water supply. They have not up to the present time been appropriated under 
 the various land laws, owing to the fact that relatively little of the land is 
 susceptible of cultivation, either because of the character of the climate and soil 
 or lack of water. The lands are chiefly valuable for grazing, and their develop- 
 ment, therefore, is a pastoral problem and not one of farming. 
 
 Present condition.— At present these lands are being grazed during a large 
 part of each year, and in many cases for the entire year, by approximately! 
 12,000,000 head of cattle and about 30,000,000 head of sheep, or 20 per cent of 
 the entire number of cattle in the United States and almost 60 per cent of the 
 sheep. The open ranges have been grazed for the past 40 years free of all 
 charge and entirely without any regulation whatever. 
 
 The free and unregulated use of these lands has resulted in serious conse- 
 quences as follows : 
 
 (1) Through abuse, due to overgrazing and strong competition for the 
 ranges, their productivity and carrying capacity have been reduced approxi- 
 mately 50 per cent below their normal condition, and this state of affairs is 
 growing worse instead of better. 
 
 (2) In many regions overgrazing has resulted in serious erosion and in ex- 
 tensive damage in the regions in which they lie. 
 
 (3) Owing to the reduced carrying capacity of the range, the stock is turned 
 off thin and can only be sold as feeders, whereas formerly they produced beef 
 and mutton, which went at once to the slaughterhouse. 
 
 (4) The present methods of using these lands result in large winter losses, 
 due to overcrowded ranges and the destruction of many of the important forage 
 plants. There is also a large loss from predatory animals and poisonous plants. 
 
 (5) The best methods of handling stock are difficult and often impracticable 
 on an unregulated range. 
 
 (6) The active competition for the use of the ranges has caused serious con- 
 flicts between owners of the various classes of live stock, which to-day, in sev- 
 eral notable instances, prevents their systematic and proper use by the class 
 of stock for which they are best suited. 
 
 (7) On an unprotected and uncontrolled range the small stockman has not 
 been able to compete with the larger owners, a condition which has resulted in a 
 tendency toward monopolization of the ranges by the larger men. 
 
 (8) As the cheapest method of producing meat is by grazing live stock on 
 natural ranges, the Nation's loss through the progressive deterioration and 
 destruction of the public range is enormous. 
 
 (9) The use of the public range without any return to the public means an 
 annual loss of several million dollars which could be secured through a 
 moderate grazing fee, which would in no way effect the cost of meat, hides, 
 wool, or mutton to the consumer, but which on the contrary would in the long 
 run be more than made up for by the increased value of the resource to the 
 stockmen under wisely regulated use. The public range feeds one-sixth of the 
 American people with meat. The conservation of the public range will ma- 
 terially decrease what would otherwise be the ultimate cost of living to the 
 American people. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 31 
 
 Results of regulated grazing on national forests.— Portions of the national 
 forests provide excellent forage in the open parks and less heavily timbered 
 areas, which constitute an important part of the summer ranges for the western 
 live stock. In fact, the forests are to-day practically the key to the use of the 
 adjoining public ranges, which constitute more or less the winter ranges for 
 the stock using the summer ranges in the forests. The damaged condition 
 of the forest ranges at the time the various national forests were placed under 
 administration was practically the same as exists on the public ranges to-day. 
 The national forests were placed under a system of regulated grazing about 
 10 years ago, with the following definite results: 
 
 (1) Their productivity and carrying capacity has been increased, and in 
 many cases the normal condition has been fully restored. 
 
 (2) Where at the time the Forest Service took charge only feeders were 
 produced on these ranges, to-day the stock that comes from a majority of the 
 national forest ranges are fat and ready for the market. 
 
 (3) This result has been accomplished by proper distribution, better methods 
 of herding, the erection of drift fences, the development of water upon ranges 
 hitherto not used, the destruction of predatory animals, fencing, and otherwise 
 keeping the stock off the areas in which poisonous plants are abundant, and 
 an encouragement to the'stockmen to improve the quality of their stock. 
 
 (4) Range conflicts have been entirely stopped. 
 
 (5) The value of farming lands and ranch property either within or adja- 
 cent to the national forests has been measurably increased, until permitted 
 live stock using national forest ranges commands a higher price than the same 
 grade of stock using ranges outside of the forest areas. 
 
 (6) The fact that a homesteader who secures a tract of land within a 
 national forest is allowed certain grazing privileges upon the forest has been 
 a strong factor in encouraging agricultural settlement by enabling farmers 
 to supplement crop production with the raising of live stock. 
 
 (7) Small settlers have been protected from the encroachment by nomadic 
 herders upon the ranges in the vicinity of their homes. 
 
 (8) The gross receipts from the national forest ranges have averaged about 
 $1,000,000 per year, 35 per cent of which is now made available for the 
 direct benefit of the States, aside from various indirect returns. 
 
 Needs of the public ranc/c. — In order to secure the best use and development 
 of the open ranges and to adequately safeguard the interests of the small man 
 and the general public, a system of public regulation of the grazing similar in 
 principle to that now in successful operation on the national forests is required. 
 With liberal provision for the homesteading of those lands suitable for farming 
 such a system would result in stimulating actual settlement by home seekers 
 by protecting them in the use of the range and enabling them to supplement 
 farming by stock raising. The results desired can not. in my judgment, be 
 secured by distributing this range among private owners by sale or otherwise 
 and without public control. Such a method would tend, under certain condi- 
 tions, to place the bulk of the grazing lands in the hands of large interests, 
 might actually prevent the use for agriculture of those parts of the lands best 
 suited for that purpose, and thus check the development of the small home- 
 stead. Further, it would involve serious detriment to the public welfare 
 through loss of the power of public control in the interest of water conserva- 
 tion for irrigation and other uses. In addition to this, public control would 
 be lost over those lands which through misuse would be exposed to damage by 
 erosion. 
 
 Advantages of a system of regulated grazing. — The establishment of a system 
 of regulated grazing on the public lands would check the evils of the present 
 system, the deterioration of the ranges would be stopped, their productivity and 
 carrying capacity be rapidly increased, and all the beneficial results obtained 
 which'already have been secured by such a system on the national forests. The 
 effect of the establishment of this system will be a progressive increase of the 
 meat supply of the country. There will further be a large return to the public 
 in the form of grazing fees which can be used directly for the benefit of the 
 States where the lands lie. 
 
 Administration of the areas. — The administration of these areas should, I 
 believe, be under the Department of Agriculture, as the whole problem Is one 
 of forage and live-stock production. The only men in the Government service 
 trained to handle the practical administration of grazing matters are in the 
 Forest Service. The department has further the experts of the Bureau of 
 Plant Industry for studies of grasses and. other forage plants, the Bureau of 
 
32 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Animal Industry for assistance in problems of protection of herds from dis- 
 ease, and the Biological Survey for the destruction of predatory animals. With 
 its complete field organization in the Forest Service, the department is in a 
 position to undertake the administration of grazing on the public lands at once 
 and at a minimum cost, impossible in any of the other departments which have 
 no such trained force. 
 
 The Kent bill— A bill (H. R. 10539) which has been introduced in the House 
 by Mr. Kent, of California, embodies the general principles which I believe 
 should govern a law for the regulation of the public range. I recommend that 
 this bill be approved by the department, provided certain changes are made, 
 as follows. 
 
 I recommend that, on page 2, line 8, after the word "animals," there be 
 inserted : 
 
 "erect and maintain fences, wells, tanks, reservoirs, and other like improve- 
 ments necessary either to open up and develop these lands or assist in their 
 proper use and protection." 
 
 The purpose of this addition is to enable the Government to make improve- 
 ments similar to those made in the national forests, which will benefit the 
 public in the use of the range. 
 
 On page 2, line 17, insert after the word " such " the word " annual." This 
 was obviously an inadvertent omission. 
 
 On page 6. line 8, after the words " provided the," strike out " President of 
 the United States " and insert the words " Secretary of Agriculture." 
 
 The Kent bill provides for a local executive board which is given very 
 broad authority. I feel strongly that this should be essentially an advisory 
 board, and that the bill should make clearer the relations of this board to the 
 Secretary of Agriculture. I would recommend that language be inserted to 
 show clearly that the action taken by the local board is subject to the ap- 
 proval of the Secretary- I would recommend, therefore, that the words " sub- 
 ject to the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture" be inserted at the follow- 
 ing points : On page 5, line 3, after the word " which " ; on page 5. line 9, after 
 the word " board " ; and on page 5, line 17, after the word " board." 
 
 I recommend further that the term "advisory board" he used instead of 
 " executive board." This would substitute for the word " executive " the word 
 " advisory " on page 5, lines 3, 9, and 16, and on page 6. line 2. 
 
 I recommend further that, on pi go 5, line 2. after the word "districts," the 
 following words be inserted : " who shall be chairman." 
 
 The Kent bill provides that 25 per cent of the receipts from grazing fees shall 
 be returned to the States. It is my belief that the cost of administration will 
 not equal 75 per cent of the grazing fees after the low is in full operation. 
 I think that it would be good public policy to provide that any surplus remain- 
 ing after deducting from the gross receipts the cost of administration and the 
 25 per rent allowed in the Kent bill should be used for local benefits rather 
 than returned to the General Treasury. I understand that a plan is being 
 worked out for the use of moneys secured from the leasing by the Government 
 of lands producing oil, coal, gas, pntash, and phosphates. I understand that 
 this plan considers the use of these moneys for the reclamation fund, with the 
 provision that one-half shall ultimately be returned to the States. I think 
 that the policy which may be adopted in the case of royalties from leasing 
 other classes of public lands should be taken into consideration in deciding 
 about the disposition of the surplus receipts from the use of grazing lands. 
 Very sincerely, yours, 
 
 Henry S. Graves, Forester. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. It might be well before taking up the general 
 statement simply to review the bill briefly and call attention to the 
 proposed changes the department thinks is wise to suggest. In the 
 first place, the department is of the opinion that on page 2, line 8, 
 after the word " animals" there be inserted the following: 
 
 Erect and maintain fences, wells, tanks, reservoirs, and other like improve- 
 ments necessary either to open up and develop these lands or assist in theii 
 proper use and protection. 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 33 
 
 The purpose of this addition is to enable the Government to make 
 improvements similar to those made in the national forests, which 
 will benefit the public in the use of the range. 
 
 Then on page 2, line 17, insert after the word "such" the word 
 " annual." This was evidently an inadvertent omission. 
 
 On page 6, line 8, it would, in my opinion, be wise to substitute the 
 words " Secretary of Agriculture " for " President of the United 
 States." It would seem unnecessary to have this matter acted on by 
 the President. 
 
 Mr. French. Before we 'eave the first paragraph, would you mind 
 my asking you a question? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Not at all. 
 
 Mr. Feekch. I was wondering on the first page if it is the under- 
 standing that the authorization for the leasing of certain lands con- 
 templates classification ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. No. 
 
 Mr. French. The English is not clear-cut there, but it says : " The 
 President of the United States is hereby authorized to establish from 
 time to time, by proclamation, grazing districts." Does that mean 
 there shall be a general classification? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. It does not mean general classification of the lands, 
 we understand. On page 6, line 8, it is our view that the words 
 " Secretary of Agriculture " should be substituted for the words 
 "' President of the United States." It seems unnecessary to have this 
 matter acted on by the President. 
 
 The Chairman. What line? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Page 6, line 8. It is the view of the department 
 that the local board provided for on page 5 should be an advisory 
 board, whose action shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary 
 of Agriculture. We believe we will get better administration by such 
 a procedure and be able to protect all the interests of the local people 
 just as effectively as if it were handled the other way. It is recom- 
 mended that the words " subject to the approval of the Secretary of 
 Agriculture " be inserted on page 5, line 3, after the word " which." 
 
 Mr. Church. The last change you recommended, will you give us 
 that again? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. It is recommended that the words " subject to the 
 approval of the Secretary of Agriculture" be inserted on page 5, 
 line 3, after the word " which." 
 
 Mr. Kent. Subject to the approval of the Secretary of Agricul- 
 ture? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes; and the same words should be inserted on 
 page 5, line 9, after the word "board," and again the same words 
 inserted on page 5, line 17. 
 
 The Chairman. The same language to be inserted there? 
 
 Dp. Galloway. This memorandum is in the form of a letter to 
 you, and I will turn it over to the reporter. These suggestions are 
 all made with the idea that they will simplify the phraseology of the 
 bill, and, so far as the department is concerned, make it more prac- 
 ticable to administer the proposed law. 
 
 One other point, Mr. Chairman, in regard to the returns to the 
 States of a share of the receipts. The department is of the opinion 
 
 35074— pt 1—14 3 
 
34 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 that all the surplus above cost of administration and improvement 
 by the Government should be returned for the benefit of the tetates 
 in some form or other. As to the form, we have offered no specific 
 suggestion. . 
 
 The Chairman. Is that embodied in your present report < 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you think that would be true* Would there 
 not be enough reserve for them to carry on the administration ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes; enough to carry on the administration and 
 improvements, but the remainder, we believe, should be returned to 
 the States; but whether the Government should indicate the manner 
 in which moneys returned to the States should be used — whether for 
 roads, schools, or other purposes — is a question. That- is a subject 
 for further discussion. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Now, your idea of administration there might be de- 
 velopment work done? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. For the general benefit of the public domain. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Fences. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Anything of that kind. 
 
 The Chairman. Are you intending to cover in your remarks any 
 estimate of what the possible residue might be after the expenses are 
 deducted ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. I think Mr. Graves, Mr. Potter, and Mr. Barnes 
 will be able to give an estimate not only of the returns from the 
 public domain but the probable cost of the administration. 
 
 The Chairman. Would you prefer that we get that information 
 frctm them? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Do you think that should be returned to the 
 States without any refund of the $500,000 hereby appropriated for 
 the carrying out of this act, or after that is paid back to the Gov- 
 ernment ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. It will be necessary to have an appropriation 
 made at the beginning to inaugurate the work. The refund will 
 begin as soon as the districts are established and they pass beyond 
 the stage of being self-supporting. If I understand your question 
 correctly, it was whether the refund should begin immediately, irre- 
 spective of this $500,000, or whether the $500,000 should be repaid 
 first. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Is it your idea to repay it at all ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. The idea, as I understand it, is to refund to the 
 States everything above the actual cost of administration and im- 
 provement. This $500,000 should be included in the cost of adminis- 
 tration. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. It says : " The sum of $500,000 is hereby appro- 
 priated, to be available until expended, for the payment of expenses 
 necessary to execute the provisions of this act." Do you expect the 
 Government to appropriate that without ever expecting to get it 
 back? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. The Government would get it back. 
 
 Mr. Graham. There is no provision in the bill to cover the repay- 
 ment, of it. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 35 
 
 Dr. Galloway. I think, Mr. Graham, that might be made a little 
 more specific in the bill. It is inferred, but not clearly set forth. 
 That is merely a matter of changing the language. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Does the report to the chairman of the committee 
 cover the necessity for that and the details of it? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. It does not. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Who would be able to give us information about 
 that? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Mr. Graves or Mr. Potter, and if the committee 
 desires we will, of course, be glad to submit a further formal state- 
 ment along that line. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Would you care to suggest amendments there as to 
 the manner of its repayment or refunding? 
 
 Dr. Galloavay. Mr. Graves, what is your view in regard to that 
 matter ? 
 
 Mr. Graves. It is my understanding that the question of the dis- 
 position of receipts from public lands bearing oil, phosphates, and 
 coal has been under discussion. That was the reason I felt at the 
 present time we ought not to make any specific suggestion as to just 
 what disposition shoidd be made of the surplus receipts from graz- 
 ing lands, if this should become law. We merely wish to empha- 
 size the principle that we do not think this should be merely a source 
 of revenue to the Government, but that after deducting the cost 
 of administration and improvement the remainder should be used 
 for the benefit of the States, in some form or another. 
 
 Mr. Graham. In the House, it seems to me, it would be necessary 
 to have a full and complete explanation as to the necessity for so big 
 an appropriation and as to the certainty of repayment to the public 
 Treasury. 
 
 Mr. Kent. I think we can figure that out as we go along. We 
 can provide that it shall be paid out of the first receipts or so much 
 every year. 
 
 The Chairman. You may not desire to cover it, and we may wish 
 to reach it through Mr. Graves or some of the other witnesses who 
 may appear, but somewhere I would like some one to explain why 
 it is necessary to transfer the administration of all of the 323,000,000 
 acres of public lands from the Interior Department to, the Agricul- 
 tural Department and what conferences have been had that brought 
 this about. The bill seeks to transfer all the remainder of the public 
 lands, aggregating 323,000,000 acres, from the Interior Department 
 to the Agricultural Department. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Perhaps the members of the committee can hear 
 me better if I stand up. This matter has been under consideration 
 by the two departments for the past 13 years. It has been before 
 committees and before Congress in various ways numbers of times. 
 There have been conferences between the Interior Department and 
 the Department of Agriculture on this subject, to my knowledge 
 extending back five or six years. 
 
 Last summer the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
 Agriculture appointed a joint committee to consider this question, 
 and that committee has had some conferences. I am chairman of 
 the committee, but having been pressed with other matters I have 
 left the details of the committee largely to Mr. Graves. 
 
 The Chairman. Who are the personnel? 
 
36 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. For the Department of Agriculture, the Assistant 
 Secretary, Mr. Graves, Mr. Potter, and Mr. Coville. For the inte- 
 rior Department, Assistant Secretary Jones; Mr. Tallman, Com- 
 missioner of the General Land Office; and Mr. Bruce, Assistant 
 Commissioner. 
 
 The Chairman. Three from each department. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. Mr. Coville was named to act in case I was 
 not present. 
 
 The Chairman. Who is he? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. The botanist of the Agricultural Department. 
 
 The Chairman. He was more in the nature of a substitute for 
 you* 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. And, on the part of the Interior Department, 
 they have Assistant Secretary Jones; Commissioner of the General 
 Land Office, Mr. Tallman; and Mr. Bruce, the Assistant Commis- 
 sioner. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Baker. Let me inquire right there: Has this committee 
 finally drawn up its final conclusions on the matter? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. I am just going to ask Mr. Graves to report on 
 the conclusions of this committee. Mr. Graves, will you make a 
 statement to go in the record at this time in regard of the work of 
 the committee? 
 
 The Chairman. When was this commission appointed ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. My recollection, without the record before me, is 
 that it was last April some time, soon after Mr. Lane came in. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Have they made a written recommendation in regard 
 to the matter ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. No. 
 
 Mr. Graves. This committee met several times and discussed the 
 problem of whether a lease law similar to the one under discussion 
 should be recommended by the two departments. No formal conclu- 
 sion has been reached. There were some differences of opinion which 
 were not in any way sharp. In fact, the general situation on the 
 open public range was recognized by all the members as being serious 
 and requiring some action. Just what action should be taken was 
 not officially agreed upon and, therefore, no formal report was drawn 
 up. We did not undertake to make a formal joint report, but our efforts 
 were to discuss the matter informally and bring out all the points 
 in the problem through the experience of the different men who 
 formed the committee. 
 
 The Chairman. That was in reference to the leasing law? 
 
 Mr. Graves. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. What was said and done and what agreements 
 arrived at in reference to the transfer of the administration from 
 the Interior Department to the Agricultural Department ? 
 
 Mr. Graves. That matter was not discussed in our committee. 
 
 The Chairman. That was not acted upon ? *» 
 
 Mr. Graves. Not by our committee. 
 
 The Chairman. Then, so far as that feature of the bill is con- 
 cerned, that has not as yet been passed upon ? 
 
 Mr. Graves. No, sir; we have not drawn up a joint report as rep- 
 resenting an agreement; that matter was not discussed, but rather 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 37 
 
 we considered the general principles of the whole problem presented 
 by the conditions of the range. 
 
 The Chairman. You are aware this bill was to transfer the ad- 
 ministration from the Interior Department to the Agricultural De- 
 partment? 
 
 Mr. Graves. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. And that broad question has not been finally de- 
 termined upon by your board? 
 
 Mr. Graves. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Kent. I wish to make a statement. After consultation with 
 Secretary Houston I saw Secretary Lane, who informed me it was 
 entirely agreeable to him, so far as he was concerned, that this func- 
 tion should be taken over by the Agricultural Department with the 
 necessary force to do the work. That is only a personal view, how- 
 ever. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. You are not able to announce that is the policy o£ 
 the Secretary of the Interior? 
 
 Mr. Kent. The Secretary of the Interior told me this met with his 
 approval and that he did not object. 
 
 Mr. Church. What do you mean — the bill? 
 
 Mr. Kent. Not the bill ;* he did not indorse it; but in so far as this 
 bill adopted the transferring of this matter from the Interior De- 
 partment to the Agricultural Department he did not object. 
 
 The Chairman. Let me ask Mr. Graves one more question right 
 there. I do not want to supersede you, Doctor, but I take it Mr. 
 Graves acted on this. Has the proposition ever been discussed in 
 your board, comprising six members in number, three from each 
 department, with reference to what the aggregate cost would be in. 
 arranging for the Agricultural Department to handle this land? 
 
 Mr. Graves. No; not by the joint committee. But the estimated 
 cost of administration has been worked out in the Forest Service 
 with reference to the administration of the law by the Agricultural 
 Department. 
 
 The Chairman. Only as to the forest reserve? 
 
 Mr. Graves. As to the open range. 
 
 The Chairman. That is, as to the 300,000,000 acres remaining ? 
 
 Mr. Graves. Yes, sir; and that has been worked out specifically 
 for two sample areas, one in Arizona and the other in Wyoming. 
 A map has been prepared showing how a lease law like this would 
 work in these two areas, what it would cost for administration, and 
 what may be expected as to the returns. We have these maps here 
 so that the committee can see how the law would work out for a 
 specific State. Our men have detailed information that has enabled 
 them to make such an estimate. 
 
 The Chairman. But that was nothing that sprang from the con- 
 ference of your commission? 
 
 Mr. Graves. We prepared that map for our own use, so that we 
 could ourselves see better how the law would work in actual opera- 
 tion. 
 
 The Chairman. The thought I had was that since time began, or 
 administration began on the public domain, it has been handled by 
 the Interior Department; and ,the thought that ran through my 
 mind was that to transfer the whole remaining portion from one 
 
38 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 department to another, I wondered if you had worked out a policy 
 for transferring certain officers, so that you would not have to have 
 additional men, or had you intended to shift them from the Intenor 
 Department or handle it from your own department I 
 
 Mr. Graves. It was the assumption, following the plan laid down 
 in this bill, that the administration would be by the department. 
 
 The Chairman. You speak of the Agriculture Department? 
 
 Mr. Graves. Yes, sir ; there is an available force of trained men 
 in the Forest Service and in the other bureaus of the department, 
 including the Bureaus of Plant Industry and of Animal Industry. 
 
 The Chairman. So far as the stock growers are concerned, it is 
 absolutely necessary they deal with the officials of the departments 
 off and on the forest reserves when he passes from one jurisdiction 
 to another. If he had to deal with officials of the Interior Depart- 
 ment as soon as he crossed the boundaries of the public domain, it 
 would not work at all. There is no regular method. 
 
 Mr. Raker. This would take up and turn over the remaining pub- 
 lic domain, so far as homesteading is concerned, to the Department 
 of Agriculture. In other words, they would be the ones to deter- 
 mine whether a man should have a homestead or not under this bill? 
 
 Mr. Graves. I think not. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I am asking for information. 
 
 Mr. Graves. My understanding is that the bill provides for the 
 operation of certain general land Taws, including the homestead laws, 
 on this area just as they operate at the present time, and that the 
 Interior Department, as the legal department of the Government, 
 would handle that work, and that the Department of Agriculture 
 would handle the leases. 
 
 Mr. Raker. As it is now under the Forest Service, in the first in- 
 stance thcman must apply to the Forest Service for homesteading. 
 
 Mr. Graves. No. The difference is that the homestead law apply- 
 ing to the national forest requires classification of the land before it 
 is open to entry ; but there would be no such provision on the lands 
 affected by this bill. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Under this bill, under the proposed leasing, the De- 
 partment of Agriculture would prepare and provide for the terras 
 and conditions of the lease, would it not? Would not the same de- 
 partment determine whether or not a man would be permitted to go 
 in this country and obtain a homestead, and would they not, in the 
 first place, administer the law relative to the filing of a homestead? 
 
 Mr. Graves. I think that is all provided in the proposed lease law. 
 I think that does not require any previous action by the department 
 before filing for a homestead. I presume the local officials of the 
 Department of Agriculture would assist homesteaders, but they 
 would not have the administration of the homestead laws. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That would still remain in the Department of the 
 Interior ? 
 
 Mr. Graves. As it is to-day. That is my understanding of it. 
 
 Mr. Kent. That does not change in the homestead proposition. It 
 just concerns itself with the grass under lease, and at any time the 
 land is used for any other purpose there is no questioning that pur- 
 pose by the Department of Agriculture. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Here is a lease given under the authority of law by the 
 Department of Agriculture. The man obtains his authority and his 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 39 
 
 rights under the lease provided by the Department of Agriculture — 
 10,000 or 50,000 acres of land, whatever it might be. Does not that 
 same question of homesteading still come under the Department of 
 Agriculture, for them to see whether the man should go in there 
 or not? 
 
 Mr. Graves. I think, under the wording of the bill, he has a right 
 to file under certain circumstances. 
 
 Mr. Raker. But he should be permitted to file under the Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture. 
 
 Mr. Graves. I do not remember the exact wording on that. 
 
 Mr. Brown. I believe you will find that is covered on page 3, 
 line 9. 
 
 Mr. Graves. My understanding was there was ample provision 
 in this bill for homesteading. There ought to be if there is not; 
 that should naturally be provided for in the law. 
 
 Mr. Kent. That is a matter of detail we can take up later. 
 
 The Chairman. I would like to ask Dr. Galloway a few questions. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. For the record I would like to insert the letter 
 from the Secretary of Agriculture in which he states the reason for 
 the appointment of this committee. I find it is dated May 29, 1913. 
 
 The Chairman. Have you a corresponding letter from the Sec- 
 retary of the Interior appointing his committee ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes, sir. A letter was sent from the Secretary of 
 Agriculture to the Secretary of the Interior pointing out the neces- 
 sity for such a committee and the reasons for it and suggesting that 
 three be appointed from each department, and then Mr. Lane acqui- 
 esced. 
 
 The Chairman. Unless there is objection, the letter will go in the 
 record at this point. 
 
 (The letter reads as follows:) 
 
 May 29, 1913. 
 The honorable the Secretary of the Interior. 
 
 Sir : One of the important questions concerning the public lands is that of 
 legislation looking toward some form of control of the public grazing lands. 
 The object of such legislation would be to stop damage from overgrazing, which 
 has been very serious in some localities, to improve the condition of the range, 
 to bring about a more economic use of its forage resources, to make possible 
 the raising of more and better stock, and to give greater stability to the live- 
 stock industry. 
 
 A bill with this object in view was introduced in the Fifty-ninth Congress 
 by Senator Burkett. This bill was referred to the Public Lands Committee 
 of the Senate, but was not reported out' during that session. A bill in prac- 
 tically the same form was again introduced in the Sixtieth Congress by both 
 Senator Curtis and Representative Scott, and was referred respectively to the 
 Public Lands Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives. This 
 bill was also considered by the committee, but was never reported out to 
 either the Senate or the House. 
 
 A bill following practically the same lines, but with some modifications which 
 had been suggested by the American National Livestock Association, was intro- 
 duced during the Sixty-second Congress by Mr. Lever and was referred to the 
 Public Lands Committee, which considered it in hearings on May 3, 4, 7, 10, 
 29, and July 29, 1912, but did not report it out to the House. The general pro- 
 visions of this bill were to authorize the President to establish grazing dis- 
 tricts in localities where the application of a system of control would be bene- 
 ficial and to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate rules and 
 regulations for the protection and improvement of the lands and an equitable 
 allotment of the grazing privileges to the stockmen. It provided that the 
 stockmen, through a committee, should have a voice in the preparation of the 
 rules and regulations, and that they should determine whether the permits would 
 
40 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 be issued upon a per capita or an acreage basis. The grazing fees were fixed 
 at a moderate amount, the object of the bill being primarily to improve the 
 grazing lands and bring about a better system in their use, the amount charged 
 being intended to cover the cost of administration and improvement of the 
 
 lands. .it, , 
 
 The American National Livestock Association in its sixteenth annual conven- 
 tion, which was held at Phoenix, Ariz., on January 15, 1913, again went on 
 record as being strongly in favor of a bill to operate either under the jurisdic- 
 tion of the Department of the Interior or of Agriculture, and along the general 
 lines definitely recommended by that organization at its annual convention in 
 Denver in 1908. 
 
 In view of these facts and in accordance with your personal suggestion, I 
 have designated Dr. B. T. Galloway, Mr. Henry S. Graves, and Mr. Albert F. 
 Potter as a committee representing this department to confer with a similar 
 committee to be appointed by you with a view to agreeing upon a joint recom- 
 mendation regarding legislation for the control of grazing upon the public 
 lands. 
 
 Very respectfully, (Signed) D. F. Houston, Secretary. 
 
 The Secretary of the Interior, 
 
 Washington, June 9, WIS. 
 Dear Mr. Secretary : Pursuant to our conversation and your letter of May 
 29, I beg to advise you that I have designated Mr. A. A. Jones, First Assistant 
 Secretary of the Interior; Mr. Clay Tallman, Commissioner of the General 
 Land Office ; and Mr. Charles M. Bruce, Assistant Commissioner of the General 
 Land Office, to confer with the committee named by you. I hope that they will 
 make a joint recommendation regarding legislation as to the control of grazing 
 upon the public lands. 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 (Signed) Franklin K. Lane. 
 
 The honorable the Secretary of Agriculture. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Have you had considerable experience with grasses and 
 that form of work in your department ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway/. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Kent. I would like to ask you whether you believe it is prac- 
 ticable or important to change the grasses on an open uncontrolled 
 range ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. It is entirely practicable. 
 
 Mr. Kent. On an open uncontrolled range ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. No. On a controlled range. 
 
 Mr. Kent. By control, do you mean fences ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes, sir; fences or other means of regulation. 
 What do you mean by change of grasses ? 
 
 Mr. Kent. They have new grasses now introduced that are very 
 valuable that come from other parts of the world. What statement 
 could you make as regard the benefit of fences? Do you consider 
 them a benefit in handling these grasses ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes, sir ; under certain conditions, where there are 
 no natural barriers, you can not get the necessary control of your 
 animals without the fence control, and without that you can not get 
 control of your grasses. Very valuable experiments made in that line 
 have been conducted in Arizona where we have 50 square miles 
 under observation. 
 
 Mr. Kent. You refer to Dr. Thornberg's work? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes ; the department is cooperating with him ; and 
 he says by control of the stock he has increased the carrying ca- 
 pacity there about 100 per cent. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 41 
 
 Mr. Church. May I ask one question? These leases would be 
 fenced ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Church. Would not the person who goes in these large tracts 
 determine whether the land was subject to homestead purposes? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Not necessarily. 
 
 Mr. Kent. The bill does not specify that. There is no necessity. 
 Any man has a right to enter. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Let Dr. Galloway answer that. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. That is my understanding of the bill, although it 
 is not entirely clear. 
 
 Mr. Church. Who would determine under this bill whether the 
 land was subject to homestead or suitable for homestead purposes? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. That is a matter that would have to be determined 
 by the local board, assisted by the officer of the department in 
 charge of the district. 
 
 Mr. Churgh. That would be, according to this amendment, then, 
 under the supervision of the department? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. The Secretary of Agriculture. 
 
 Mr. Church. To determine whether the land was most suitable 
 for leasing purposes or homestead purposes? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. I think the department is best qualified to do 
 that, because its experience lies in that direction. 
 
 Mr. Church. If this bill passed it would take away the liberty 
 which people now have of locating on any Government land that is 
 not in the reserve ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. I do not think it would take away any particular 
 liberty. 
 
 Mr. Church. But he would have to get the consent of the depart- 
 ment before he could do so ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Church. Do you understand that there are restrictions on 
 the right of the homesteader to enter any land, except a 40-acre tract, 
 which may be improved in the bill ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. No. 
 
 Mr. Church. And that the homesteader has practically unre- 
 stricted rights except those specified in the bill? 
 
 The Chairman. I think Mr. Church's question was directed to 
 restrictions on the homesteaders and the right of your department 
 to determine whether or not he could take a homestead. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Those questions were contingent on the question 
 of decision as to whether the land was for grazing purposes or 
 agricultural purposes. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Your idea is that if a man leased a 10,000-acre 
 tract and there were certain places there that were suitable for 
 homestead entry, that man could go in there and take that land? 
 
 Dr, Galloway Exactly as they do in the forest reserve after the 
 land is classified as agricultural and opened to entry. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Do you think if a man had a 10,000-acre tract 
 anywhere in the West, under the provisions of this bill, there was 
 any chance for a homesteader with this language: "And provided 
 further, That when buildings, corrals, reservoirs, wells, or other im- 
 provements, except fences, shall have been established on any 40- 
 
42 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 acre tract to the value of more than $100, as determined by rules 
 of the Secretary of Agriculture, such 40-acre tract shall not be sub- 
 ject to settlement or appropriation under the public-land laws" during 
 the permit period without the consent of the owner of such build- 
 ings, corrals, reservoirs, wells, or other improvements"? It is my 
 information that the man who got 10,000 acres that he would have it 
 for at least 10 years, and he would certainly have more than a 
 hundred dollars' worth of wells and improvements there, and he 
 would have a cinch on those 10,000 acres. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Have you considered that paragraph in that bill, 
 Mr. Graves? What is your view on that matter? 
 
 Mr. Graves. It is my understanding that the purpose is to permit 
 homesteaders to file there. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Do you suppose that a man who had 10,000 
 acres of range would not put a hundred dollars' worth of improve- 
 ments on it ? I lived in the West for the last 30 years, and I know 
 that men would be smart enough to take advantage of that and see 
 that no one get a homestead of any consequence on any 10,000-acre 
 tract with that provision in the bill. 
 
 Mr. Graves. Our purpose was that the homesteader should be 
 protected and be allowed to take up the land, and I do not think 
 the matter you mention is going to interfere with the homesteader. 
 If it would interfere, I think the language ought to be changed. 
 Our idea is that the homesteader is to be fully protected. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I have no doubt the idea is good, but with that 
 provision I do not think there would be many homesteads taken in 
 those sections. 
 
 Mr. Church. You made a reference to the fact that there was 
 some similarity to the present regulations about taking homesteads 
 in forest reserves. Do you mean to say under this bill the agri- 
 cultural character of the land must be first determined by your 
 department before the homesteader may enter the land? 
 
 Dr. Galloavay. That authority is not set forth in the bill, but the 
 point I was making was in administering the bill the Department 
 of Agriculture would necessarily have to consider certain questions 
 in a general way until the proper period, and then perhaps the 
 question of classification would be brought in, as we do in the 
 forest reserve. 
 
 Mr. Church. Then the homesteader would not have the unre- 
 stricted right to file on any land that he saw fit to file on ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Under the terms of this bill he would have, but 
 under the terms of the law applicable to the forest reserve he would 
 not have. 
 
 Mr. Graves. On the national forests there is specific provision for 
 classification before the land is open for entry, but under this bill 
 entry is unrestricted, as I understand it. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Now, Mr. Chairman, just a few words as to the 
 general issues involved and the relation of the Department of Agri- 
 culture to this matter. It has already been stated that the Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture has the necessary organization now for the ad- 
 ministration of such a measure. We have had the experience 
 gathered from our work in the forest reserves. We have the Bureau 
 of Animal Industry with its studies of animal diseases, the Bureau 
 of Plant Industry with its study of grasses, and we have the Bio- 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 43 
 
 logical Survey, which looks to the general question of animals de- 
 structive to stock. It seems to me there is an issue in this bill as to 
 the future of agriculture in this country, about which something 
 ought to be said. 
 
 I am chairman of a committee to study the question of our future 
 meat supply, and that committee has only recently organized, and 
 has for its members some of the leading agricultural workers of the 
 country. One of the first questions that arose in considering the 
 future meat supply of the United States was what should be done 
 with our public domain. Unquestionably, unless there is some form 
 pendent on a successful animal husbandry, and, as farmers are now 
 lose their carrying capacity for live stock. Contingent upon that, we 
 have to consider the question of the development, of agriculture in 
 the great Mississippi Valley. That, in our opinion, is largely de- 
 pendent on a successful animal husbandry, and as farmers are now 
 finding in the Mississippi Valley, it is to their advantage to sell 
 grain rather than to engage in the cattle business, because they can 
 not produce feeding stock in sufficient number and at sufficient profit 
 to warrant them in doing so. That is due partly to the fact that the 
 number of animals that may be grown as feeders and stockers from 
 the range is gradually diminishing and unless we can establish an 
 equilibrium, unless we can establish a type of agriculture whereby a 
 certain class of feeder animals can be established on our public 
 lands, our agriculture is bound to suffer. So that any steps looking 
 to the protection of our national domain and the upbuilding of the 
 public lands, in the matter of enabling them to carry a greater num- 
 ber of live stock, would add greatly to the continuation of successful 
 agriculture in the Mississippi Valley. We are now already beginning 
 to import meat, and there is no reason why the United States should 
 not produce' its own meat supply. There is no reason why we should 
 not continue as a meat-eating nation, and there is no reason why we 
 should not continue as a leading agricultural nation, as undoubtedly 
 we shall continue. But the success of any agriculture is largely con- 
 tingent upon the successful continuation of the live-stock industry 
 and production and of some way of drawing on the range and aug- 
 menting the supply that may be bred on the farm, and in order to 
 bring that about our agriculture will have to be redirected and re- 
 arranged, and unless that can be done we will have to pass over to a 
 grain and crop producing nation rather than an animal-producing 
 nation. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. If this is a good place, Doctor, I want to interrupt 
 your statement. Your statement in regard to the necessity of our 
 cattle development has arrested my attention, and I desire to ask you 
 a question, if this is an appropriate place. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergxjsson. You stated a while ago that your experience in 
 certain places in Arizona has established the fact that the land- 
 producing capacity of arid or semiarid areas in the "West — speaking 
 now generally of * the territory covered by this bill— would be in- 
 creased 100 per cent. Now, in connection with that idea, it is the 
 duty of the Government and the public officials to study out and 
 foster any scheme that would promote agriculture and stock raising 
 combined ; I understood you to state that ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
44 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Fekgtjsson. Now, that being true, I would like to ask you if, 
 in your opinion, it would be possible to get up a bill that we would 
 call, say, a grazing homestead bill, having exactly in view that which 
 you have stated here— to promote stock raising and farming on the 
 same tract wherever possible (and you have been, even before you 
 became Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, doing that very thing 
 in hunting out all over the world these different forms of grass, some- 
 thing like our gramma grass, as we call it in New Mexico, which pro- 
 duced the finest kind of hay, and the Soudan grass) ; if you do not 
 think that it is possible to get up a bill applying a system of small 
 stock raising and agriculture combined throughout the semiarid 
 lands in question; if it is not possible to figure out a scheme of a 
 grazing homestead bill which would enable a man to have sufficient 
 acreage to cultivate these new seeds that you are bringing in from 
 the semiarid regions of the world— to fix up a grazing homestead 
 bill such as will restore the meat-producing capacity of the semiarid 
 West 100 per cent, rather than a grazing bill locking up for 20 years 
 the grazing lands of the West; if it is not possible that there might 
 be passed a bill that would leave the people unhampered in getting 
 homes on the public lands rather than to force them into the hazards 
 of seeking homes in leased and fenced areas? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. I think it is possible ; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I would like to ask you if you think that such a 
 bill as that would not be better than a bill of this kind that makes it 
 extremely difficult, to say the least, for a man to get a homestead in a 
 forest reserve or grazing reserve, such as this bill contemplates 
 creating ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. No ; I am not prepared to say that. I think there 
 must necessarily be a large area of land that can not be handled in 
 the way you contemplate. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Precisely; I admitted that last Congress, when 
 this grazing bill was up. But I will ask you this question : Do you 
 not think that the capacity of the semiarid West suitable for agricul- 
 ture and grazing or meat producing combined will be better fostered 
 by allowing 640-acre homesteads to be owned by one man, than it would 
 be by this grazing bill, under which agriculture would at least be 
 hampered, if not made utterly impracticable; and would it "not be 
 better to allow the 640-acre grazing homestead bill to operate for 
 5 or possibly 10 years before enacting such a grazing bill as is 
 here contemplated, and before what might be called a natural selec- 
 tion, by giving the farmers a first chance and allowing them to find 
 out what is suitable for a 640-acre homestead and what is suitable 
 only for grazing, where, as I have admitted, some system of krge 
 leasing might be useful in developing exclusively grazing interests of 
 the semiarid West ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Well, you are getting me off into pretty deep 
 water. I should think, Mr. Fergusson, that you are rather making 
 an argument than asking me a question. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Well then, I want to ask you one more question; 
 I want to ask you this: If you do not think it will be a great hard- 
 ship, under the terms of this bill, to require a homesteader to go 
 into a leased area to get his homestead, when he is trying to make 
 a home for his wife and children, with community advantages, such 
 as schools, churches, and other social advantages? * 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 45 
 
 Dr. Galloway. If I thought that this bill would in any way re- 
 tard the homesteader I would not be in favor of it. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. That is whatT wanted you to say. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. But I do not think it does. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Well, I did not want you to say that. You are 
 here to tell the whole truth and I know you will do it. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I want to ask you this one question: If you do 
 not think that the development of agriculture in these forest reserves 
 has been retarded and limited by the general restrictions and regu- 
 lations that hamper the homesteader ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. No. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. You do not think it is ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. No. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Well, my idea is different, so far as New Mexico 
 is concerned. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. I am fully committed to the plan of developing 
 every inch of that arid territory. You know, we have our dry-land 
 stations, where we are trying to work out the general principles of 
 dry-land work. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. You have done a vast good to our country ; I will 
 say that. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. It is now absolutely necessary that we should 
 study the animal husbandry end of it and the production of crops 
 under dry-land conditions. That is very valuable in connection with 
 homesteads all along the line from British Columbia down to your 
 State. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I am thoroughly in accord with that. Now, 
 Doctor, I want you to get ready, when my bill comes up later, to 
 answer that question as to whether it will not be feasible to restore . 
 the meat-producing capacity of the semiarid West, by allowing the 
 farmer with 640 acres to raise what cattle he can under fence in con- 
 nection with his agricultural pursuits, and if you do not think it 
 is better to defer the question of finding such sections in the semi- 
 arid West where agriculture is impossible until we find out what 
 land is suitable for homes in connection with grazing. I want you 
 to answer that question when my bill comes up. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. All right, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, Doctor, we are detaining you quite a long 
 time, but I want to ask you one question. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. I am at your service. 
 
 The Chairman. Could not a condition arise and would not, in all 
 probability, the classification of the remaining 640-acre allotments 
 now available — would not a large portion of that area have value, 
 slight perhaps at present, for agriculture, and even for grazing in a 
 small way, and might not Mr. Fergusson's section bill be extremely 
 applicable to that, and might not the residue thereof, from topog- 
 raphy and character, have no possibility whatever for agriculture or 
 for grazing on a small scale, and could not these two thoughts be 
 harmonized and divisible, so that the homesteader might acquire 
 title, and the ranges yet remaining that have no value might be avail- 
 able for raising horses and cattle ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. I think that is entirely feasible, and a suggestion 
 worthy of the most careful consideration. That is a suggestion I 
 
46 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 would make toward classification of land. In other words, before 
 you jump into the whole matter it would be better to look up the 
 classifications of land. 
 
 The Chairman. And it would give an intelligent use of every acre 
 of the whole land. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Stout. You say that your department has administrative 
 facilities for handling this thing now ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Stotjt. Now, to take over this work would require an immense 
 addition to your force. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Not a very large addition. As I understand from 
 the estimates made by Mr. Graves and the others they will be able to 
 handle any details. 
 
 The Chairman. Only one more question, Doctor. Reverting for 
 the moment to the question of the transfer of jurisdiction from the 
 Interior Department to the Agriculture Department, if it should 
 develop that the Interior Department, through their three commis- 
 sioners that have been appointed and that have been acting jointly 
 with . you on the board, should it happen for any cause that the 
 transfer of jurisdiction should not be made, your views as to the 
 feasibility and advisability of this proposition would still be the 
 same ? , 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. In my mind there is no question as to the 
 place where it should be administered, and that is in the Department 
 of Agriculture. 
 
 The Chairman. Yes: I know that is your view, but in the event 
 that the Department of Agriculture, which now has jurisdiction and 
 ought, at least, to have a say in the trade 
 
 Dr. Galloway (interposing). Certainly. 
 
 The Chairman. In the event that such a transfer were not made, 
 your views as to the feasibility of this proposition would still be the 
 same? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, granting for the moment that the Interior 
 Department, through their three named commissioners, may agree 
 with the Department of Agriculture and the transfer of jurisdiction is 
 made, then this statement of facts would be true and this condition 
 would be true: You people of the Agriculture Deparement will have 
 the Forestry Service under your department, you will have the pub- 
 lic domain, so far as the leasehold features are concerned, under your 
 jurisdiction, and the Interior Department, with their Land Office, 
 will have jurisdiction so far as homesteading is concerned? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. All questions of entry to and acquisition of 
 lands under the various land laws. 
 
 The Chairman. This bill does not .divest them of that feature. 
 So that the General Land Office would still perform its- function and 
 the local land office would still perform its function and you would 
 go ahead with the leasing phase of it? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, how much friction do you anticipate there 
 might arise as a result of these two concurrent jurisdictions running 
 all along over the same area? In other words, you would have the 
 
DISPOSITION OF GBAZING LANDS. 47 
 
 power to make a lease and the Interior Department or the General 
 Land Office would have the power to control the homesteads. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. I do not think there would necessarily be any con- 
 flict. I think that is a matter of detail that could be worked out 
 between the two departments and handled properly. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Originally, the Forest Service was in the Depart- 
 ment of the Interior! 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. It was transferred for good and sufficient reasons 
 over to the Department of Agriculture? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. If friction should develop to such an extent that it 
 was impracticable to administer the lands outside of the forests 
 under two jurisdictions, there might be a possible solution by putting 
 the Forest Service back in the Department of the Interior where it 
 originally was? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes, sir ; it might work both ways. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Doctor, would you have any serious objection to 
 putting the Forest Service back in the Department of the Interior? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes; most serious. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. What is the objection? I would like to know. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Well, the objections are — I do not think I ought to 
 be called upon to express them here in the record. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Well, I do not want to ask you any embarrassing 
 questions. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I understand that the purport of this bill is that this 
 would turn over all of the public lands that are now not reserved to 
 leasing purposes? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes, sir; grazing lands. 
 
 Mr. Raker. It would leave out none at all ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I want to get it definitely in the record, so that my 
 questions later may be applied to the bill. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Is that your understanding? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That is on the section bill? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. It is the purpose of this section bill that " the unre- 
 served, unappropriated lands shall be subject to this act." 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That would include mineral and all lands that are not 
 reserved ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Now, going back to your Mississippi question, you say 
 one of the troubles there is that they do not have enough stock to 
 eat the forage and the produce that is raised in the Mississippi 
 Valley? 
 I Dr. Galloway. No. 
 
 Mr. Raker. In other words, they ought to have stock there to eat 
 the hay and grain and refuse that is not used or shipped away, and 
 apply it right on the farms? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
48 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Baker. And that the purpose of the leasing of this land is 
 that the remaining domain, as long as possible, should be held for 
 the purpose of raising stock as feeders for the East? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Only such parts of it as may not be subject to 
 entry. 
 
 Mr. Kakee. Of course, I understand that, but the real object would 
 be to turn over the West for stock purposes to raise feeders for the 
 East? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. The profit to each section 
 
 Mr. Baker (interposing). Well, leave out the profits; we will get 
 at that later. I want a definite statement. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. I think I should be permitted to get a statement 
 in about the profit. They would profit each section. Of course, I 
 would not consider any line of work that would make the western 
 stock raisers subservient to the Mississippi Valley farmers. 
 
 Mr. Baker. Is there any vital objection to the Mississippi Valley 
 farmers raising, feeding, and disposing of their stock now ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. None whatever ; only I tried to make the point that 
 such a procedure would put us somewhat on a basis of the agriculture 
 in England. In other words, we can produce more hay and more 
 forage than it would be profitable to breed stock on these individual 
 farms not utilized. Here we have this public domain producing 
 animals and the value of the domain is increasing all the time; the 
 carrying capacity is increasing. The animals, at a profit to the pro- 
 ducers in the West, may be turned over to the men producing grain 
 in the Mississippi Valley, who may fatten such animals and use them 
 for building up their farms. That would not in any way detract 
 from the value of the farms in the West, but in that way both the 
 West and the Mississippi Valley are improving. 
 
 Mr. Baker. Has not that been done in the East, the diversifying 
 of farms rather than devoting them to one object? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Baker. Is it not a fact that in Ohio they raise more sheep? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Baker. And that is by reason of diversified farms ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Baker. And they get more out of their sheep lands than they 
 get in the West ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. That is true. 
 
 Mr. Baker. Then the very thing to divert the stock from the West 
 for feeding purposes in the East would drain that offal of the stock 
 which would enhance the value in the East ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Baker. Do you consider land in the West so valuable that this 
 should be done ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. No. On the other hand, the land that I am con- 
 sidering would be these great ranges that could not be used for agri- 
 cultural purposes, and that a system of stock raising would increase 
 their capacity, the range capacity, and at the same time would induce 
 the Mississippi Valley farmers to take advantage of the situation and 
 engage in animal industry. 
 
 Mr. Baker. Has not the matter of retardation in the West been a 
 matter of transportation rather than one of handling the stock on the 
 farms? 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 49 
 
 Dr. Galloway. One of the greatest problems with which we have 
 to contend in the West is the question of transportation. Even when 
 we can produce things at a low price we are handicapped by the lack 
 of transportation facilities. Under such circumstances we want to' 
 preserve the live stock because the live stock can be transferred more 
 cheaply as animals than as meat. 
 
 Mr. Baker. Has it not been one of the drawbacks that the markets 
 are such and the distances are such that the live stock can not be 
 transported to the markets successfully, and therefore the farmers are 
 compelled to raise more stock than would have otherwise been raised 
 if they had a market for them ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. You are now speaking of the West ? 
 Mr. Kakek. Well, Nevada and part of California. 
 Mr. Graham. Might I give a personal experience that I think 
 would illustrate the doctor's idea ? I have seen stock cattle come by 
 the trainload from Texas and adjoining sections to Missouri and 
 Illinois. They would come in the fall of the year and would be 
 wintered on the farms in those States, and during the winter the 
 average expectation is that each head would gain about 500 pounds 
 in weight. Now, in some sections of this State the farmer will sow 
 cowpeas in the cornfields and he will have great straw stacks that 
 would otherwise be burned. He would have a great deal of material 
 for wintering his stock. Some farmers will feed their cattle spe- 
 cially, but many of them feed them with nothing but what they 
 have in the fields. They have to have sufficient land on which to 
 pasture the cattle and they have to raise forage to winter and feed 
 them. Some farmers buy the cattle partly grown, and they have to 
 have pasture for them in summer and forage for them in winter, 
 and when the cattle are grown they have not facilities to take them 
 to market. So that wisdom would require that cattle raising and 
 agriculture, to a certain extent, should be combined. The cattle on 
 the ranges could be fattened to the point where they would be ready 
 for maxket, and then you could transport them to a place where the 
 material to fatten them would be otherwise wasted, and in that way 
 the amount of meat for the American people would be vastly in- 
 creased at very slight expense but with a very great advantage to 
 the people. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. The agriculture of the Mississippi Valley is being 
 greatly helped, in addition to the stock raisers in the West. Both 
 are being helped. 
 Mr. Raker. I do not suppose you are acquainted with Oregon ? 
 Dr. Galloway. No. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Nor eastern California and Nevada? 
 Dr. Galloway. No. 
 
 Mr. Baker. Is it not a fact that many of the men who are raising 
 cattle in this place and have been doing so for the last 25 years, with 
 plenty of hay in their barns, have to drive the cattle off to market and 
 sell them because if they kept them home they would not bring any- 
 thing, and they can not drive the fat cattle to market because of the 
 loss 1 they would incur by reason of the long drive ? ^ 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Baker. The question of transportation is one of the things 
 that has held the western man back all the time ? 
 35074— pt 1—14 4 
 
50 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. This condition in Oregon and the West is 
 very familiar. With better facilities for transportation and the de- 
 velopment of abbattoirs the trouble will be very much overcome. 
 ' But it is too far from market to ship live cattle, and what we need 
 is more abbattoirs to facilitate the marketing of the cattle. 
 
 Mr. Kent. You are familiar enough with that proposition to know 
 that the cattle are only fat enough at certain seasons of the year? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Kent. They are only what you call ripe in the tall? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Kent. And if they could be killed then and there, without 
 long shipment, that would be a saving? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Kent. But if you ship these same cattle to Omaha, 1,500 miles, 
 they lose their quality and also their weight ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. There is a matter of shrinkage there, too, 
 Mr. Kent. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Of course, giving the farmer that opportunity to get 
 more farms and to raise more cattle on small farms would be better 
 for the country than to turn over the entire country to a few large 
 institutions to raise cattle. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. That would be true if it were practicable and 
 feasible. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Is it not practicable and feasible now ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Only to a limited extent 
 
 Mr. Raker. What do you mean by a limited extent? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Well, there are certain limiting factors out there. 
 There are large areas of land that must remain range lands. You 
 could not develop agriculture on them. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Now, that has not been determined by anyone. On 
 land that was said to be not subject to agriculture three or five years 
 ago, to-day they are raising from two to five crops of alfalfa. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And all the land that is susceptible of cultivation that 
 will produce grass from 2 to 5 feet high will produce grain. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Now, ought you not to permit the farmer and home- 
 seeker to take this arable land and make his farm on it and then 
 range his stock in the foothills, or the small hills that can not be used 
 for farms, instead of turning the entire hillside, the entire mountain 
 district, over to a few large concerns ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. As I understand this bill, the farmer would have 
 just that opportunity. 
 
 Mr. Brown. There is a preference given him in the bill. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. For domestic purposes ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. What do you mean by that term— domestic purposes? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. As I take it, it means the same thing it does in 
 forest reserves. If a man has a ranch, he is allowed to utilize adja-. 
 cenf land for such stock as he can graze on it. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. But domestic use means for household purposes, like 
 water for watering gardens and other household uses. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 51 
 
 Mr. Raker. Is that all ? 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I have a number of oases in mind that I have observed 
 for a great many years, where a valley 60 miles long and 10 or 15 
 miles wide is filled with homes and being settled up, land which had 
 been worthless but which is now being utilized, but on each side there 
 are hills, some covered with timber, some with a little juniper, and 
 some with nothing at all. Now, under this bill, if the department 
 saw fit to lease that entire foothill range, it could be leased to one or 
 two individuals? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes ; if the department saw fit, I suppose it could. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Now, if such a condition were permissible under the 
 bill, would it not be a very sad state of affairs to cut off the farmer 
 in the valley from working the range in the foothills? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. I certainly think it would. 
 
 Mr. Raker. If the department were given permission to lease this 
 entire range that I speak of, it would cut off the small farmer. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Not necessarily. The department, of course, could 
 exercise its discretion in the matter and could hold these lands for 
 the betterment of the people in the valley. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You are not finding any complaint at the present time 
 from those small farmers scattered all over the West, asking that 
 they be shut off from their little back-yard grazing land ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. You are speaking now of the western forest re- 
 serves? - 
 
 Mr. Raker. No ; I am speaking of the remaining public lands. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. That is a different question. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. So far as the remaining public lands are concerned, 
 we do not have any jurisdiction over them. 
 
 Mr. Raker. But under this bill you would catch them. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes ; probably you would. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Then, I say, have you had any desire or any requests - 
 from the great body of the small farmers, with farms from 100 to 
 1,000 acres, that the remaining adjoining public lands be put out? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. I can not recall that I have. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Is it not a fact that practically all the desire for the 
 leasing of this public land is from stock organizations such as those 
 dealing in cattle, horses, and sheep ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes; those are the organizations and agencies 
 most interested in this subject for the last 18 years, so far as I have 
 studied them. 
 
 Mr. Raker. There have not been many of the farmers here urging 
 such a leasing bill ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And do you not believe, as a matter of fact, that we 
 would be doing the country and the West a better service if we pro- 
 vided some means by which the remaining public lands were put in 
 private ownership so that they could be developed and taxes could 
 be obtained from them and more homes could be put on the lands 
 and more cities could be built up in the country ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. That is, of course, to be accomplished if it is prac- 
 ticable to do so. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Now, Doctor, in regard to the fencing proposition, I 
 do not know what experience you have had in that. 
 
52 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. I have not had very much. 
 
 Mr. Baker. But I think I ought to ask you about this. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. I think you should bring in Mr. Potter or Mr. 
 Graves. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Yes ; but this particular line I want to develop from 
 you if I can. You remember the law as it existed before 1885 in 
 regard to men being permitted to fence the public domain ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Kaker. Do you remember that they fenced many hundreds 
 of thousands of acres? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And retarded and prevented practically all develop- 
 ment except as to their stock interests ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes ; those fences were put up without any restric- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And from the very moment when that bill became a 
 law the small stock raisers began to suffer, and there has been a con- 
 stant fight before Congress for a leasing bill. Is not that the history 
 of the matter ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes ; since this fencing commenced^ 
 
 Mr. Raker (interposing). About 1885 they commenced. I saw 
 a great many of them come down myself. They were torn down 
 hy order of the department. Now, take a man, as a practical illus- 
 tration, with an inclosure of 50,000 acres. Under this bill he would 
 not be permitted to enter if there were a spring on the property. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That same condition would apply to the streams by 
 ^which they could put in diverting dams and thereby take all the 
 water in the streams, would it not ? In other words, so as to prevent 
 the homesteader going in there and getting any particular 640 tract? 
 I mean that is what the big fellows could do. I am going as I see 
 it and as it has been so under the fencing laws before it was declared 
 unlawful. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. I am not clear in my mind that it would be unlaw- 
 ful under the terms of this bill. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Now, if you permit a man to put up a fence on 50,000 
 acres of land and fence it, you would enable him to get some use of it. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Certainly. He would not put up a fence unless 
 he did. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Now, this bill does not permit a prospector to get into 
 the inclosure. 
 
 Mr. Kent. I believe it does. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Did you say this bill does not allow anything of 
 that kind ? 
 
 Mr. Raker. Yes. Where is it in the bill 'i 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Well, ask the Doctor. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Well, I was asking the Doctor, and you gentlemen said 
 it did, and I was asking you to point it out. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. It is in section 4 of the bill. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. The only comment I make on section 4 is that it 
 absolutely safeguards the interests of prospectors and settlers. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Well, I have read section 4, and I am therefore 
 examining you with that point in view, and therefore I feel quite 
 clear in my statement, while I have not stated it before, that there 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 53 
 
 is no provision in the bill that a prospector can enter an inclosure, 
 and I so stand until I am convinced the other way by some gentle- 
 men who know. Just read the bill. It says, "upon such grazing 
 districts." 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That district refers back to another section which de- 
 fines it. It may include an entire county. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And there is nothing in the bill which says that a 
 prospector, either 1 or 100, may go within the inclosure that you 
 have fenced. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. That is correct. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Now, supposing that it did give such permission; 
 do you believe that there would be harmony and accord if prospectors 
 were permitted, with their little burros and little outfits, to camp 
 all over the inclosure and territory ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. No. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That would create a difficulty to start with. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Mr. Prospector would awake one morning and find 
 his burro dead and a part of his material hauled out and thrown 
 over the fence. There is no disguising the fact; let us get to the 
 facts. Is it the purpose to keep the prospector out of the inclosure ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. It is not. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Then are you going to let him go in there ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. I think those matters are capable of administra- 
 tive settlement, and Mr. Graves would know about that. Mr. 
 Graves, what difficulties, if any, have they in the forest reserves ? 
 
 Mr. Graves. There have been no difficulties of that sort. 
 
 Mr. Raker. There can not be any, because there are no fences. I 
 am speaking now of this bill in which the vital thing is fences, and 
 I want to bring this to the committee's attention and to the atten- 
 tion of those who are interested in the conditions, which if carried 
 out will absolutely prohibit any development of a tract once fenced. 
 I do not think there is any way by which you can get around it. I 
 think the homesteader should have free rein to go m and make his 
 location irrespective of the judgment of the Secretary of Agriculture. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. I think he should have that hight. 
 
 Mr. Raker. But would he get into the inclosure? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. He would make his application to the man in 
 charge of this district and he would go in. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Well, your idea is that the man having the inclosure 
 would have no control over it as to keeping locked gates. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Oh, he would not necessarily have no control over 
 it, but he must give way to the right of the homesteader if the home- 
 steader can show that he has a right to get in there. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Oh, the homesteader should assume the burden of 
 proving his case; is that it? I think the homesteader should have 
 a carte blanche order, like a writ of arrest, to walk through that 
 
 Dr.* Galloway. Then, I think you would have chaos. 
 Mr. Raker. Sure. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Because you would have all sorts of people com- 
 ing in and claiming to be bona fide homesteaders. 
 
54 DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Then the department would have to make regulations 
 for the homesteader to make his location before he could enter. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mir. Kaker. Can you conceive of a man going to an inclosure under 
 such circumstances, settling down on a stock range with horses and 
 cattle, and starting out to raise his family with harmony and accord 
 prevailing? . 
 
 Dr. Galloway. I can not conceive of 50,000 acres of good agricul- 
 tural land being fenced. . 
 
 Mr. Kaker. I thought that is what this bill provided. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. That is not agricultural land. 
 
 Mr. Raker. There is no distinction; it says all the remaining 
 public lands. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes; the bill leaves it without classification. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Yes; the bill leaves it without classification. Now, 
 having once been leased, his lease would hold for 10 years? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And you do not believe that, the land having once 
 been fenced, the homesteader would have much chance of locating 
 and getting in, do you? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Well, I think it would depend in a large measure 
 upon the method of procedure and administration, and that is a 
 matter upon which I would not venture an opinion. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Well, I think you are right in that. But it all re- 
 solves itself down to this: That a man, in order to get his filing, 
 would depend upon the administrative features of the Department 
 of Agriculture? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Both as to his filing and time and place of location 
 and the kind of land he wanted to locate ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes ; that seems to be so. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Because this bill calls for a board that must be ap- 
 pointed under the supervision of the Secretary of Agriculture. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Also, if he is not satisfied with the decision of the 
 officers appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture he has the right 
 of appeal to the Secretary of Agriculture, the man who appoints 
 these very officers? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. In other words, it would turn over the remaining pub- 
 lic domain to the Secretary of Agriculture instead of leaving it to 
 the Secretary of the Interior to handle ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes; that is true. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Doctor, where did you get the idea that the remaining 
 public domain has been and is being all destroyed? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. I do not know that I said it is all destroyed. I 
 think it has been depleted. I do not think it needs any argument 
 to prove that. The fact of the number of cattle now coming in from 
 the ranges is sufficient evidence of that fact, and then the evidence 
 of the people who have made a study of this matter is, of course, all 
 in this direction. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Well, they have been compelled to reduce their herds 
 this year by virtue of the regulations that have been made in the 
 Forest Service, have they not? 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 55 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Well, but the Forest Service is carrying more now 
 than they did under the old conditions. 
 
 Mr. Eakee. You mean when they originally started? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Of course they had no figures as to the number of 
 animals that were on the ranges before ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Oh, yes; I think they did. Did they not? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Not before the establishment of the reserves, but 
 upon the establishment of regulated grazing on the reserves. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Of course, we have only the figures of the census 
 and they are very general. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And you understand that the stock is decreasing in 
 the West instead of increasing? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes ; I think that is correct. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And the ranges are not as much crowded as they were 
 several years ago. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And is not that one of the conditions that is being 
 brought about by virtue of the larger man reducing his stock volun- 
 tarily right along ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Well, I think it is partly due to that fact and 
 partly because they are not able to carry such a large stock. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Now, I know men who had certain land and they 
 ranged back in the mountains of the forest reserve. Now, under 
 this condition, they have had to reduce their stock and reduce their 
 herd, and in that way have bettered their condition. Well, you have 
 not gone into that ; you do not understand that ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. No. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I will not press it. That is all. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Do you not think that there would be many cases 
 where a man obtaining a homestead in this country would be vastly 
 benefited by the possibility of having a fixed lease adjoining his 
 homestead? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. I do not think there is any question about that. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Are there not very many homesteads that would not be 
 self-sustaining without a certainty of having grazing lands ad- 
 joining or near by and definitely under the control of the home- 
 steader ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. That is my understanding. 
 
 Mr. Kent. That is what I mean by saying that the homestead 
 idea and the grazing idea should work together. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Now, I will call your attention to another proposition: 
 Is it not a fact that a vast amount of grazing in that section of the 
 country is what is known as seasonal? That is, there has to be a 
 migration from winter pasture to summer pasture ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Kent. In such a case the grazing homestead would not be ad- 
 visable. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. No. 
 
 Mr. Kent. For the reason that a man, if he located his homestead 
 on a winter range, would not get his summer range unless he leased it, 
 and if he located on a summer range he would not get his winter range 
 unless he leased it for winter. 
 
56 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. That is my understanding of the situation. 
 
 Mr. Kent. That is all I want to ask. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Doctor, if the transfer spoken of was made to the 
 Agriculture Department, you have stated that it would require some 
 increase in the office force there. Do you know whether it would cause 
 any reduction in the office force in the Interior Department ? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. No ; I do not. 
 
 The Chairman. Just one question, Doctor. I had not intended 
 to interrupt again, but I want to ask you this one question. 
 
 Dr. Galloway. All right. 
 
 The Chairman. Has there been any plan or rule or regulation 
 worked out in contemplation of this law that would show what 
 particular areas or what size of areas would he involved by this bill? 
 
 Dr. Galloway. Only so far as it relates to two districts. 
 
 Mr. Graves. Those are examples of the grazing districts. Those 
 were not the areas to be leased to any one individual person, but 
 simply the districts for administration. 
 
 The Chairman. Well, getting right down to that, then. Suppose 
 the bill was signed to-day ? 
 
 Mr. Graves. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. And it devolved upon your department to at once 
 promulgate and cook up rules for the administration of this area? 
 
 Mr. Graves. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. You would be undoubtedly called, upon to throw 
 them into blocks or lease areas? 
 
 Mr. Graves. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, what would be your minimum and what 
 would be your maximum, so that the committee would have some 
 idea of what you would have to do ? 
 
 Mr. Kent. Would it be based upon per capita of stock or area be- 
 cause the supporting power of the land differs in different localities? 
 
 The Chairman. Precisely ; but I only asked for a minimum area 
 and a maximum area. 
 
 Mr. Graves. As I understand it, we would start, undoubtedly, as 
 we did when we put the national forests under the administration, 
 and begin first with the herds that are now using the range. Might T 
 ask Mr. Potter to explain that, as he initiated and has handled the 
 work in the Forest Service? 
 
 The Chairman. Very well. 
 
 Mr. Potter. That was entirely to meet the local conditions, and 
 the minimum and maximum numbers varied accordingly. For ex- 
 ample, in Utah, in Mr. Johnson's State, the owners of stock are very 
 numerous, but the average holding is very small. Consequently the 
 protective limits were small. In other localities both the minimum 
 and maximum limits were larger. They varied from a protective 
 limit for a settler's permit of 25 head up to 200 head, and in the 
 maximum permit ; which is the largest permit which anyone is 
 allowed to acquire, it is from 500 to 2,000 head. Those limits are 
 fixed in accordance with local needs and local conditions. 
 
 The Chairman. Even yet, Mr. Potter 3 without trying to be argu- 
 mentative or assuming that attitude at all, I do not think you have 
 answered my quesion. My question was this : This bill is formulated 
 on the basis that you will not lease it on a per head basis. 
 
 Mr. Kent. It is optional, Mr. Chairman. 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 57 
 
 Mr. Potter. It is optional. 
 
 The Chairman. Well, in other words, you have to divide from 
 necessity. 
 
 Mr. Potter. It is absolutely impossible to divide some of the 
 ranges. In the individual allotments they must be used by com- 
 munities. For example, in some national forest ranges the season 
 opens gradually. In the early summer the cattle will graze in the 
 foothills and in middle summer they will graze a little higher up, 
 and when the summer is well along they graze, many of them, 
 away up above the timber line. Now, that season does not generally 
 run over three months. In turn, as the seasons change, the stock 
 range gradually down again, and in order to divide a range into 
 individual allotments you would have to have little strips all down 
 the mountain. 
 
 The Chairman. It is not the purpose to take up a whole State 
 altogether. 
 
 Mr. Potter. No; but in handling many of the ranges you must 
 handle them on a community basis. 
 
 The Chairman. Well, if there is no well-defined and fixed policy 
 on the part of the department proposing to offer these lands, we 
 ought to know it in advance, because we are dealing with too im- 
 portant a matter to talk about taking over the remaining public 
 domain, and these gentlemen who sit here who are undoubtedly ex- 
 pecting to get leases would undoubtedly want to have a specific area 
 and to get specific control of it, but if you can not show 
 
 Mr Kent (interposing). Mr. Chairman, I have seen these so-called 
 community pastures and a large number of small men combine to- 
 gether and jointly do some fencing. I saw it in New Mexico where 
 it was not under a forest reserve. It was a community pasture and 
 it worked out very well. 
 
 The Chairman. When a number of stockmen can combine and 
 control such large areas of pasture land, that becomes absolutely 
 vicious ab initio. The proposition to turn over a whole State to 
 a few men who will turn that land over to cattlemen to the exclu- 
 sion of settlers will not do. To say, "We must put it on a com- 
 munity basis" will not do, by any rule of rhyme or reason. Such 
 procedure will stifle the settlement and the development of any 
 State. What those States need is people, many of them with a few 
 cattle each, not a few people with a large number. 
 
 Mr. Kent. The bill says that preference shall be given to home- 
 steaders and settlers. 
 
 The Chairman. But I am asking these gentlemen what will be 
 done if this bill were to go into effect to-morrow. I am trying to 
 ascertain what the practical side of it will be. This is too important 
 to deal alone with the theoretical side of it. 
 
 Mr. Potter. To extend as far as is applicable the present system 
 of regulation in the National Forest Service, which gives prefer- 
 ence to settlers and local residents and in many instances provides 
 for community pastures. 
 
 The Chairman. And some of which are painfully unsatisfactory. 
 
 Mr. Baker. Well, you have not any territory, however, at any 
 place, where a man can say what is really his own. 
 
58 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Potter. There is a very small part of it that is fenced ir 
 with individual fences. In a great many of the Government for- 
 ests there are districts, and between the districts there are what we 
 call drift fences, so that on a large community range there is pro- 
 vision for them to drift from one range to another. That is one 
 thing that is greatly beneficial in the administration of the national 
 parks. To think that the stockmen say that that system of main- 
 taining drift ranges has saved their stock from 10 per cent to 15 
 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. In Oregon, in my county, the stock of the different 
 settlers lay promiscously together in one range. 
 
 Mr. Potter. There are many community ranges of cattle which 
 are controlled by drift fences. 
 
 Mr. Kent. What other protection is there for a man with 25 
 cattle ? What else can he do in that range country ? 
 
 Mr Kakek. He can not do anything. He can not afford to go 
 out and fence 2,500 or 25,000 acres. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Would it not be the policy of the Forest Service 
 to grant these permits to the exclusion of some others? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. The small man will be protected by pref- 
 erences allowed him and by range limitations on the larger owners. 
 In the beginning we granted the permits to the men who were in 
 possession of the range at the time of the establishment of a national 
 forest reserve. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. How could they be in possession if they had no 
 title? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Well, I should have said, " who were occupying it." 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Is it not a fact that under your administration the 
 small farmers have been deprived of the use of the forest reserve? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Certainly not. Only a very small part of them are 
 engaged in cattle raising, and all settlers may graze their milch 
 cows and work animals free and without permit. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Well, it has been the practice in my State that a 
 great majority of little fellows have been deprived of the use of 
 the forest reserves. 
 
 (Thereupon at 1.45 p. m. the committee adjourned until to-morrow^ 
 Wednesday, March 4, at 10 o'clock a. m.) 
 
 Committee on the Public Lands, 
 
 House of Representatives, 
 Wednesday, March h 19H. 
 The committee was called to order at 10.30 a. m., Hon. Scott Ferris 
 (chairman) presiding. 
 The Chairman. Mr. Kent, you can proceed with your statement. 
 Mr. Kent. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that we have a large num- 
 ber of people here from distant places. They are here to give us 
 information about the live-stock business. They are not here to 
 revise or make oyer this bill. I have no doubt that if this bill is re- 
 ported out of this committee and sent to the House, it will be in » 
 different form from what it now is. It is my sincere hope that we 
 can shorten these hearings and learn what we can from these people 
 without digging into the details of the bill and expressing so many 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 59 
 
 opinions of our own, as we did yesterday. We will have plenty of 
 time to do that later. These gentlemen are here to give us infor- 
 mation and tell us the situation in the various States ; and, with the 
 information we get from them, we will be. better qualified to go on 
 and formulate a bill. 
 
 Mr. Baker. There is a personal matter that I want to mention 
 right now. I do not ,know whether the gentleman intends it as a 
 criticism of my examination yesterday or not, but if it is, it is 
 wholly unwarranted, because I shall take such attitude as appeals 
 to me, representing as I do a district in California, as to this bill 
 or any other bill that may come before the committee irrespective 
 of the number of men who may appear. I want to refer to an article 
 published in a paper yesterday in regard to this bill, and I want it 
 to go in the record, as to whether or not there is an insidious lobby 
 on this bill, and as to false impressions conveyed to the people of 
 the West. I stated when the matter of the homestead bill was to be 
 considered as a leasing bill that both propositions would be joined 
 and the public would be advised. The head of this article discusses 
 plans to reduce living cost. It says : " Committee considers Kent bill 
 to open vast territory to the public. The bill affects the remaining 
 public lands in the United States, and its passage is desired by the 
 western people." That is, the cattle and horse people, which I 
 interpolate. "The Interior Department has recommended the pas- 
 sage of such a bill." Where is the report? Has there been a report 
 on this bill from the Interior Department ? 
 
 Mr. Fergttsson. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I simply mentioned those extracts to show samples of 
 the stuff that is going out from Washington, to go into my district 
 and every district to mislead the public of the West, that we are 
 trying to legislate here for the some seeker, when he is not present, 
 but with a lobby here in favor for the grazing features of the bill, 
 and I expect telegram after telegram will be coming into me asking 
 me to support the bill that will open up the West for homesteaders. 
 My position in the matter is I consider that this bill is for the pur- 
 pose of tying up the remaining public domain and preventing to 
 homesteaders its proper use. This land is all open now. 
 
 The Chairman. Judge Raker asks that the newspaper clipping, 
 which seems to be short, be incorporated in the record at this time. 
 Unless there is objection, that will be done. 
 
 DISCUSS PIAN TO REDUCE LIVING COST HOUSE COMMITTEE CONSIDERS KENT BILL TO 
 
 OPEN VAST TERRITORY TO PUBLIC. 
 
 The House Committee on the Public Lands began to-day the consideration of 
 the part the Government is to play in the increase of meat production. By 
 an agreement between Congressmen Fergusson and Kent, the hearing was upon 
 the Kent bill. Almost 50 witnesses were present to testify. 
 
 The Kent bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to release,.under such 
 regulations as he may prescribe* the remaining 320,000,000 acres of public lands 
 for grazing purposes. The far-reaching feature of the Kent bill is that it 
 transfers jurisdiction over the 300,000,000 acres from the Interior Department 
 to the Agricultural Department. 
 
 The Fergusson bill authorizes a 640-acre farm, stockman's homestead, and 
 allows the entryman, bv complying with the homestead laws, to acquire title, 
 the theory being that the present homestead laws, permitting the entry of only 
 160 acres, or in some cases 320 acres, is not sufficient for those in arid sections of 
 the country to eke out an existence. 
 
60 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 This bill affects the remaining public lands in the United States and its 
 passage is desired by western people. The Interior Department has recom- 
 mended the passage of such a bill, believing it would help the population of 
 Western States. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I want to state in the record further that the news- 
 paper boys are ideal fellows. They want to try to get at the right. 
 They never got this article up. They do not know the condition of 
 the situation. This article was taken from a paper here in Wash- 
 ington and will probably be copied in many papers, that we are work- 
 ing on a bill to open up the public domain, when everyone knows it 
 is now open for homesteaders. 
 
 Mr. Kent. I do not think I have anything to say in answer to the 
 gentleman. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I did not refer to you at all, Mr. Kent. 
 
 Mr. Kent. I still reiterate my proposition that these gentlemen 
 are here to furnish us information at our invitation, and to call them 
 insidious lobbyists or any other kind of lobbyists is simply, ill natured 
 and absurd. They are here because they understand the grazing 
 business, because they know conditions, and it is my belief they are 
 here representing the large men and the small men, and they are not 
 here, as far as I have been able to learn, against the interests of the 
 homesteaders ; they are here in the interests of the general propp^ 
 tion of increasing the output of meat and of enabling people to. do 
 the business of producing meat under circumstances that allow them 
 to live self-respecting lives without fighting with their neighbors, 
 and, incidentally, to preserve the grass. Now, Mr. Chairman, I 
 would like Mr. Potter to be heard. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. ALBERT F. POTTER, ASSOCIATE FORESTER, 
 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
 
 Mr. Potter. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, with 
 your permission, I would like to make a little preliminary state- 
 ment. 
 
 The Chairman. Proceed. 
 
 Mr. Potter. In working out the many problems which were pre- 
 sented in the management of grazing in the national forests, our 
 first effort was to allow as many as possible of the stock occupying 
 these ranges at the time they were included in the national forests 
 to remain, and in localities where it seemed clear that serious damage 
 had been done by overgrazing or improper management of the stock, 
 to make the reductions which were necessary to stop that damage 
 gradually and carefully so that the restriction would be as little as 
 possible. It has been our aim, right from the start, to use the forage 
 resources of the national forest just as fully as was consistent with 
 proper forest management, and to encourage, so far as we could, the 
 raising of more and better stock upon these ranges. 
 
 One of the first steps which we found necessary was, in many 
 localities, to divide the ranges between the cattlemen and the sheep- 
 men. There had been, as you are all aware, in many localities, 
 serious controversies, and the first thing we had to do in these locali- 
 ties was to get the stockmen together, by mutual agreement where 
 we could, and establish a dividing line between these ranges. That 
 worked itself out on most all of the forests into the establishment of 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 61 
 
 grazing districts which were big divisions of the natural ranges 
 within the forest. 
 
 Then we undertook to study the management of stock to find out 
 to what extent the feed was being destroyed by unnecessary move- 
 ment of the stock, and, so far as possible, to remove that ; to assist 
 the stockmen and encourage, so far as we could, water development 
 on sections of the range where it could not be fully used because of 
 lack of watering facilities at the time. That has been our effort all 
 along the line — to bring about a condition on the national forests 
 which would utilize the forest resources to the fullest possible extent 
 and bring about a more stable condition of the live-stock industry 
 on these ranges. 
 
 We found, in reference to the control of the stock, first, that in 
 many districts it was necessary to construct what we called drift 
 fences — that is, fences along the general dividing ranges between 
 these different districts — in order to exercise a proper control over 
 the stock and to keep the stock of one locality from drifting over to 
 another; in some instances, preventing the cattle from drifting on 
 to the sheep ranges; in other instances, to prevent the stock from 
 drifting on to watersheds, from which the cities derive their domestic 
 supply, and about which the authorities of the cities were very par- 
 ticular — all these things requiring the construction, in many in- 
 stances, of what we termed " drift fences." 
 
 Up to the present time, or during the eight years the Forest 
 Service has had charge of the national forests, we have constructed 
 some 650 miles of such drift fences ourselves for administrative pur- 
 poses, and have also issued some 1,800 permits to different users of 
 the national forests allowing them to construct these drift fences 
 for the better control of their stock. In all these instances we have 
 insisted there should be gates at such points as would be necessary 
 to permit ingress and egress to the forest by any person whose 
 business took him in there, and we have not allowed the gates to be 
 locked. It is simply a proposition of a fence which would prevent 
 the stock from drifting from one range to another. 
 
 Early in the management of the stock on the ranges we found 
 that in certain localities small pastures were needed. First of all, 
 in a rough country, they have to gather the stock together and hold 
 the steers for shipment. They must have gathering pastures, and 
 in other localities they needed pastures for saddle horses. So we 
 established a regulation to allow a pasture not exceeding 320 acres 
 in area for this purpose. That was afterwards extended to permit 
 settlers living in the forest along in the lower portions to have a 
 320-acres pasture adjacent to their ranches so that they might be 
 protected in that way. Under this regulation we have issued some 
 5,000 permits .allowing the small pastures to be constructed, which 
 are necessary in the proper handling of the stock and the full utili- 
 zation of the forest resources. 
 
 Mr. Cantor. You are speaking of the forest reserves of the United 
 States. 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir; this has resulted in enabling the stockmen 
 to raise better stock, and they are turning out now from the national 
 forest ranges sheep and cattle which weigh, I can say, 10 per cent 
 more than they do from the outside ranges or than they did before 
 
02 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 we had any system of control. It is the general experience of the 
 sheepmen that the lambs from the national forest ranges weigh from 
 
 3 to 5 pounds more than from the outside ranges where there is no 
 system of control, so it is having the beneficial effect of increasing the 
 meat supply of the country and bringing about a better condition 
 of affairs in the live-stock industry. . , 
 
 Considerable was said yesterday in reference to the question of 
 fencing- and it is my impression, from the discussions I have had 
 with the stockmen, that generally they do not contemplate fencing 
 individual pastures, but they simply want to have m this bill au- 
 thority which would permit the construction of drift fences and of 
 these small pastures where they are necessary, so that there might 
 be a proper control exercised over the grazing lands outside the 
 national forest, the same as they have now within the national forest; 
 and it has been my understanding all the time 
 
 The Chairman (interposing). Let me understand clearly right 
 there : Is it your thought, and would it be your policy of adminis- 
 tration, that you would handle the remaining areas of land in the 
 same way you handle the forest reserve ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. I think an extension of that system would 
 best fit the needs, because of the absolute need to meet the different 
 needs of the stockmen in the different localities. 
 
 The Chairman. Will you tell us how many men it will take 
 to administer that? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir ; but I will do that a little later. My under- 
 standing has been that the object of this bill was simply to permit 
 of having an authoritative control over the use of the public grazing 
 lands, mainly for the purpose of preventing overstocking and en- 
 abling the men to breed up their stocks ; to have a control under 
 which they would feel justified in bringing a better class of bulls 
 on the ranges, in that way breeding a better grade of stock ; and that 
 fences could be constructed to confine the stock within certain dis- 
 tricts ; but I do not think it is the intention of the stockmen, to any 
 very large extent, to fence individual ranges. I would suggest an 
 amendment in the wording of the bill in reference to fencing. In 
 the first section of the bill, on page 2, in line 10, change the wording 
 " which shall include the right to fence the same " so that it would 
 read "which shall include the right to erect such fences as are 
 needed for proper control of the stock," so it would express that 
 idea, because I am sure this is the idea stockmen have in mind, 
 simply that they may erect such drift fences as are necessary for the 
 proper control of the stock ; and it is not their intention, to any large 
 extent, to fence the range into individual pastures. 
 
 It has been my understanding that this was the main purpose of 
 the bill, and that it did not contemplate in any way interfering with 
 the present public-land laws or the operation of any new law which 
 Congress might deem it wise to pass in reference to the transfer of 
 these lands into private ownership. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you think the bill perfectly clear in that re- 
 spect ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir; that the object of this bill is to regulate the 
 use of the land pending its disposition under such laws as Congress 
 shall deem fit to pass, and it would not in any way interfere with 
 the operation of such a law as Mr. Fergusson has in mind of 640-acre 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 63 
 
 grazing homesteads if Congress thought it wise to pass it. That is 
 my idea of the object of this bill — simply to provide for temporary 
 control over the lands pending the time they shall pass into owner- 
 ship under the public-land laws, and, therefore, it would not in any 
 way interfere with the operation of the public -land laws. 
 
 The Chairman. As I understand you, you are of the opinion that 
 the bill should be so modified that it would be clear that the home- 
 steaders should run right along and enjoy their rights? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir; and so far as I personally am concerned, I 
 think that the last provision in section 2 should be stricken out, be- 
 ginning with line 21. 
 
 The Chairman. Let us assume for the moment that the bill is 
 drawn just as favorably to accomplish that as possible, and let us 
 assume that it is the full intent of the committee and of Congress to 
 accomplish that very thing, allowing the lease-hold estate and the 
 right to acquire title to the homestead to run right along, still, Mr. 
 Potter, if you throw all these lands under the same sort of supervi- 
 sion that you do the forest reserve, what chance would the little one- 
 horse homesteader have out in the middle of one of those pastures, 
 with his chain harness and wagon and plow and half a dozen children, 
 with no schools — what chance would he have to get anywhere ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. He would, in my opinion, be better off under that con- 
 dition than he is now, and I might say that in all the criticism which 
 has been made of the Forest Service in reference to homestead settle- 
 ment on the national reserves I have not yet heard any criticism along 
 the line that the settler within the forests had not been given a fair 
 show in the grazing privileges. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That committee would not agree with you on that. 
 
 Mr. Potter. In reference to the criticism that Mr. Johnson made, 
 I would like to refer to that a little later on, but we have granted 
 under the act of June 11 thus far within the national forests some- 
 thing over 13,000 listings, covering an area of approximately 1,500,000 
 acres, and in no instance has the fact that a grazing permit had been 
 issued for the use of the land in any way interfered with the taking 
 of that homestead, unless it was under this condition: That it in- 
 volved the only watering place there was on the range, and allowing 
 the water itself to pass into private ownership would defeat the use 
 of the entire district, and we have refused some applications for en- 
 tries of that kind on the ground of the highest use of the land. 
 
 Mr. Hatden. In that case, if this bill was drawn in the way you 
 say it ought to be, you would not have a right to interfere. You 
 hav« a right in the forest reserve to decide as to the higher use. If 
 this bill is passed on the lines you indicate the homesteaders who 
 desired that watering place could come and get it without any re- 
 strictions placed upon them. 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir ; absolutely without restriction, because this is 
 a different proposition from the national forests, which have been 
 established for a specific purpose. 
 
 Mr. Fergttsson. How long have you been administering the forest 
 reserves ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Eight years. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. Take the forest reserves in New Mexico. How 
 many homesteaders have gone in there and established their homes? 
 How many schools have been established in these various reserves? 
 
64 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Potter. I am sorry I have not that information with me. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I invite your attention to line 4, on page 3, of this 
 bill, and ask you if in your opinion under that proviso a settler could 
 go on these ranges and secure a home in any way ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. The proviso? 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Potter. It provides: 
 
 That after the establishment of any such grazing district no form of location, 
 settlement, or entry thereon shall give a right to grazing privileges on public 
 lands except when made under laws requiring cultivation or agricultural use 
 of the land. 
 
 Yes, sir. The very object of that proviso is that the man who 
 takes up an agricultural entry will have the opportunity, but that a 
 man who takes a timber claim will not, through having made a tim- 
 ber entry, have any grazing privileges. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. That should be read in connection with the second 
 proviso in the latter part of line 8, same page. 
 
 Mr. Potter (reading:) 
 
 Provided further, That permits to graze live stock upon land which is subse- 
 quently 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. 
 
 That means when a man goes in and makes entry upon 160 acres 
 of land, that the entry will not of itself immediately give him the 
 right to the use of any other land except the 160 acres, but that at 
 the end of the current annual grazing period he would be eligible to 
 have a permit to graze a number of stock in the district. That is a 
 fairness to the man who has been issued a permit, to give him a right 
 to carry stock there until the end of the season. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. You can realize that no settler can go on the public 
 range without a team and two horses and a couple of cows ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. He must have some stock for domestic purposes ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Do you pretend that under this proviso he would 
 have a right to graze his horses and cows on this land? 
 
 Mr. Potter. That is taken care of in another provision of the bill, 
 which provides that he shall have a right to graze his domestic ani- 
 mals. It contemplates that he will immediately have the right to 
 graze his domestic animals, his milk cows, and work horses and ani- 
 mals of that kind which he uses in connection with his farm. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. As was said yesterday, there would be a conflict in 
 the bill in that respect, that it shall be administered in accordance 
 with the rules now established by the Forest Service and those here- 
 after established. 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir; as administered. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Would the rules of the Forest Service, as at pres- 
 ent administered, permit a man to go there with his team and cows? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. The regulations specifically provide that 
 every settler is entitled to graze 10 head of domestic animals in the 
 national forest without any permit at all. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. But, Mr. Potter, are you familiar with the forest 
 reserve in the State of Utah ? 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 65 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. How many forest reserves are there? 
 Mr. Potter. About 13. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Can you give us an idea of the amount of area cov- 
 ered by those 13 — I mean approximately? Are you familiar with 
 the Mauti Forest Reserve ? 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Can you give us an approximate area of that? 
 Mr. Potter. About 800,000 acres. Mr. Barnes tells me about 
 900,000 acres. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Eight hundred thousand acres in the one, and 
 there are 13 altogether? 
 Mr. Potter. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. And it is fair to presume there will be 5,000,000 
 or 6,000,000 acres of land withdrawn by this reserve in the State of 
 Utah? 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 Mr. Johnson. That is not all forest land? 
 
 Mr. Potter. No; there are open parks in it and open country 
 above the timber line. 
 Mr. Johnson. And below the timber line, too? 
 Mr. Potter. Not very much. 
 Mr. Johnson. There is some. 
 
 Mr. Potter. Not very much, except steep slopes which have been 
 retained there for the prevention of erosion as a matter of watershed 
 protection. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. For watershed protection? 
 Mr. Potter. That is the intention. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Do you remember my speaking to you some months 
 since about a certain piece which had recently been withdrawn near 
 Spring City? 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 Mr. Johnson. Near my range ? 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. That was not for water protection, was it? 
 Mr. Potter. That was- for straightening out the boundary line of 
 the forest so that it would be more capable of administration. That, 
 of course, would be true, too, that in getting a practical boundary 
 line it is -necessary here and there to include some limited areas of 
 grazing land. 
 Mr. Johnson. Public stock is excluded from that ? 
 Mr. Potter. The use of it is allowed under permit. 
 Mr. Johnson. You are aware that around the Manti Forest Re- 
 serve there are 19 different towns and cities on the border ? 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Do you not know, as a matter of fact, more than 
 one-half of the people residing in those towns are prohibited from 
 the use of the forest ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. That is true; and for this reason, Mr. Johnson, that 
 the capacity of the range on that forest which has been set aside for 
 cattle grazing is 18,000 head of cattle. That number has been arrived 
 at through conference with the users of the forest and by mutual 
 
 35074— pt 1—14 5 
 
66 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 agreement. There are at the present time 1,100 permits issued for 
 grazing on that district, an average ownership of about 17 head of 
 cattle. The general opinion in that country is that a protective limit 
 for the protection of the settlers of 24 head of cattle should be estab- 
 lished; that the settler needs to graze in connection with his farm 
 24 head of cattle. Now, with a total range for 18,000 head of cattle 
 and with 1,100 permits already there, which means only an average 
 ownership of 17 head, and with the feeling of the settlers that they 
 ought to have a permit for 24 head as an average in connection with 
 their farms, it does not offer a very good opportunity for letting more 
 men on the range. The point is that the line has to be drawn some 
 place ; we can not take care of everybody. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. But at the time this forest was established it was 
 being used by large sheep herds and cattle herds. 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. These large sheep owners, while they were cut down 
 in number to some extent, yet- were given a permit, were they not, for 
 their sheep ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. And as a result the farmer who had three or four or 
 five head of cattle was left out? 
 
 Mr. Potter. But a great many farmers had sheep. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I am aware of that ; I am talking now about their 
 horses and teams. 
 
 Mr. Potter. So far as the range is concerned, what we undertake 
 to do there is what we undertake to do everywhere — to make a fair 
 distribution between those who own sheep and cattle. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. You established this rule, that no new man, no 
 matter where he came from, could get a permit to put stock on that 
 reserve ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. No difference how long he had lived in the country, 
 he was absolutely excluded in favor of the man who owned the large 
 sheep herds? 
 
 Mr. Potter. For the very reason that there were twice as many 
 sheep there as could be taken care of, and the average ownership 
 was already divided so that each party only owns about 300 head of 
 sheep ; and again, there was not opportunity to let new owners in on 
 that range, it was so badly crowded. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. But it granted exclusive privileges to some people 
 and denied them to others. 
 
 Mr. Potter. To those who were there. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. To those who happened to have a large sheep herd 
 on that range at the beginning. They were granted permits, while 
 the farmer who had a span of horses and two or three cows was 
 denied those privileges ? 
 
 Mr. Potteh. That is true. During the period of readjustment we 
 had to take that position. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. That is true to-day, is it not? 
 
 Mr. Potter. It is true to-day, so far as letting the new owners in; 
 but it is not true so far as these large herds are concerned. These 
 large herds have all been cut down. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Because there is not enough to supply them. Are 
 these permits life permits? 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 67 
 
 Mr. Potter. No, sir ; they are only granted annually and they are 
 renewable. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I understand they are renewable, of course; but that 
 does not mean that some other person can come in and get ahead of 
 it ; it has the preference ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. They could if it was not for the fact of the average 
 ownership being so small, and we consider that particular range fully 
 covered. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Those permits that were first issued have the pref- 
 erence ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Kent. How long a time is the permit used ? 
 
 Mr. Johnson. It is an annual permit, but they can renew it, while 
 a neighbor who has no stock could not get a permit. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Would you throw out the old men and put in the new 
 men? 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I would give them all an equal show— give the poor 
 and the rich man an equal show. 
 
 Mr. French. How large a band of sheep is running on that range ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. I think at the present time the largest is about 1,800 
 head. 
 
 Mr. Cantor. Are they owned by a corporation or by an individual ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. The largest herd is owned by an individual, Mr. 
 Seeley, of Mount Pleasant, one of the largest stock owners in that 
 part of the country. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. How does a permit for 300 sheep operate ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. They make up herds jointly, with half a dozen differ- 
 ent owners, who pay proportionately their share of the expense. 
 They throw their little bunches of sheep together and share in the 
 expenses. 
 
 Mr. Kent. How many in a herd? 
 
 Mr. Potter. They are made up in bunches of from 1,500 to 2 ; 000. 
 
 Mr. Kent. For the benefit of the gentlemen who are not familiar 
 with the sheep business, I would state that the cost of running a band 
 of 2,000 sheep would practically be about $90 a month for herder 
 and grub, so you see that with camp tender, shearing, and dipping, 
 and other expenses the cost would reach nearly $1.50 per head per 
 year. The man with 300 sheep would not have a living chance, ex- 
 cept from other sources than stock. 
 
 Mr. Potter. In reply to the chairman's question as to whether or 
 not we had worked out any plan under which the grazing lands 
 would be administered, we have in the departmental committee pre- 
 pared some plans of this kind in reference to some of the States, 
 and I brought over the Arizona plan, as I know there are quite a 
 number of men here from Arizona, and if I make any misstatements 
 I know they will correct me. 
 
 We have proposed, in the event that grazing districts were estab- 
 lished, to cover the entire State of Arizona, and I will say that would 
 depend very largely upon two things : First, whether or not the 
 stockmen in that locality desired to have grazing districts established 
 there ; and, second, whether it would be for the public welfare to have 
 them established; and if both those factors were favorable it would 
 be entirely proper to establish grazing districts over the entire State. 
 
68 DISPOSITION 01? GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Who decides this question of what the public wel- 
 fare should be ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. That would have to be decided by the Secretary of 
 Agriculture; that is, the advisability of creating the grazing dis- 
 tricts. In Arizona this could be managed in a practical way by 
 dividing it up into approximately 34 grazing districts. We are bas- 
 ing this opinion upon our experience in managing the grazing on the 
 national forests. It would require a State supervisor who, I should 
 say, should be located at the capital. 
 
 Mr. Cantor. Are you speaking of a particular State ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir ; Arizona, and one ranger for each of the 34 
 districts. We have figured that the salary of the State supervisor- 
 should be $2,500 a year, and the salary of the rangers should be 
 $1,200 a year each. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. Paid by the Government ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Paid by the Government, and that there should be an 
 allowance for traveling expenses for both the supervisor and the 
 rangers. 
 
 The Chairman. Was it your thought to have one supervisor for 
 each State? 
 
 Mr. Potter. One supervisor for the entire State and a ranger for 
 each district. 
 
 The Chairman. Only one? 
 
 Mr. Potter. One ranger for each district. Now I will describe 
 this map. The color scheme here on the map represents in yellow the 
 Indian reservations; the checkerboard, the railroad grounds; the 
 black areas, the lands in private ownership ; the green, the national 
 forest; the blue lines, the range districts comprising all the public 
 lands. The private lands of Arizona are largely in blocks in the 
 large irrigation districts. 
 
 The Chairman. What is the large scale there? 
 
 Mr. Potter. These are the forest reservations. Now, with a lump 
 sum of $15,000 to cover general inspection and the employment of 
 extra help at the time of movement of the stock from one range 
 to another — and in this country many of the sheep which are grazed 
 up in the mountain country in the summer time go down to the 
 desert country in the winter time, trailing back and forth a dis- 
 tance of, say, 150 miles. This would make the total cost to the Gov- 
 ernment for administration about $80,000 a year. 
 
 Now, on the acreage basis we figure that there are approximately 
 40,000,000 acres of public land in this country and of that amount 
 about 5,000,000 acres is land which would support a cow to every 25 
 acres, which, at 2 cents an acre, which is about what I thought would 
 be a very reasonable figure, would bring $100 : 000. About 15,000,000 
 acres is land which would carry a cow to every 30 acres. With a 
 rental of 1§ cents this would bring $250,000. Ten million acres would 
 carry a cow to every 40 acres, which at 1 \ cents per acre would bring 
 $125,000. About 10,000,000 acres is desert range, very dry, and which 
 the stock men figure takes about 200 acres to a cow. That at one- 
 fourth cent an acre would bring about $25,000, or a total annual 
 revenue under these moderate charges of $500,000 a year against a 
 necessary administration cost of $80,000. Now, that is figured on the 
 acreage basis. Figuring on the per capita basis of 50 cents a head 
 for cattle and 12 cents a head for sheep 3 the number of stock which 
 
DISPOSITION OF GEAZING LANDS. 69 
 
 woulli ™ ed t0 b e grazed on that range would be 682,000 head of cattle 
 and 1,325,000 head of sheep to bring an equivalent revenue of $500,000 
 a year. That number of stock, I feel sure, those ranges would 
 support. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Now, does that compare with what there is on there 
 now? 
 
 Mr. Potter. It is not very much in excess of what is on there now, 
 and there are considerable acres of land which are not fully used at 
 the present time because of lack of water. 
 
 Mr. Baker. Do you say there would be more or less than there is 
 on that now? 
 
 Mr. Potter. It is a little in excess of the number on there now, 
 but there are considerable areas which are not used at the present 
 time because of lack of water, but with the range pretty fully used a 
 per capita charge of 50 cents on cattle and 12 cents on sheep for the 
 entire year would bring the same amount of money return to the 
 Government as the rental basis of from one-fourth cent to 2 cents 
 per acre. 
 
 Now, I figure that the Government under those conditions ought 
 to spend a little money on water development, and my idea would be 
 we ought to spend at least $20,000 a year on water development, 
 which would run the cost up to $100,000 a year, or, in round numbers, 
 one-fourth cent an acre. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Potter, let me interrupt you a moment. 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. These figures that you offer are, of course, from 
 the standpoint of the earning capacity of the public domain, and 
 are very flattering. Do you have any area of forest reserves in a 
 country the size of the proposed areas in Arizona that is administered 
 by one ranger? 
 
 Mr. Potter. No ; we have not ; because in the forest reserves the 
 ranger must attend to the timber, and all those different things ; but 
 even then, Mr. Chairman, under our system, which keeps the cost 
 of the grazing work separate from the cost of the timber work, our 
 figures from last year show on the national reserves the cost of 
 grazing administration was only about one-third of a cent an acre, 
 and I think that on these public lands outside, which would be much 
 simpler in administration, that one-quarter cent per acre is not 
 unreasonable. If we can do it on the national reserves for a thigd 
 of a cent, it ought to be done on the outside for a quarter of a cent. 
 
 The Chairman. Have you any figures that show how the balance 
 sheet stands on your forest reserves so far as the administration 
 features are concerned and the revenues from them ? In other words, 
 are they self-supporting and how much additional? 
 
 Mr. Potter. The forest service section of the hearing before the 
 Committee on Agriculture shows that Mr. Graves was called upon 
 to insert in the record a map showing the forests that were now 
 paying, those which were expected to be brought on a paying basis, 
 and those which would never pay, for the reason that they are 
 mainly water shed protection projects. This map shows approxi- 
 mately 40 forests that are paying now, and in accordance with Mr. 
 Graves's statement there are 22 that will be paying in one year, 12 
 in two years, and 5 in three years, etc. This complete table you will 
 
70 DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 find in the forest service section of the hearing before the Committee 
 on Agriculture. 
 
 Mr. Church. They paid considering the timber that is sold? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Considering everything. 
 
 Mr. Church. The sale of timber and the amount of money that 
 is received from the leases and all? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. How many altogether? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Altogether, 163. 
 
 The Chairman. And 40 of those from the grazing and timber 
 together have been on a paying basis? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Well, that does not quite cover my question. Is 
 there any way to get at that exactly ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. The difficulty, I think, Mr. Chairman, is that a very 
 large part of our cost is the fire protection in the national forest 
 and the free-use business and all those things we are doing without 
 charge, and that, of course, must go against the cost. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Would that not be the same with a leasing bill ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. That would not cost anything for these other pur- 
 poses. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Giving the man a free permit? 
 
 Mr. Potter. That does not bring any expense, because in the graz- 
 ing we do not issue a free-use permit ; on the timber we do, and that 
 is because of the requirements of the law. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You say there is no expense connected with the free 
 grazing ? Have you any segregation of the forest reserves as to the 
 amount of timber that has been sold? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. As a matter of fact, without the timber sales all of 
 the reserves run behind? 
 
 Mr. Potter. No; they do not. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Could you segregate those? 
 
 Mr. Potter. I could furnish you that information. 
 
 Mr. Raker. How about that big forest in north Nevada ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. There are some forests that pay from a grazing 
 standpoint. 
 
 The Chairman. How many? 
 
 Mr. Potter. I should say 15. 
 
 The Chairman. You think there would be 15 that would pay ad- 
 ministration expenses independent of the sale of the timber ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. Grazing is a secondary proposition in the 
 national forests. 
 
 The Chairman. Then in the light of that statement that you have 
 just made with reference to the actual working of the forests we 
 now have, do you not think your statement with reference to your 
 hopes in Arizona would be rather exuberant? 
 
 Mr. Potter. No, sir; unless you add these other costs. If you 
 enter into the proposition of fire protection and the proposition of 
 all kinds of scientific investigations, then it would. 
 
 Mr. Raker. In other words, this bill provides for everything 
 down to catching a little squirrel. 
 
 Mr. Kent. It is not mandatory in the bill. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 71 
 
 Mr. Raker. You catch every little squirrel and handle every little 
 piece of grass to see how long the roots are and whether it has any 
 little disease on the roots or not. 
 
 Mr. Kent. You will not find that in the bill. 
 
 Mr. Potter. This would be mainly a' grazing proposition. On 
 those national forests, in which grazing is the main source of 
 revenue, they are all paying, and I take it from that this is a pretty 
 good proof that a strictly grazing proposition would pay. 
 
 Mr. Church. What is the minimum and the maximum number of 
 employees in all the national forests in the United States ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. About 3,500 is the maximum number. 
 
 Mr. Church. What is the minimum ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. I could not answer that question, Mr. Church. 
 
 Mr. Church. That is, 3,500 represent the greatest number em- 
 ployed at any one time in all the forest reserves in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. How many acres of land are there in the reserves? 
 
 Mr. Potter. A net aggregate of about 165,000,000. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That would be added to the 300,000,000 remaining of 
 the public domains ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Kent. They would not be added because they are not the same 
 thing. 
 
 Mr. Raker. We are adding about 7,000 more employees. 
 
 Mr. Potter. No. 
 
 Mr. Raker. The provision in this bill in regard to this injury to 
 the national forest crop, that would take an extra man to do that? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And then you want to have men on each one of these 
 reserves to go over the matter of erosion — to determine how much 
 soil is being washed down. That is in the bill. 
 
 Mr. Potter. It is not necessary to have a large force of men to d^ 
 that. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And there is a tax to restore and improve the regula- 
 tion for the detection of poisonous plants. You must make a thor- 
 ough examination of these 300,000,000 acres of land and determine 
 the poisonous plants and detect diseases. 
 
 Mr. Potter. At the present time Congress is giving us only 
 $25,000 to do that work on all the national forests, and we must cover 
 the poisonous-plant work and the grass work. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Is that for that specific purpose ? 
 
 Mr. Porter. That is all the money we have for that specific pur- 
 pose— $25,000. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You use this $25,000 
 
 Mr. Potter (interposing). For these very things on the national 
 forest reserves. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Then you want more? You are not getting near 
 enough now ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. We could use more to advantage. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Then if you had more acreage you ought to have more 
 money. 
 
 Mr. Potter. That is true, but the amount proportionately is not 
 large. 
 
72 DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 The Chairman. Allow me for a moment to revert to a matter not 
 in the bill, but a matter of general policy. If I understood you cor- 
 rectly there were 163 forests, all told, in the United States? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. And the maximum number of employees is 3,500? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. That would be on an average of 21 employees to 
 a forest. 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Many of these forests would be much smaller in 
 area than others. Would it not suggest itself to you that one for- 
 ester would be wholly inadequate to give that supervision that this 
 bill requires ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. I do not think so. 
 
 Mr. French. How large are these areas? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Some of these areas — this one down here [indicating 
 on map] would have about a million acres, but it is mostly desert, and 
 on a large part of it there would be very little grazing. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. I would like to ask you a question. As you stated 
 a few moments ago, there are a number of people engaged in raising 
 sheep who have permits in the national forest, and that the sheep in 
 the wintertime move down about 150 miles into the low desert 
 country. In a case of that kind do you propose to let the flockmaster 
 have a definite allotment of land under lease in the low country 
 where he could bring his flocks in wintertime ? Just how would you 
 manage the transfer of sheep from one section of the country to the 
 other, and how would you arrange for the necessary range at either 
 place ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Well, I would designate certain portions of that 
 winter range which would be open to sheep grazing and they would 
 be designated as sheep districts, as we have done in the national for- 
 est. At the present time there are about 100,000 sheep, which are 
 summered up in this northern country, which come south over es- 
 tablished driveways that we have on that portion of the land in the 
 national forest and are wintered down in this low winter range. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. They get out of the forest. 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes; they go out on the desert during some parts of 
 the winter when there is an abundance of desert feed, and what 
 would have to be done would be to make a division of that range 
 along lines which would be fair between the cattlemen and the sheep- 
 men and designate certain portions of the desert, which would be 
 open to the sheep without any attempt to make individual allot- 
 ments, simply saying here is a district that will accommodate 25,000 
 head of sheep in the winter and we will allow that to such a number 
 of people as would make up the 25,000 sheep. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Any man who raised cattle or sheep could do that, 
 subject to this winter permit? 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Would you divide the cattle from the sheep, or let 
 the cattle run among them ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. That would depend on the desires of the stockmen. 
 In some instances the stockmen own both cattle and sheep and they 
 desire to have them both on the same range. In other instances the 
 character of feed is such that neither one stock or the other fully 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 73- 
 
 utilizes the feed crop and, therefore, it is desirable to run both cattle 
 and sheep on the range. In other instances you must divide them. 
 I will say this : That we do not have very much trouble with sheep 
 and cattle on the same ranges, because, as a general rule, there is 
 plenty of feed for both. 
 
 The Chairman. There is doubt as to letting sheep and cattle run 
 together. They say that sheep pollute the grass. 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes; where the 'cattle are not used to them. Those 
 things all work themselves out, and on the national forest we have 
 all these conditions. We have some forests where there is an abso- 
 lute division of the range — the sheep on one and the cattle on an- 
 other, and in some instances they fence them, and in other districts 
 we have the cattle belonging to one man and the sheep belonging to 
 another and running in the same district and getting along all right 
 as long as there is feed there for both. In other instances we have 
 cattle and sheep belonging to the same man running together 
 
 Mr. Hayden. You mean grazing together ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. I notice you have marked here on the map district 
 No. 11. Under this bill the stockmen in district No. 11 would meet 
 and organize the district. The permanent residents of that dis- 
 trict are the cattlemen, while the flockmasters come in there only 
 in the wintertime. If the cattlemen in that district were consulted 
 as to the character of the stock that will be permitted to graze on 
 this range they would prevent all the sheep from coming in there. 
 This is a practical difficulty under this bill which I would like to 
 know how you are going to get around. 
 
 Mr. Potter. That is merely a matter of arrangement. The entire 
 proposition would be under the supervisor, whose headquarters 
 would be at Phoenix. The range district is the area one man would 
 be able to look after, but the entire proposition would be under the 
 jurisdiction of the supervisor of the State, who would settle all these 
 questions between the different interests. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. What provisions or rule or regulation do you con- 
 template making to secure to the small ranger who may have but 
 a few heads of stock on a range contiguous to his range? 
 
 Mr. Potter. By giving him the preference in the allotment of 
 grazing permits. That is done before the beginning of each grazing 
 season. Sometimes reductions are necessary, and that is set forth on 
 the permits, or if the range is fully occupied we make the reduc- 
 tions which are necessary to take care of the new settlers from the 
 permits nf the larger owners in the district. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Who fixes the limit? 
 
 Mr. Potter. That is usually fixed locally by the supervisor. 
 
 The Chairman. What is that rule that, for instance, we will say T 
 applied to the forest 10 years ago? At that time we did not have 
 applications from the immediate adjoining homesteaders, and you 
 allowed large cattle interests to stock up the pastures and turned 
 away the homesteaders around there and refused to let them put 
 their cattle in there, on the theory that these larger cattlemen se- 
 cured some kind of prescribed right. What is that rule ? You stated 
 that in a letter some time ago in answer to an appeal from 50 or 60 
 homesteaders who were trying to get 30 head of cattle apiece in the 
 reserve. 
 
74 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Potter. It is this proposition : That in the beginning the stock- 
 men who were there occupying the range, and those particularly 
 who had spent money in^the improvement of ranch property and in 
 the development of water, etc., should be allowed to remain in 
 occupancy of the range, except in so far as it was necessary to re- 
 move them for two things — first, to stop damage which was being 
 done to the forest range, and, second 
 
 The Chairman (interposing). What do you mean by that? 
 Neither did they spend anything to preserve anything more than the 
 ordinary homesteader. 
 
 Mr. Potter. They were in occupancy of the range. 
 
 The Chairman. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Potter. I think so; that is my understanding. 
 
 The Chairman. But they did not preserve anything or spend any- 
 thing, because there was water enough there. . 
 
 Mr. Potter. They were occupying the range at the time. Then, 
 second, to make room for settlers coming into the country, as I said 
 before, until we get the average ownership down to a number which 
 seems so small that we should call a halt. Now, that has been the 
 general plan under which we have worked, and I think that that 
 policy has been carried out in most localities; and that just so far 
 as it was consistent to do so, as long as there were available ranges, 
 the new settlers coming in have been given the preference. 
 
 The Chairman. I know your regulations, but in actual practice 
 that is not done. 
 
 Mr. Potter. It is done in most instances. 
 
 The Chairman. I know of one case where it was not done, and vou 
 very recently turned down a positive appeal filed with you for that 
 identical thing, and what happens? The cattlemen ship their cattle 
 in in the spring and out in the fall, and they do not. get a cent of taxes 
 out of them, and I wondered how general that practice was being, 
 carried out over the country. 
 
 Mr. Potter. It certainly is not the general plan. 
 
 The Chairman. I thought this was the objection : That the de- 
 partment did not want to fool with a few cattle from each man, 
 which might be a legitimate objection, and I told these homesteaders 
 to band themselves together and form themselves into an association 1 
 and get together, so that it would not be difficult to administer, and 
 they sent that up in an appeal to you, which was likewise turned 
 down; and it would seem the actual working of the forest reserve 
 was in open violation of your regulation which says the immediate 
 occupants of the neighborhood should be given the preference. 
 
 Mr. Potter. It was not intended it should be that way, except 
 where, as I said, the average ownership was so small that it seemed 
 inadvisable to make further distribution. 
 
 The Chairman,. That is not the case here ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Under this bill would a man who permitted his stock 
 to stray on leased land be guilty of trespass ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergijsson. I submitted a case to you where a Mexican, who 
 had his rights under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo included in 
 the forest reserve, was fined by some one in the employ of your de- 
 partment $8, because his goats ran on the range of a big cattleman. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 75 
 
 Mr. Potter. That might have been the case. The question would 
 be whether he had a permit to graze his goats there. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Precisely. You know about this circumstance, do 
 you not ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. I do not happen to know about this particular case, 
 but that would be true. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. He had his goats on his range on the public do- 
 main, and he was exercising his rights, and he was fined $8 with- 
 out being brought into court at all; and was not that done under 
 your regulations, because his goats went on the land marked out as 
 leased to some big cattleman, and the case was not submitted to 
 your department? 
 
 Mr. Potter. That may be a fact, excepting that he was not fined. 
 We told him that we estimated the damage done to be $8, and that 
 he owed that amount to the Government, and it was optional whether 
 he paid it voluntarily or whether he required action by the courts. 
 But the point you raise is whether or not, under the treaty, he did 
 have the right to graze his stock on the national forest reserves 
 without a permit. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I want to ask Mr. Graves about that, because my 
 correspondence was with him. I submitted that sort of a case and 
 the answer was made that he was subject to the rules of the Forest 
 Service. I then appealed to the treaty, which provides, in sections 
 8 and 9, that all citizens of Mexico, when that treaty was enacted, 
 who became citizens of the United States under that treaty, enjoyed 
 the same rights, of course, as Americans. I submitted the proposi- 
 tion to the department as to whether that treaty did no protect this 
 man in the right to graze his herds on the public lands surrounding 
 him, just as he had done before; that it was a property right appur- 
 tenant to his home, which he had had for two hundred years or more, 
 and I received a written opinion that he was not protected by the 
 treaty rights ; that it was not the kind of land in interest, though it 
 was appurtenant to his home lands, and he was compelled to quit 
 the goat business entirely. 
 
 Mr. Lenroot. Was that not based on the fact that the Govern- 
 ment itself made different disposition of this very land with refer- 
 ence to forest land ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes ; it had. 
 
 Mr. Lenroot. Is it not true that the general, universal rule is that 
 where the Government makes a different disposition of lands it 
 abrogates the treaty rights ? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I suppose that is true, but I am talking about the 
 practical operation of allowing the Forest Service to administer all 
 the balance of the public lands in the West. 
 
 Mr. Lenroot. The fault rests with the Government and not with 
 the department. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. The opinion overruled that point, whether we can 
 afford to turn the balance of the public lands of the West over to 
 the Forestry Department which has imposed that kind of adminis- 
 tration in the past upon poor people. I am opposed to this bill 
 for that reason, that it simply will turn New Mexico into another 
 Ireland to be administered by the great rich men who do not live 
 there and shut out population from my State. 
 
76 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. You stated awhile ago that under this bill the stray- 
 ing of sheep upon leased land would be trespass. 
 
 Mr. Pottee. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. At the present time the public domain, as distin- 
 guished from the forest reserve lands, is a free range. 
 
 Mr. Potteb. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. So that would not be trespassing. 
 
 Mr. Potter. That is true, and I would like to make this statement 
 for the information of the committee: That of the 22,000 permits 
 that are issued for grazing cattle in the national forest at the present 
 time, 14,588 of them are to owners of less than 40 head of cattle; 
 4,100 are to owners of from 41 to 100 head, and the remainder are 
 to the owners of over 100, so that you see that out of a total of 22,000 
 permits on the national forest some 18,600 of them are small owners, 
 men who own less than 100 head of cattle. So I think that is a very 
 good showing; that, as a rule, the small men are the men who are 
 getting the privileges in the use of the national forest. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Because there are more of them. 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes. < 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Do you think the small owner should be put to the 
 trouble of applying for a lease and permit "for an adjacent range? 
 
 Mr. Pottee. We exempt him up to 10 head of work animals. 
 When you get beyond that and get on to breeding stock which he 
 puts on the range for stock raising purposes, it is hard to draw the 
 line. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Is he exempt under this bill ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes. He is exempt as to domestic animals. My un- 
 derstanding of that is milk cows and work animals that he would 
 use in connection with his farm. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I would like to ask you a few questions in connection 
 with what Mr. Johnson said. If an elderly man rents his range and 
 desires to leave the country, his renter is prevented from getting 
 the use of the range under the present rules and regulations? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. In other words, the moment the old man moves out 
 and gives his boy a chance or his son-in-law a chance to run the 
 ranch, the latter is cut out and that opportunity is denied to him. 
 
 Mr. Potter. That is true. It must be a personal privilege; other- 
 wise it would become in a very short time a property right. Then 
 there is the other proposition. In Mr. Johnson's locality there are 
 bona fide owners who are waiting to get in there, and it would not 
 be fair to give the man who is a leaser privileges ahead of the man 
 who is the owner of a ranch. 
 
 Mr. Raker. If the old man who has rheumatism or is suffering 
 from old age desires to retire and turns the farm over to his young 
 son and that boy tries to herd cattle, he has to shut down. That is 
 pretty hard on the men who lived and raised their families there. 
 The boy must quit the business. 
 
 Mr. Potter. That is true. I call to mind some cases where it was 
 not considered bona fide under the rules to issue permits. Under the 
 circumstances, however, we have issued temporary permits to the 
 lessee. 
 
 Mr. Raker. The Forest Service was established originally to pro- 
 tect the forests and the watersheds. Now the administration has 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 77 
 
 become so large that every time the department officials appeared be- 
 fore the Committee on Agriculture the question was raised as to 
 charging a sufficient amount to maintain the administration expenses, 
 and as I see now from this report the Forest Service say, " We will do 
 this if Congress authorizes us to do JtW In other words, it is a sort 
 of appeal to authorize and direct the charge against all these people 
 for running their cattle on these ranges. 
 
 Mr. Potter. It is not an appeal; it is simply a suggestion that that 
 is a matter of policy in which we think we should be directed by 
 Congress. 
 
 Mr. Raker. In other words, the proposition put up to the man 
 who has a permit around these forest reserves is that if he desires 
 to put in stock he has to pay an administrative charge for the 
 privilege of letting his stock run on these ranges, which were origi- 
 nally established for the protection of the border man. The forest 
 is still standing on the ground. 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. In that connection I want to call your attention to this 
 fact: Around these forest reserves a great deal of private timber is 
 owned. 
 
 Mr." Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Is it not a fact that under the administrative feature 
 the department has been compelled, or has done it, practically — all 
 the sales of the timber on the forest tracts have been sold to large 
 concerns — up to a million or a billion feet of lumber? 
 
 Mr. Potter. In a good, many cases. 
 
 Mr. Raker. The poor man is practically prohibited from bidding 
 en any of the sales under the "Forest Service? 
 
 Mr. Potter. That is not the case at all. You will find from the 
 statistics you have before you that the larger proportion of timber 
 sales were made in small amounts. 
 
 Mr. Raker. In the little, small places, but in the majority of the 
 places the large sales have been such that only a rich man with a 
 million or so can buy ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. That is very true, but it does not prohibit the small 
 man. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Yes it does; because he has not the money to buy a 
 railroad. I would like to ask you if all down through these places 
 where the forests have been reserved whether these sales of lumber 
 have not been' raised double within the last five years, and the lumber- 
 man leaves his lumber stand and buys Government timber and 
 charges it to the homesteader around in the community, raising 
 ordinary lumber from $9 to $24, and clear lumber, which used to be 
 $28 and $30, now to from $40 to $45 a thousand ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Not because of the operation of the Forest Service. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Is not that method still in the Forest Service ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. No ; that does not control it, because the timber com- 
 ing from the national forests is a very small per cent of the total 
 amount used. 
 
 Mr. Raker. But this is intended to benefit the general public. 
 These private individuals, these railroads and large concerns, by 
 virtue of this reserve have been permitted to raise just double the 
 price of their lumber. Every home seeker and builder pays from 
 
78 DISPOSITION OF GBAZING LANDS. 
 
 two to two and a half times more for his lumber than before the 
 reserves were established. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. I am anxious to get the connection between this 
 and the bill. ^^ 
 
 Mr. Raker. The AssistanfT^orester has been explaining the use 
 and benefits derived from the Forest Service as a reason why the 
 remaining public land should be withdrawn from practical entry. 
 In that connection I feel as though the committee should know the 
 exact status. Then I propose to ask the witness a few more questions 
 in regard to policy, whether or not this is simply to protect the 
 remaining public lands or whether or not it is to be a commercial 
 "" transaction for the purpose of obtaining revenue for the Govern- 
 ment. Do you think these lands should be administered so as to pay 
 the Government a revenue each year ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. I think that is a secondary consideration. The main 
 object in making a charge is to cover the cost of administration and 
 secure a fair return to the Government. 
 
 Mr. Raker. But in your presentation now before this committee 
 you made a very glowing statement of the expenditure, with a 
 maximum of $100,000 and with a revenue of $500,00, showing a net 
 gain to the Government of $400,000. 
 
 Mr. Potter. That is based upon the charges which are being made 
 in the national forests now. 
 
 Mr. Raker. If this land is used at the present time by the public, 
 they would be getting the benefit which you would put into the 
 Public Treasury— this $500,000? 
 
 Mr. Potter. The difference between that amount and what it 
 would bring in the open market. 
 
 Mr. Kent. The proposition was to turn that over to the States, 
 as I understand it. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Do you think the cattleman is doing too well in those 
 places and ought to pay more for his range, where he is trying to 
 build up the country and become a settler in those districts ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. I think it is fair he should pay a small return ta the 
 Government for the privileges he would get under this system of 
 control. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Do you think the Government ought to go into that 
 matter of business, leasing its land to make a revenue, or ought they 
 not to permit them to be used for homesteading? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Revenue ought not to be the main object, but at the 
 same time I think it is a fair proposition that a moderate revenue 
 should be derived. 
 
 Mr. Kent. The practical question is this, I believe: Taking it 
 from the standpoint of the cattleman and the sheepman, would he 
 not be better off knowing where he could go, where he has advantages, 
 fences, and other conveniences, even though he has to pay for them, 
 than if the whole mater was conducted indiscriminately? 
 
 Mr. Raker. Mr. Potter said there should be no fences that are 
 stationary, but if the bill is enacted they will become permanent and 
 stand there for years, and a man would be guilty who pulled down 
 those fences. 
 
 Mr. Kent. But in this matter of benefit to the stockman, I of my 
 own knowledge know the benefit that comes from knowing that you 
 can go to a given place and get your feed there at the right time of 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 79 
 
 year if you want it, and that is something I would be willing to 
 pay for. That is a thing I am willing and glad to pay for. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Taking that assumption from Mr. Kent, do you think 
 you ought to take the land from the homesteader and the man who is 
 in the country and rent it to the stockman and fence it, so that the 
 stockman can go where the homesteader can go and find this range, 
 but that the homesteader can not come in and settle ? 
 Mr. Potter. I do not think that is contemplated. 
 Mr. Raker. The author of the bill and yourself differ on this 
 proposition. 
 
 Mr. Kent. We do not ; the bill provides for homesteaders. 
 Mr. Hayden. A question I would like to ask is this: There are 
 certain areas included in the forest reserves in Arizona which bear 
 no merchantable timber. There is a proposition before the Forest 
 Service to exclude those areas. Stockmen within the areas prefer 
 to have them remain in the forest, in order to get the benefit of the 
 regulations. "Would it be your idea, in the event that such a leasing 
 bill as this was passed, that it would be better to retain those areas in 
 the forest or exclude them from the forest and let them come under 
 this leasing proposition? 
 
 Mr. Potter. I think there are some areas there that it would be 
 better to exclude and have them come under a leasing proposition, 
 and practically the only reason those lands are being retained is 
 because of the urgent demand of the water users and farmers in the 
 valley that we continue to protect them and regulate the grazing as 
 a protection against erosion, but they are not areas on which we 
 can grow trees. It is a proposition of regulating the grazing. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Do you think you could regulate grazing as well 
 under this lease law as under the forest reserves ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir; under general provisions of this kind. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Primarily, Mr. Potter, the leasing of the remaining 
 public lands would be a question of revenue ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. No; mainly a question of the control. It would en- 
 able us to secure a better control of the range and raise better stock, 
 so that we could do more to keep up the meat supply of the country. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Where do you get that theory and idea ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Because of the fact that in the national forest ranges, 
 after we get them under control, we are securing improvements year 
 after year, raising better stock and increasing the number of stock 
 grazed on the range. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You have estimated that from the total number of 
 cattle raised in these States within the past 10 years ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes ; from the total number of the stock. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Has there been an increase in cattle? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir ; compared with the acreage. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Not compared with the acreage. Let us take, now, 
 within the last 10 years. Has there been an increase in the cattle 
 in the western States each year for the last 10 years? 
 
 Mr. Potter. There has, in those grazed on the national forest. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I asked you whether or not there has been an increase 
 in the cattle in the western States each year for the last 10 years ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. I do not know that there has. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Has it not been asserted that there has been a de- 
 crease of cattle each year? 
 
80 
 
 DISPOSITION OF GBAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Potteb. That is shown- by the census reports. 
 
 Mr. Eaker. Is it not a fact that the better development of the 
 land, more alfalfa, better facilities have given the farmer an op- 
 portunity to handle more cattle on his range than he has had before, 
 and in connection with the range is in a better position to handle 
 what cattle he has than before? 
 
 Mr. Potter. But, unfortunately, while it is true that more cattle 
 have been grazed on the ranches, or the lands put in cultivation, a 
 less number, and a very decided less number, has been grazed on the 
 range outside, and that is the cause of the lessening in the total 
 number. It is not so much the lessening in the number grazed on the 
 cultivated lands, but in the number grazed in the open country. 
 
 Mr. Raker. It seems to be the very objeet of this bill to provide 
 lands for grazing cattle. In other words, this seems to be an at- 
 tempt on the part of the policy of the West to put out into the graz- 
 ing area certain privileges and eliminate the building up of the 
 country. 
 
 Mr. Potter. That is not the idea at all. It is simply to have a 
 regulated use of the range instead of an unregulated use. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Now, as to your statement that it would increase the 
 value of the cattle and the number of the cattle, have you any 
 statistics to present to the committee that we might take, State by 
 State and Territory by Territory, and go over? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes; I can make you up statistics of that kind in 
 reference to the progress in the national forest ranges which we have 
 had under control. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And you will do that? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Can you cover each State? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Statement shotting area of the national forests and number of live stock per- 
 mitted to graze thereon during the years 1906 and 1913. 
 
 State. 
 
 1906 
 
 Cattle and 
 horses. 
 
 Sheep and 
 goats. 
 
 1913 
 
 Cattle and 
 horses. 
 
 Sheep and 
 
 Arizona 
 
 California 
 
 Colorado 
 
 Idaho 
 
 Kansas 
 
 Montana 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 Nevada 
 
 New Mexico... 
 
 Oklahoma 
 
 Oregon 
 
 South Dakota. 
 
 Utah 
 
 Washington 
 
 Wyoming 
 
 Acres. 
 
 8.728.730 
 
 18,862,877 
 
 12.698.825 
 
 10.638,240 
 
 97.280 
 
 12.248.200 
 
 615. 187 
 
 1 2. 332. 639 
 
 5,209.921 
 
 60,800 
 
 8,698.250 
 
 1,263.560 
 
 6,489.623 
 
 7.785,600 
 
 8,197,799 
 
 97.814 
 
 152.785 
 
 239,665 
 
 29.584 
 
 3,245 
 
 100.376 
 
 27,211 
 
 '16.821 
 
 63,728 
 
 2,537 
 
 76,898 
 
 13,041 
 
 93,549 
 
 26.729 
 
 87.986 
 
 347.208 
 403.688 
 420.009 
 878,550 
 
 249.908 
 
 189,450 
 312.035 
 
 1,124,539 
 
 1,148,771 
 
 282.793 
 
 ' 594,699 
 
 Acres. 
 
 12,684.525 
 
 20.555.680 
 
 13.423.759 
 
 17.712,444 
 
 143.943 
 
 16,252.154 
 
 520.427 
 
 5.355.437 
 
 9,095.523 
 
 61.480 
 
 13,577.041 
 
 1.142.180 
 
 7,278.720 
 
 9.841,753 
 
 8.372.537 
 
 258.537 
 169.651 
 250.960 
 100.385 
 
 14,830 
 121.251 
 " 31.912 
 
 63.891 
 
 98,612 
 4.230 
 
 92.872 
 
 7.228 
 
 144.350 
 
 9.924 
 
 77,415 
 
 453.972 
 449, 105 
 
 779.915 
 
 1,714.569 
 
 250 
 
 717,091 
 
 515.27! 
 470,542 
 
 1,000.971 
 .220,78! 
 810.45! 
 
 Total.. 
 
 103,927,531 
 
 1,031,969 
 
 5.851,650 
 
 2136,017,603 
 
 1.446,048 
 
 8,018,191 
 
 .' J 907 figures. No grazing permits required in 1906, account reserves not having been created until late 
 that year. ° 
 
 2 This does not include Alaska, where up to the present time all stock has been aUowed to graze free and 
 without permit. 
 
 Note.— During the first years of administration it was necessary to make large reductions in the number 
 oi stock permitted on ranges which had previously been damaged by excessive grazing, and this has been 
 entirely overcome by mcreases on other ranges and the development of new rangesTsb that the national 
 forests are now carrying more stock than thev did originally, and of a much better grade. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 81 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I would like to ask one question in regard to 
 the matter of the goats. Do I understand that in all States, regard- 
 less of whether that State has a law on the subject, you would have 
 a right, on the forest reserve, if a man's stock grazed onto that for- 
 est reserve, to take that man for trespass — bring suit or an action to 
 collect damages from him? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. That is again a matter of law, and that par- 
 ticular point has been carried through and decided by the Supreme 
 Court. 
 
 Mr. La Foulette. Would you have the right, if these grazing dis- 
 tricts were created, and some man's stock got on this unfenced graz- 
 ing land, to take that man and all that man's stock, hold the stock, 
 and commence an action against him for trespass on the unfenced 
 area of Government land in a State which does not have a herding 
 law? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. Of course, that would only be in case the 
 circumstances indicated an intentional trespass. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. You say you can do that in States which do not 
 have a herding law ; that the Government can step in and take a man 
 for trespass? If you can do that, I think that is infringing on State 
 rights in a large degree. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. You understand, do you not, Mr. Potter, there 
 are practically two bills before the committee ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. One is the grazing bill and the other is called the 
 grazing-homestead bill. 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. Did you hear Dr. Galloway make his statement 
 before this committee yesterday? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. Do you or not agree with him when he said, in 
 response to my questions, that he thought the true way to conserve 
 the meat-producing capacities of the West was to combine the ideas 
 of grazing and farming under one head? 
 
 Mr. Potter. That is practicable in some localities. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. I just wanted to know your position in regard to 
 that idea. 
 
 This grazing bill, you state, will not interfere with the location 
 of homesteads in the grazing area ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. You think it will not? 
 
 Mr. Potter. No, sir. If there is any provision in the bill now 
 which indicates that it would, I think that provision should be re- 
 moved, because I think this bill should not interfere with homestead 
 settlement. 
 
 i- Mr. Fergtjsson. Take this 640-acre grazing-homestead law ; do you 
 not think it will tend to make more homes ; will it not do that ? Will 
 it not tend to populate a semiarid State like New Mexico ? 
 * Mr. Potter. That is probable. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Potter. There are some localities where grazing homesteads 
 would be practicable. 
 
 35074— pt 1—14 6 
 
82 DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. A man with a grazing homestead, you recognize, 
 with a wife and children, if he owns the land will strive to restore 
 the range that has been destroyed when it was in the public domain 
 by the successive use of it as cattle land, sheep land, and by over- 
 stocking? 
 
 Mr. Potter. He will ; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. You understand when he owns it and has it under 
 fence, his prime object will be to use it for grazing, in order to in- 
 crease its capacity to produce beef and mutton ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I want to ask your views and your opinion in 
 regard to this matter. The object of the homestead-grazing bill 
 is to do two things. First, to give homes to the people and populate, 
 where it is possible, the semiarid West; and, secondly, to combine 
 the idea of producing more meat with the idea of having homes 
 and restoring the grazing capacity. 
 
 A man will farm the land, all that he can; he will build a silo, 
 and he will prepare to feed the beef which he is raising every year; 
 and do you not recognize that it will tend, at least as much as this 
 grazing law, to withdraw into grazing farms the whole of the arid 
 West, and allow the small man to experiment with these various 
 
 frasses ; and the tendency of that will be twofold, to produce homes 
 or the people and to populate our States, to bring schools and 
 churches to the people, and to give us more population, and that 
 will, in turn, give us railroads, and it will give us property to tax; 
 while to put it into a great forest reserve which will be controlled 
 here at Washington — do you not recognize that at least it is worthy 
 of consideration, even from your standpoint to do that ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. I would say, to a part of your question, yes; and 
 to other parts of it I would say no. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. You can discriminate in regard to that; I will 
 let you argue that far. 
 
 Mr. Potter. In so far as it is practical to provide a 640-acre 
 homestead I think it would be a good thing on ranges similar to 
 those in western Nebraska and in western Texas, adjoining the 
 lines of New Mexico and Wyoming, where you have opportunity to 
 develop water by sinking wells, and where in a 640-acre tract there 
 might be one 40 or one 80 upon which forage could be raised, and 
 the stockman will raise Kafir corn or some other dry-land forage 
 there to help carry his stock through the winter months, and in 
 that way will produce more stock on that one section of land than 
 could possibly be produced upon it in any other way. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. That is a fair answer to the question. 
 
 Mr. Potter. In many other sections of the country, where the 
 winter ranges and the summer ranges are far apart and where the 
 carrying capacity of the ranges is small, a man could not, under the 
 best of circumstances, raise enough on 640 acres to maintain him- 
 self. It would only work where you have year-round range, and 
 where you can maintain enough stock to support a family. On 
 certain other sections it would not 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. You are acquainted with New Mexico, you have 
 lived there ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 83 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Are you acquainted with the Mimbres Valley? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr Fergusson. Twenty-five years ago that would have been 
 classed as exclusively grazing land. 
 
 Mr. Potter. I think it would. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Now, there, there are something over 100 pros- 
 perous farmers, all around that town, and in that valley, and none 
 of them have over 160 acres, they raised ample crops every year, 
 irrigating, pumping out of the wells that they have found there on 
 the ground. 
 
 Mr. Potter. That is true. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Do you not think that on the 640-acre homestead 
 which a man owns, creating something of value to leave to his chil- 
 dren—do you not think he will be more apt to look for that water 
 and find it in a case of that kind ; do you not recognize that is so, at 
 least in these places I have mentioned, where the underground lake 
 has been found ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Do you not know that there have been found other 
 places where they have successfully farmed by pumping the water? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Do you not believe that a man with 640 acres will 
 find more of those underground supplies of water, and that it is at 
 least best to put off this grazing bill until the people have had a 
 chance to make homes by finding such places as they can farm suc- 
 cessfully, as they are doing now ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. No; I do not think so. I do not think we should 
 put off the control and improvement of the other grazing lands. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Yes; I understand. 
 
 Mr. Potter. Because from my point of view one does not interfere 
 with the other. It is my opinion that your proposition does not con- 
 flict with the other. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. It is perfectly consistent, from your point of view ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes ; to exercise control over the remaining lands un- 
 til they shall pass to private ownership. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. That brings me to my next question. How many 
 acres in New Mexico are in your forest reserves now ? 
 
 Mr. PdrrER. Unfortunately, I have not those figures at hand. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. A great many hundreds of thousands, are they not ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir; I would say, approximately, about 9,000,000 
 acres. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Can you also tell me the area of the unappropri- 
 ated public lands in New Mexico ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. It is about 31,000,000 acres. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. You have been connected with the Forest Service 
 for eight years? 
 
 Mr. Potter. I have been connected with the management of these 
 reserves for eight years. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. How many homesteads have been located in these 
 forest reserves within the past eight years ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. I could not tell you as to New Mexico alone, but in 
 all the national forests the number of entries under the forest-home- 
 stead act is a little over 13,000 since the passage of the act on June 
 11, 1906. I find by referring to the statistical tables that the number 
 
84 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 of homestead entries allowed in the National Forest of New Mexico is 
 1,472 and the area listed 147,000 acres. 
 
 Mr. Raker. How many have been refused ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. About 500 in New Mexico and about 4,000 in all of 
 the national forests. 
 
 Mr. Fergttsson. I want to ask you now, Mr. Potter, whether it will 
 be as feasible when you have got all of the lands left reserved for 
 grazing purposes, whether it will be as feasible for a man who comes 
 across the plains with his prairie schooner, with his wife and chil- 
 dren aboard, and with his horses and his plow, will it be as feasible, 
 under the laws as they stand now or under this 640-acre homestead " 
 bill, if enacted into law, for such a man to locate on 640 acres and 
 make his home within these great reserves as if it is still the public 
 domain ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. I think it would, sir; yes. In a national forest the 
 act of June 11. 1906, requires the classification of the land. On the 
 public domain no classification is required. If this bill did not in- 
 terfere with the carrying out of the present public-land laws there 
 would be no classification. 
 
 The Chairman. You stated a moment ago that approximately 
 13,000 entries had been made on all the forest reserves in the whole 
 United States? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you remember the net or total acreage? 
 
 Mr. Potter. About a million and a half acres. 
 
 The Chairman. I mean on the entire reserves. 
 
 Mr. Potter. On the entire reserves the net acreage is about 165,- 
 000,000. 
 
 The Chairman. One hundred and sixty-five million in 163 forest 
 reserves, and on that area 13,000 homesteads have been made in the 
 last 10 years? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Since June 11, 1906 — since the act of that year was 
 passed. 
 
 The Chairman. That is about eight years? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, you said that you thought the arrangement 
 of the remaining public domain into these large reserves would not 
 interfere with homesteacling, if it were to be so modified that it 
 would not? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Is there any computation anywhere available 
 which shows the number of applications that have been made on a 
 corresponding area of land without the reserves ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Xo; I have not that. 
 
 The Chairman. I thought if you had that data that that would 
 develop and prove that fairly well, I should think; at least it 
 would be worth something so as to know whether or not the going 
 into a reserve was an aid or not. 
 
 Mr. Kent. It stands to reason, Mr. Chairman, that the forest re- 
 serves there, which are large in the mountains where the timber isj 
 where the large proportion of them are, axe where the people would j 
 not want to homestead. 
 
 The Chairman. That is not always true. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 85 
 
 Mr. Potter. There is a restriction on homestead entries in the 
 national forest. The original forest reserve act allowed no entry 
 at all, but that was afterwards modified. 
 
 But there is no restriction in reference to homesteading on the 
 remaining -public domain, and I do not think this bill should place 
 any restriction on the liberty of a man in taking up a homestead in 
 a grazing district. There ought not to be the restrictions there are 
 in a national forest. 
 
 Mr. Stout. Does this bill contemplate classification on the public 
 domain ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. No, sir ; merely a control, pending such other dispo- 
 sition as may be made of the iand. 
 
 The Chairman. Let me inquire further along the line of Mr. 
 Stout's question. Had you thought at all of a classification as a 
 condition precedent to the passage of either or both of these bills ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Under some circumstances; yes. 
 
 The Chairman. Following that, what would be the expense of 
 classification of the remaining undisposed of land ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. I would say, for a detailed classification, probably 4 
 or 5 icents an acre. 
 
 The Chairman. That would be about $12,000,000. If you are right 
 in your estimate that approximately i cents an acre would be re- 
 quired to classify that land, that would mean an expenditure of 
 about $12,000,000. 
 
 Mr. Potter. For a detailed classification, but a rough classification 
 might be made much more cheaply. 
 
 The Chairman. Let us assume that that sum is so large that a 
 detailed classification for which Congress would be presumed to pay, 
 would be impracticable, because you could not get the money; now, 
 with that in mind, had you thought of an arrangement of the Fer- 
 gusson bill, say, which would, for a certain period of time, offer a 
 farm grazing community one, two, or three, or four sections which 
 would cause an influx of people to go out there and they themselves 
 make a classification by the segregation of the lands that were agri- 
 cultural in character? 
 
 Mr. Potter. That might be done. 
 
 The Chairman. Then with a proviso in that bill providing for 
 that, the residue that, in the judgment of the ordinary homeseeker, 
 would not be taken up, could be leased. 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes; that could be done. 
 
 The Chairman. Why is that not striking close to the feasibility 
 of the plan ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. That would be along the line which Congress has 
 proceeded in reference to the 320-acre dry farm. The Secretary of 
 the Interior designated certain districts within which such home- 
 steads may be made. 
 
 Now, following that line, if you had a bill which allowed a 640- 
 acre grazing homestead and the Secretary of the Interior designated 
 such general localities as those lying in eastern New Mexico, for in- 
 stance, or eastern Colorado or southeastern Wyoming, where, from 
 the general knowledge he had of the country, he thought grazing 
 homesteads would be successful ; then the fencing of individual pas- 
 tures should not be allowed, in these localities. 
 
86 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 The Chairman. Let me follow that a moment further, because 
 there are two well-defined thoughts in regard to this question around 
 the table. 
 
 Why could not the Secretary of the Interior, for instance, roughly 
 classify them, not with any detailed classification, but by use of the 
 plats and maps and data that they have in the Land Office and the 
 Geological Survey, and say that in a certain portion of the United 
 States embodying the public domain, that that should be classed as 
 No. 1, and a certain other area which was less favorable for home- 
 steading should be classed as No. 2, and that a certain other area 
 which was still less favorable should be classed as No. 3 ; that in area 
 No. 1, for a period of 12 months one 640-acre homestead should be al- 
 lowed ; in area No. 2 a 1,280-acre homestead should be allowed ; and, 
 in area No. 3, a 2,560-acre homestead should be allowed for one year,* 
 and let the residue go into some kind of leasing plan, not perhaps, 
 identically that, but something to develop that principle. Would 
 that not be feasible? 
 
 Mr. Poster. The principle is all right, but as a practical proposi- 
 tion, I think it would be better to begin with the 640-acre tract and 
 let the other follow afterwards as the demand indicates he need for it. 
 
 The Chairman. For instance, during the first six months the en- 
 tryman should take a 640-acre homestead; during the second six 
 months he could take a 1,280-acre tract, and during the next six 
 months he might take a 2,560-acre tract, and during the succeeding 
 six months you could lease to the cattlemen and let them take it on a 
 basis that would be a fair one. 
 
 Mr. Potter. You are asking for my opinion. I agree with the 
 principle, but I think your periods of time should be longer. 
 
 The Chairman. That is probably true ; that was simply a tentative 
 suggestion. 
 
 Mr. Potter. It should be a number of years instead of months. 
 
 The Chairman. Would that not have this effect. Would that not 
 of itself invite homeseekers everywhere to go into these sparsely 
 populated States, and would it not be feasible? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. On lands adapted for grazing homesteads. 
 
 The Chairman. And is it not the desire of the people who live in 
 those States, and is it not the purpose of Congress itself to get people 
 to go upon those lands and make homes there, and would that not be 
 along the line of that endeavor? 
 
 Mr. Potter. That is my understanding of it ; yes, sir 
 
 The Chairman. What I have said is on the theory that you can not 
 help the homesteader who, from the very nature of the man himself, 
 and considering his financial condition, can not cope with the big 
 interests. I can not conceive of any plan whereby a homesteader, 
 with his poverty hovering about him can, in any sense at any time— 
 of its being feasible for him to go out among the cowboys on the 
 open range, with no roads, schoolhouses, or churcb.es ; I can not think 
 that feasible. 
 
 Mr. Potter. That is true, and of course my feeling is that the 
 carrying out of your plan would not interfere in any way at all with 
 the exercising of this temporary control over range areas. Your 
 plan would not apply, perhaps, for 10 or 15 years on some of it, and 
 I think in the meantime there should be a means of controlling the 
 use of the lands, so that they might be used to the best advantage. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 87 
 
 Mr. Church. I understand that it is your best judgment that if 
 this leasing theory is adopted, it will not in any particular limit 
 homesteads ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. No ; not the right to enter on the land. 
 _ Mr. Church. That there will be just as many homesteads estab- 
 lished a year after this leasing bill becomes a law'as there would have 
 been had it not become a law ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Church. That you think that this restriction that the Secre- 
 tary of Agriculture will have in the way of determining whether a 
 certain piece of property is best qualified for homesteading or for 
 grazing will not have any effect whatever? 
 
 Mr. Potter. He would not have that authority on a grazing 
 district. 
 
 Mr. Church. Then, you think the fact that these large tracts are 
 fenced, or some of them at least will be, will not prevent peoples 
 from going on that lease and establishing a homestead? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Not such fences as are needed for proper control of 
 the stock. 
 
 Mr. Church. You think this provision in the bill which provides 
 that if one lessee has a hundred dollars' worth of improvements on 
 one of these large tracts of land that shall prevent it from being 
 taken up as a homestead, you think this will not retard in the least 
 the entry of people for the purpose of taking up land and establishing 
 homes ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. I think that provision should be eliminated from the 
 
 bill- 
 Mr. Church. You think the provision would limit homesteads to 
 a certain extent? 
 
 Mr. Potter. I think it would. 
 
 Mr. Church. And that is the only provision you think would 
 affect the situation, the only provision in the bill ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. There is one other provision which might affect it to 
 some extent, but which I think is a perfectly fair proposition, and 
 that is where improvements have been placed upon the land that the 
 man who has constructed them should be reimbursed. If a man has 
 gone in already and developed a well and put up a windmill and the 
 homesteader wants to take those and use them, I think the man who 
 constructed them ought to be reimbursed, if the improvement is of 
 value, and if it is not, then a reasonable time ought to be given him 
 to remove it from the land. 
 
 Mr. Church. Then, you think that the fact that a large tract of 
 land is leased, say 10,000 acres, to an individual, and he has. the use 
 of it for the purpose of grazing and his cattle and his horses are run- 
 ning upon it, are established on that land; do you think that fact 
 will not prevent the homesteader from going in there, at least to a 
 small degree, and establishing a homestead, probably in the center 
 of it? 
 
 Mr. Potter. No, sir; I do not think it would in a district under 
 Government supervision. 
 
 The Chairman. In connection with the development of water, of 
 course, it is true, as Judge Fergusson says, if a man has a 640-acre 
 homestead he will use every effort to find underground water. Would 
 not the same incentive be upon a man who had a lease upon a grazing 
 
88 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 area for 10 years : say, in Arizona or New Mexico ; would he not be 
 under as much incentive to seek water as the homesteader ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. That is pretty hard to say. That is an incentive, yes; 
 and that is the main reason for granting a permit for a term of years 
 in preference to one year, that a man, knowing that he is to have the 
 continuous use of a certain area, subject to such reductions as may 
 have to be made to take care of the settlers coming in, that he would 
 expend more money for improvements than if he were under an 
 annual lease. 
 
 The Chairman. I have been told that in western Texas it was the 
 cattleman who had a lease who put down a well and discovered it 
 was not very far to water, and when that lease expired the home- 
 steader came in and found that area in that condition. 
 
 Mr. Potter. That has been the case in Colorado and in parts of 
 Texas, that the stockman has been the forerunner of the homestead 
 settler. The stockman has found the water, and then, in his en- 
 deavor to secure winter feed, he has discovered that certain portions 
 of the land could be farmed. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Then the farmers came in and took up many of 
 the cattle ranches? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. And they had a right to do that without having a 
 fence or anything else? 
 
 Mr. Potter. There have been a few fences which they had trouble 
 over. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Can you give to the committee, approximately, the 
 number of serious difficulties which have arisen and which have been • 
 referred to your department in regard to the conflict between cattle- 
 men and sheepmen within the last six years? 
 
 Mr. Potter. There have not been any that I know of within the 
 last six years. There were previous to that time serious difficulties 
 in some localities that are not within the national forest. 
 
 Mr. Raker. A lot that grew out of private land ownership at that 
 time? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Then, as a matter of fact, within the last six years 
 on the remaining public lands there has been little personal strife be- 
 tween the various interests, so far as ranging on it is concerned ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. I should say so. There have been some instances. 
 
 Mr. Raker. But very few? 
 
 Mr. Potter. But very few. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Now, for the last 8 or 10 years there has been a very 
 strong effort made before Congress by the cattleman to pass a leasing 
 bill? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Have you found any detriment, because of the lack of 
 this bill, in regard to homesteaders filing on this land and using it) 
 and in regard to mining claims being filed and developed, as well as 
 desert claims being filed — have you found anything of that sort be- 
 cause of the lack of a leasing bill ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. No ; I do not think so. 
 
 Mr. Raker. On the contrary, things have been progressing and 
 moving right along, and the largest increase in the population has 
 been in the Western States, within the last 10 years, except in the 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 89 
 
 States where the large immigration has come in from foreign coun- 
 tries ; is that not a fact ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Oh, yes ; largely due to irrigation development. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That being the case, with the timber reserve and the 
 water rights in the timber, if this same development continues for 
 the next 10 years, will not this western country continue to develop 
 by new claims — desert claims and mining claims — in an enormous 
 percentage without any leasing bill at all ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. I think so ; yes, sir ; but I think it will develop faster 
 with a leasing bill ; with a bill which will permit 
 
 Mr. Raker (interposing). Mr. Potter, I do not know how much 
 experience you have had in inclosures on 20,000 or 10,000 acres of 
 land, and when you answered Mr. Church that the fact that a man 
 had a 10,000-acre tract of land inclosed, with his material in there — 
 when you answered that it would be perfectly proper for a home- 
 steader to go in there and locate, I fairly shivered, because I know 
 that no man would dare enter those inclosures after they were once 
 inclosed, because that would practically mean his death. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. I should like to ask you one question. Is it prac- 
 ticable to establish, by a general provision in the bill, a prohibitive 
 zone or death-line radius around each entry or farm in this proposed 
 leasing bill ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. You mean outside of the land which would be taken 
 up? 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Yes; a reserve for the farmer or entryman. 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes ; it is practical to do that, as the grazing permits 
 are readjusted at the beginning of each season. It is practical to set 
 aside for each new settler such ranges as he would be entitled to. 
 
 The Chairman. That would be an inconvenience to the lessee, 
 would it not? 
 
 Mr. Potter. In some instances that would require fencing. In 
 some instances settlers would come in and have a community range. 
 That is particularly so where they graze their stock on their farms in 
 the wintertime and take them into the mountains for the summer 
 range. In that case a number of settlers will go in together and hire 
 a man to look after their stock and graze it on what we call a com- 
 munity range. 
 
 The Chairman. Whom do you desire to be heard next ? 
 
 Mr. Kent. I will present to the committee as the next speaker Mr. 
 Dwight B. Heard. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. DWIGHT B. HEARD, OF PHOENIX, ARIZ., 
 REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN NATIONAL LIVE STOCK 
 ASSOCIATION. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Heard, will you please give to the reporter 
 your full name and address and state whom you represent? 
 
 Mr. Heard. My, name is. Dwight B. Heard; my residence is Phoe- 
 nix, Ariz. I represent in this particular matter the American 
 National Live Stock Association, of which I happen to be the first 
 vice president, and I speak as a farmer and cattle breeder and feeder 
 in the Salt River Valley. 
 
 Mr. Kent. As I understand it, Mr. Heard, you have no direct 
 personal interest 
 
90 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Heard. I am going to state that. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I first want to 
 thank the committee on behalf of the stockmen who are here and 
 whom I represent, for the opportunity of having this hearing before 
 you. I particularly want to thank Mr. Fergusson for his courtesy 
 in permitting us to express our views on this subject at this time. 
 
 It seems to me that in a matter of this kind what every man would 
 at once ask, when a man appears before you, is what is this man's 
 personal interest in this matter. I am going to state exactly what 
 my personal interest is. 
 
 About 10 years ago I became, in connection with many other men, 
 very much interested in some plan of conserving the grazing lands. 
 At that time I had lived for about nine years in Arizona; I had 
 had many dealings with the cattlemen on the range, and I found 
 that there was no question in the world, under the then existing 
 conditions, that the carrying capacity of the ranges was steadily 
 decreasing; that much friction among the occupants of the ranges 
 existed ; and that the most beneficial use was not being obtained from 
 that great natural resource. 
 
 The matter was taken up in the various meetings of the American 
 National Live Stock Association, and for 10 years past at our an- 
 nual conventions this subject has been one which has been very 
 actively and fully discussed. 
 
 In 1908 a bill was prepared at a meeting of the American National 
 Live Stock Association held in Denver in January of that year, and 
 that bill was prepared by a committee of practical stockmen from 
 various Western States. I happened to be the member of that com- 
 mittee from Arizona. We had with us in preparing that bill repre- 
 sentatives of the Department of Agriculture and such men as Gov. 
 Carey, of Wyoming ; Mr. J. V. Vickers, of California ; and Mr. James 
 Lockhart, of Colorado, men who were earnestly trying to see if 
 they could not suggest something which would provide for improved 
 conditions on the public grazing lands. 
 
 That bill was shortly introduced in Congress, and was first known 
 as the Burkett bill. Later it was introduced again and known as 
 the Curtis-Scott bill. A similar measure was introduced by Senator 
 La Follette; it was then introduced with some modifications and 
 known as the Lever bill, and is now before Congress again known as 
 the Kent bill. I would like to file at this time the original bill and the 
 report of the American National Live Stock Association which 
 accompanied it. 
 
 The Chairman. Unless there is some objection the bill and report 
 to which you refer will be incorporated in the record at this point. 
 
 (The bill and report referred to are as follows:) 
 
 Bill Relative to Disposition of Public-Grazing Lands of United States as 
 Recommended by the American National Live Stock Association at Its 
 Meeting, Denver, Colo., January 22, 1908. 
 
 A BILL Providing for the control of grazing upon the public lands in the arid States 
 and Territories of the United States. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and Bouse of Representatives of the United States 
 of America in Congress assembled, 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 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 91 
 
 public lands of the United States, conforming to State and Territory lines so far 
 as practicable, whereupon the Secretary of Agriculture, under rules and regu- 
 lations prescribed by him, shall execute or cause to be executed the provisions 
 ot this act, appoint all officers necessary for the administration and protection 
 of such grazing districts, regulate their use for grazing purposes, protect them 
 from depredation and injury, restore and improve their grazing value issue 
 permits to graze live stock thereon for periods of not more tlimi 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 im- 
 proved 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 the maxi- 
 mum grazing fee shall be four cents per acre and the minimum one-half cent 
 per acre. 
 
 Sec. 2. That the users of the public lands under the provisions of this act 
 may select a committee of not more than four members from the users of any 
 such grazing district, which committee shall be proportionate with ownership 
 of different kinds of stock, giving at least one committeeman to each class of 
 live-stock users of the land, who, with the officer appointed by the Secretary 
 of Agriculture in charge of such grazing district, shall constitute an executive 
 board, who shall determine whether the permits for 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 distribution of tbe 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, when permits are issued on a 
 per capita basis, and shall decide upon the adoption of any special rules to meet 
 local conditions, and shall prescribe special rules to govern the movement of 
 live stock across the public lands in such districts 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 shall also determine the preferences in 
 the allotment of grazing privileges provided for in section one of this act, and 
 shall determine the value of the improvements and of the use of the same when- 
 ever that may become necessary under the provisions of this act in the adminis- 
 tration of the same. Any differences between a majority of the executive board 
 and the officer in charge shall be referred to the Secretary of Agriculture, and 
 shall be adjusted in the manner prescribed by him. Any interested party shall 
 have the right to appeal from any decision of the board to Secretary of Agri- 
 culture. If the users of the land fail to select the committee as herein provided 
 for, the President of the United States shall name such committee from such 
 grazing districts, apportioned among owners of the different kinds of live stock, 
 as above provided. 
 
 Sec. 3. That lands within such grazing districts shall be continually subject 
 to homestead entry and to other appropriation and disposal under all public- 
 land laws now existing or which shall be hereinafter enacted: Provided, That 
 after the establishment of any such grazing district no form of location, settle- 
 ment, or entry thereon shall give a right to grazing privileges on public lands 
 except when made under laws requiring cultivation or agricultural use of the 
 land : Provided, That permits to graze live stock upon land which is subse- 
 quently 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 given to any such settler or entryman which will entitle him to the use 
 of any buildings, corrals, reservoirs, or other improvements owned or controlled 
 by a prior occupant, until he has paid such prior occupant a reasonable pro rata 
 value for the use of such improvements. If the parties interested can not 
 agree, then the amount of such payment shall be determined under rules of 
 the Secretary of Agriculture : And, provided further, That 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 any such improvements exceed $100 in value as determined by rules of 
 the Secretary of Agriculture, be subject to settlement or appropriation under 
 the public-land laws during the permit period without the consent of the owner 
 of such buildings, corrals, reservoirs, wells, or other improvements; and when 
 such improvements are worth less than $100 settlement may not be made upon 
 lands containing them during the permit period until the new occupant has 
 
92 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 paid such amount for the improvements as may be determined under the rules 
 of the Secretary of Agriculture. 
 
 Sec. 4. That no grazing permits issued under this Act shall prohibit settlers, 
 prospectors, and others from entering upon such grazing districts for all proper 
 and lawful purposes, including the use and enjoyment of their rights and prop- 
 erty, and prospecting, locating, and developing the mineral resources of such 
 districts; and wagon roads or improvements may be constructed thereon in 
 accordance with law, and all persons shall have the right to move live stock 
 from one locality to another under such restrictions only as are necessary to 
 protect the users of the land which will be driven across. 
 
 Sec. 5. That the Secretary of Agriculture may set aside such public lands 
 in any grazing district as are not occupied by a bona fide settler or claimant 
 under the public-land laws, not to exceed, in any case, three per centum of all 
 public lands in any grazing district, when such lands are needed for school- 
 houses, churches, and State or county buildings, or for public, administrative, 
 experimental, or improvement purposes under this or any other law ; and when 
 lands so set aside have been listed in the local land office they shall not be 
 subject to settlement, entry, or location under the public-land laws until such 
 lists are revoked by the Secretary. All waters on public lands, or subject 
 to the jurisdiction of the United States within such grazing districts, may 
 be used for domestic, mining, milling, or irrigation purposes under the laws of 
 the State or Territory wherein such grazing districts are situated, or under the 
 laws of the United States and the rules and regulations thereunder. 
 
 Sec. «>. That the Secretary of Agriculture shall fix a date, which shall not be 
 less than one year from the establishment of any grazing district, and after 
 such date the pasturing of any class of live stock on public land in the grazing 
 district without a permit obtained as herein provided shall constitute a mis- 
 demeanor, and shall be punishable by a fine of not less than $10 nor more than 
 $1,000, or by imprisonment for not less than ten days nor more than one year, 
 or by both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court: Provided, 
 That homestead or other settlement, location, entry, patent, and all other dis- 
 posal 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 pur- 
 poses, on the public lands affected hereby. 
 
 Sec. 7. That the sum of $250,000 is hereby appropriated, to be available until 
 expended, for the payment of expenses necessary to execute the provisions of 
 this Act. All net moneys received from each grazing district during any fiscal 
 year shall be paid at the end thereof by the Secretary of the Treasury to the 
 State or Territory in which said grazing district is situated, to be expended 
 as the State or Territorial legislature may prescribe, for the benefit of the 
 public schools and the public roads of the county or counties in which the graz- 
 ing district is situated : Provided, That when any grazing district is in more 
 than one State or Territory or county, the distributive share of each from the 
 proceeds of said grazing district shall be proportional to its area therein. 
 
 Sec. 8. That the President is hereby authorized to modify any proclamation 
 establishing any grazing district, but not oftener than once in five years, to 
 take effect in not less than one year thereafter, and by such modification may 
 reduce the area, or change the boundary lines of such grazing district. 
 
 Action or the American National Live Stock Association Relative to 
 Disposition op the Unappropriated Pcblic Lands of the United States. 
 
 At the eleventh annual convention of the American National Live Stock 
 Association held in Denver, Colo., January 21 and 22, 1908, the following local 
 and State live-stock associations were represented : 
 
 Albany County Cattle and Horse Growers' Association (of Wyoming). 
 
 Albany County Wool Growers' Association (of Wyoming). 
 
 American Hereford Cattle Breeders' Association. 
 
 American Short Horn Breeders' Association. 
 
 Arizona Wool Growers' Association. 
 
 Arizona Cattle Growers' Association. 
 
 Bent County Cattle Growers' Association (of Colorado). 
 
 Cattle Sanitary Board of New Mexico. 
 
 Cattle Raisers' Association of Texas. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GKAZING LANDS. 93 
 
 Colorado Cattle and Horse Growers' Association (present, but not voting). 
 
 Corn Belt Meat Producers' Association. 
 
 Delta County Live Stock Association (of Colorado). 
 
 Inland Registered Breeders' Association (of Washington). 
 
 Kansas State Live Stock Association. 
 
 Kern County Cattle Growers' Association (of California). 
 
 Kern County Wool Growers' Association (of California). 
 
 Las Animas County Cattle Growers' Association (of Colorado). 
 
 Laramie County Cattle Growers' Association (of Wyoming). 
 
 Montana Stock Growers' Association. 
 
 Nebraska Stock Growers' Association. 
 
 North Park Cattle Growers' Association (of Colorado). 
 
 Park County Cattle Growers' Association (of Colorado). 
 
 Pikes Peak Cattle and Horse Growers' Association (of Colorado). 
 
 Plateau Valley Cattle Association (of Colorado). 
 
 Sheep Sanitary Board of New Mexico. 
 
 Snake River Cattle Growers' Association of Colorado and Wyo'ming. 
 
 Southeastern Utah Live Stock Association. 
 
 Washington Live Stock Association. 
 
 White River Cattle Association (of Colorado). 
 
 Western Slope Wool Growers' Association (of Colorado). 
 
 Western South Dakota Stock Growers' Association. 
 
 Wyoming Stock Growers' Association. 
 
 In addition to the representation of the live stock associations named there 
 were present a large number of individual members of the American National 
 Live Stock Association. 
 
 The report from the committee on resolutions of the American National Live 
 Stock Association, appointed at said annual meeting from the attending mem- 
 bers, was considered, and the vote on the proposed bill as it appears hereafter, 
 " Providing for the control of grazing upon the public lands in the arid States 
 and Territories of the United States," was as follows : 
 
 In favor of the bill as reported by committee on resolutions 396$ 
 
 Opposed - 324 
 
 Total vote 429 
 
 REPORT- OF COMMITTEE ON RESOLUTIONS. 
 
 Denver, Colo., January 22, 1908. 
 To the members of the eleventh annual convention of the American National 
 
 Live Stock Association: 
 
 Gentlemen : Tour committee on resolutions, to which was referred, among 
 other resolutions, the bill to regulate by the Government of the United States 
 the grazing upon the public land, known as Senate bill 2968, introduced in the 
 United States Senate December 21, 1907, by Senator Burkett, of Nebraska, after 
 fully considering same and all of its provisions and the subjects relating 
 thereto, begs to make the following report : 
 
 Tour committee desires to call attention of the members of this association 
 to the objects of this bill, and while doing so your committee desires to say 
 that it is not wedded to specific language, but reports the bill in the language 
 in which it is printed with the amendments we have suggested as embodying 
 the principles that we believe in, and giving to them correct expression. The 
 objects of the bill comprehensively stated are : 
 
 First. To place the public lands of the United States suitable only for grazing 
 under the control of the Secretary of Agriculture for the purpose of protecting, 
 maintaining, and perpetuating such grazing lands to the end of securing the 
 greatest beneficial use therefrom. 
 
 Second. The law can not possibly be administered without investing the 
 Secretary of Agriculture with a reasonable discretion in matters of detail, but 
 this bill limits that discretion so far as practicable and vests the larger portion 
 of the management in the people actually using the lands. 
 
 The maximum grazing fee is fixed at 4 cents per acre, and the minimum at 
 I cent per acre, but the fact that the maximum 4 cents is named should not be 
 taken as any indication that 4 cents would be charged, except in those few 
 localities where that would be entirely within reasonable limit. This maximum 
 
94 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 and minimum fee is inserted as a limtaton upon what may be charged, and 
 yet it will be observed that the bill provides that the fees for grazing shall be 
 based upon the value of the land in each locality. 
 
 Third. The second section of the bill we consider to be the most important 
 because it contains the fundamental idea of local control of all those matters 
 wherein the people themselves best know what should be done, and it is 
 accordingly provided that users of the lands may select a committee of four, 
 who, with the officer appointed by the Agricultural Department, constitute an 
 executive board, which, as you will observe, has charge of practically all 
 matters of local concern or that could be appropriately referred to it. It would 
 scarcely be possible to give to a local board more power than does this section. 
 
 The Burkett bill provides that the Government of the State or Territory 
 may appoint a committee, but the executive committee of your association 
 thought^that the users of the public land could in practically all cases agree 
 on suitable persons who should administer the affairs of the district, and in 
 that way it would be eliminated from politics — a most desirable end. 
 
 But in view of the fact that there might be cases where the users of the land 
 could not agree among themselves, it is provided in the concluding lines of 
 section 2 that if the users of the land fail to select the committee the President 
 of the United States may name it and apportion them among the owners of the 
 different kinds of live stock who are using the land. 
 
 Tour committee believes that it is desirable to secure the largest amount of 
 local control, which can be secured without the destruction of ultimate respon- 
 sibility of the Agricultural Department charged with administering the law, 
 and therefore it is provided in this section that if differences shall exist between 
 a majority of the board and the officer in charge the same shall be referred 
 to the Secretary of Agriculture to be adjusted by him, and the important pro- 
 vision is inserted that any interested party shall have the right to appeal from 
 a decision of the board. 
 
 We think, therefore, that the rights of every person are as fully protected as 
 would be possible under the system which this bill proposes, and without 
 favoritism as between the owners of different sorts of live stock. 
 
 Fourth. The bill is framed on the theory and expressly provides that it shall 
 in no wise interfere with the acquisition of the title to the public lands of the 
 United States under any of the laws by which they may now be acquired. 
 
 It protects the owners of improvements in such rights as they have, fairly, 
 as your committee believes. It preserves the right to -move live stock across 
 any of the laud for any lawful purpose, with only such restrictions as will pro- 
 tect users of the land driven across. It gives the right to the Secretary of 
 Agriculture to set apart what may be necessary for experimental work, 
 administering quarantine regulations and for town lots, schoolhouses, 
 churches, etc. 
 
 All of the laws pertaining to water rights are, by the express provisions of 
 the bill, safeguarded according to the various laws of the States or Territories. 
 
 The previous bill provided that 10 per cent of the money received, after pay- 
 ing expenses of administration, should be paid to the States or Territories for 
 the benefit of the counties where the land lies. This the executive committee 
 of your association proposes to amend so that all net moneys will be paid to 
 the States or Territories for the benefit of the public schools and roads, which 
 meets our hearty approval. 
 
 Fifth. As your committee views it, if this bill is enacted into law it will 
 result in the establishment of fixed places of business upon public lands with 
 improvements commensurate with the business, will encourage development of 
 permanent water supplies, better breeding of live stock, the protection of the 
 range against overstocking, and will tend to greater harmony among the occu- 
 pants of the public lands. Not the least of benefits would be the giving of a 
 market value to a ranch and place of business in connection with the live-stock 
 industry. It will cause an increased production of forage and other agri- 
 cultural crops for the maintenance of a larger number of live stock on a given 
 area than can now be kept upon it. 
 
 Above all, from the standpoint of public good, it will encourage the establish- 
 ment of homes upon the public lands, because when the land is fenced, as the 
 bill provides, a permanent habitation may be safely established with the 
 assurance of the party who takes up a homestead that he will get beneficial 
 use of it and sufficient preferences to maintain his family. 
 
 The reasons which actuate your committee in inserting the clause on page 1, 
 section 1, line 6, reading as follows: " Conforming to State and Territory lines, 
 
DISPOSITION OF GBAZING LANDS. 95 
 
 so far as practicable," are that the laws of the different States may, and in 
 many instances do, differ materially respecting matters pertaining to fencing, 
 grazing, and to various other local regulations dependent on the laws of the 
 given States ; and it is deemed best to prevent, as nearly as possible, any con- 
 flict between the States with respect to the carrying on of the live-stock busi- 
 ness in the grazing districts provided for in this bill. 
 
 Furthermore, one of the fundamental ideas in this bill is the local control by 
 those best acquainted with the circumstances and conditions which surround 
 parties similarly situated, and in territory of similar sort; and it is believed 
 by your committee that the districts should be so distributed as to embrace 
 within each as little of conflicting interests arising either from the dissimilarity 
 of business or the execution of local laws as possible. 
 
 It was pointed out, and at first insisted by some, that the law should require 
 absolute conformity to State lines, so that there would be no district which 
 extended into more than one State, but after giving the matter patient and 
 careful consideration, your committee came to the conclusion unanimously that 
 the best that could be done for the proper execution of the law would be to 
 leave it to the President in declaring these districts, simply directing con- 
 formity to State laws as nearly as practicable ; and that is the reason for 
 putting the amendment in that form. 
 
 It was brought to the attention of your committee that there are many locali- 
 ties where stockmen are already engaged in the business, having a ranch 
 through which State or Territory lines run, and also that there are many in- 
 stances in which the geographical and physical conditions are such that it 
 would Be impossible to divide the districts by the State lines, and that furnished 
 an additional reason for leaving it to the discretion of the Executive. We 
 expect, of course, that the law will be administered by observing State lines,, 
 except in very few cases where the conditions do not seem to fairly permit it. 
 
 Section 8 of the bill authorizes the President to modify by proclamation such 
 grazing districts at any time. As a substitute for section 8, we recommend 
 the following : 
 
 " Sec. 8. That the President is hereby authorized to modify any proclama- 
 tion establishing any grazing district, but not oftener than once in five years, 
 to take effect in not less than one year thereafter, and by such modification 
 may reduce the area or change the boundary lines of such grazing district." 
 
 Your committee was led to make this change after considering that the 
 main feature of this bill to promote the establishment of a permanent business 
 upon the public land was inconsistent with the idea that the districts should 
 be subject to change, modification, and reduction in area upon the mere procla- 
 mation of the President, without taking into consideration the rights of parties 
 who shall have established their business upon the land; that consideration 
 your committee believes to justify the amendment proposed and to leave suffi- 
 cient latitude for the Executive to provide against changing conditions from 
 time to time on account of the settlement and development of the country. 
 
 The foregoing report was adopted by your committee on resolutions by a 
 vote 14 to 2, and one of the minority concurred in all of the bill, except as to one 
 section. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 Jambs A. Lockhart, Chairman. H. E. Crowley, Texas. 
 
 C. B. Rhodes, Colorado. F. M. Stewart, South Dakota. 
 
 M. K. Parsons, Utah. J. V. Vickers, California. 
 
 David Fratt, Montana. H. S. Boice, Kansas. 
 
 Dwight B. Heard, Arizona. James Cushney, Colorado. 
 
 J. M. Carey, Wyoming. E. E. Lowe, Nebraska. 
 
 J. C. Underwood, Wyoming. 
 
 Of the other members of the committee : 
 
 Mr. Hugh Campbell, of Arizona, was not present at the committee meeting 
 and did not vote. 
 
 Mr. Isaac Baer, of Colorado, voted against this report and rendered a mi- 
 nority report to the convention. 
 
 Mr. S. P. Delatour objected to section 6 of the bill as reported. 
 
 Mr. Heard. That is my interest in the matter, from a conserva- 
 tion standpoint. I believe in the principles embodied in this bill, 
 but realize, as well as other stockmen thoroughly realize, that this 
 committee can, no doubt, make many excellent improvements in this 
 
96 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 measure. I do not presume that Mr. Kent would suggest that this 
 is a perfect bill, but it is, in my judgment, a long step in the right 
 direction, in that it substitutes intelligent, regulated use for the 
 present system of misuse, resulting in constant waste. 
 
 Now I do not happen to own a single hoof, either of cattle, horses, 
 or sheep, on the public domain, either individually or as a member 
 of any corporation. . . _ 
 
 When I first began to work for this principle 1, at that tune, owned 
 no interest in a public range of any character nor in the forest. 
 During this time, some four or five years ago, I obtained an interest 
 in a cattle range in Arizona, which we ha ve_ since traded, and to-day 
 I have no personal interest or control in the public domain. 
 
 I am feeding and breeding cattle in the Salt Kiver Valley. If I 
 have any selfish interest in this matter, it is that I believe that the 
 improved conditions that would be brought about on the public 
 range through putting into operation this conservation measure 
 would, give a better market for good cattle. I know the cattlemen 
 well ; they are square men, and I want to state very frankly to you 
 that they are not here to put something over on the little man. They 
 are not here to in any way handicap the legitimate homesteader ; and 
 I want to say to you very frankly, on behalf of the American Na- 
 tional Live Stock Association and also to present my personal views 
 on this subject, that if there is any possible way to perfect this bill 
 and more thoroughly "guard the homesteader, I am absolutely for it, 
 and I think the stockmen generally would be only too glad to 
 support it. 
 
 Furthermore, I am in favor of allowing full opportunity for the 
 prospector and homesteader to go onto this area if it should be de- 
 cided that it should be put into a grazing district, and I think there 
 should be very strong penalties provided for any interference with 
 the prospector or the homesteader in their investigations in that 
 country. 
 
 I want to make it very clear that my personal view is that by sub- 
 stituting regulated, intelligent use for the present misuse you are 
 encouraging rather than deterring the homesteader. The men of 
 the West know full well that the very best asset of the West is the 
 homes we have there and the industrious people who work our lands, 
 and that it would be entirely foolish to attempt to put through a 
 measure which would interfere with homesteading. 
 
 There are a good many things I would like to say on this subject, 
 but I realize that your time is valuable, and I realize that the time 
 of the men who have come here from the far West to talk to you 
 about this matter is valuable. 
 
 So I have noted down a few special things which I desire to say 
 to you, and among the first of those is the question of what this pro- 
 posed bill, if put into operation, will accomplish. 
 
 In the first place, I Tbelieve that it will accomplish cooperation 
 among the users of the range, instead of friction, which often exists. 
 
 Under present conditions there is no question in the world that 
 the man with the longest pocketbook has the best right on the public 
 range to-day. He can develop his water; he can do many things 
 that the man with small interests and small means can not do. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 97 
 
 I want to call your attention to the fact that in this bill as orig- 
 inally drawn by the committee of the American National Live Stock 
 Association, and as to-day presented by Mr. Kent, there is a regula- 
 tion which provides that, in allotting these grazing rights, the first 
 men to whom they shall be given shall be the homesteaders and the 
 present _ occupants of the ranges. There is no question but what that 
 is the right thing to do. 
 
 I want to say in reference to Mr. Fergusson's measure that I per- 
 sonally see no objection to a range homestead bill in certain sections. 
 Many years ago I thought some such form of bill would be a good 
 idea, and I do not think it conflicts with this greater measure, be- 
 cause this is, indeed, a great question. 
 
 There are involved in this range area 325,000,000 acres of land. 
 There are grazing to-day within that area 12,000,000 head of cattle 
 and 35,000,000 head of sheep, and the vital question after all is this, 
 that if, on this great grazing area, by intelligent methods of control 
 and protection, more meat products can be produced you have funda- 
 mentally and favorably affected that vital question of to-day, the 
 high cost of living. It is a great big national conservation question, 
 in my judgment. It is in no sense a little question, and you have 
 got to have it based on the principles of absolute justice to the home- 
 steader, and if there is anything in that bill which in any way inter- 
 feres with the homesteading or in any way interferes with develop- 
 ment it should be eliminated. 
 
 I have been greatly interested in some of the suggestions made 
 before this committee. I think a number of matters were suggested 
 which would improve it. I think Mr. La Follette made a sugges- 
 tion which was a most excellent one. He referred to the fact as to 
 whether it might not be possible, if a man had a hundred dollars' 
 worth of improvements on a 40-acre tract it would not really, abso- 
 lutely deter homesteading. I have thought that ever since the sug- 
 gestion was made, and I have talked it over with a number of stock- 
 men who are here, and I think his point is well taken, and person- 
 ally I would like to see that clause omitted. You will find that 
 clause commencing after the word " agriculture," on line 20, page 3. 
 
 Mr. Church. Was not that clause in the bills filed; for instance, 
 in the original bill prepared by the cattlemen at Denver? 
 
 Mr. Heard. I think it was. You will find the clause which Mr. 
 La Follette referred to in line 20, on page 3, after the word " agri- 
 culture." 
 
 Mr. Church. On what page? 
 
 Mr. Heard. On page 3. I would suggest that you omit all the 
 balance of that section. 
 
 Now, there was a suggestion made, I think, by my friend Judge 
 Raker, and that w|as that under the phraseology of this bill the 
 proper rights of prospectors and homesteaders to go upon the graz- 
 ing areas, if they should be fenced, might be interfered with, and 
 I think that should be carefully safeguarded. I think that point 
 is well taken. If you will turn to page 2, line 3, I think this should 
 be inserted after the word " two " : " Erect such fences as are needed 
 for the proper control of the stock grazed." 
 35074— pt 1—14 7 
 
98 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 The Chairman. There was an amendment suggested on page 2, 
 line 8, after the word " animals " by Dr. Galloway. 
 
 Mr. Heard. I am going to speak about that. 
 
 Now, proceeding on the various suggestions which were offered, 
 I think that Dr. Galloway quoted from a letter of the Secretary of 
 Agriculture in general approval of the measure, and suggesting 
 certain definite modifications. 
 
 I would like to say in that connection, that since then I have dis- 
 cussed this matter with quite a number of the stockmen who are' 
 here, and we think that all the suggestionis made by the Secretary 
 of Agriculture are excellent, and of those you have a record. 
 
 Now, in regard to the question of more thoroughly protecting the 
 rights of the prospector — or the homesteader looking for a location, 
 in section 4 of the bill on page 4, line 13, after the word "upon,*' 
 I think Judge Eaker's suggestion that a prospector might not be able 
 to go into the pasture has merit and I think you ought to have a 
 provision there like this, adding or inserting something like this: 
 " and any public lands fenced or unfenced within." Then the sec- 
 tion would clearly protect the prospector. 
 
 I want to make it clear to you gentlemen that the stockmen do 
 not want to hamper the homesteader; they do not want to hamper 
 the development of mining, and they feel that while this measure 
 will give them an opportunity to develop the grazing lands, under 
 an intelligent system of control, that at the same time they want 
 all the laws of the United States relative to homesteading and pros- 
 pecting and relative to the development of the lands to go on abso- 
 lutely unhampered, and anything you can write into the bill that 
 will provide for the complete development of the country and for 
 the right of the homesteader, I am quite sure will be welcomed by 
 a large majority of the stockmen. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Would you be willing to keep your herds away from 
 the vicinity of any farm ranch? 
 
 Mr. Heard. On that point it provides in this bill for that — for the 
 domestic rights to graze stock. I think the point you raise would 
 be a very difficult one for me to answer. I am not living upon the 
 range. If you would like to have that question answered at this 
 time I would be glad to call up men here who could answer it. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. I have heard a great many complaints from the 
 small land owners about the stockmen coming in close to their ranges 
 and their ranches and eating off all the grass in the early part of 
 the season and leaving nothing for him, and then going up to the 
 mountains. 
 
 Mr. Heard. I would like to say in response to Mr. Sinnott's ques- 
 tion that this bill provides for an advisory board in every grazing 
 district, composed of the stockmen in that district, together with a 
 representative of the Department of Agriculture, and the Secretary 
 of Agriculture states that in his opinion the representative of the 
 Department of Agriculture should be the chairman of that board. 
 I assume that in the administration of this grazing area just rules 
 and regulations would be made, which would cover the point you 
 have brought up. 
 
 Mr. Raker. How would you feel about a provision in the bill of 
 this kind, that no man should have a lease within a mile of a known 
 habitation ? 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 99 
 
 Mr. Heard. I would like to have Mr. Potter, who has had more 
 practical experience in that matter, answer that question; but I 
 see he has left the room, and I would like to ask Mr. Barnes if he 
 will answer it. 
 
 TI7 . Mr ,. Barnes. In the sheep ranges it would be perfectly practicable. 
 We do it to-day. But with the cattlemen it would not be. 
 
 Mr. Heard. I want to ask Mr. Crabb, of Arizona, what would be 
 his view on that point? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I think the impracticable part of it, so far as our 
 State is concerned, would be that it would require fencing. 
 
 Mr. Raker. In my State you would be guilty of an offense if you 
 herd your stock within a mile of any man's homestead claim, but 
 that law has not been enforced very much. I was just asking vou 
 what you thought about it. 
 
 Mr. Heard. I should think the local State laws would provide for 
 and take care of that. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Suppose this bill provided that no land should be 
 leased within a mile of any habitation ; that is, on land which had 
 been patented? 
 
 Mr. Heard. The only point is that that might result in a larger 
 amount of fencing than would be desirable. 
 
 Mr. Raker. No; I am assuming you do not have any fences, but 
 that the provision would mean that the department would have no 
 authority to lease any land within a mile of a known bona fide 
 habitation. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I want to ask a question in regard to the right 
 of the Government to charge a penalty against a man whose stock 
 inadvertantly got away from him and got in on the unfenced domain 
 which was leased to some private individual. I just thought of it 
 in this connection, when Mr. Raker asked his question. Suppose 
 your stock comes along to a man's inclosure and breaks the fence and 
 eats up the grass. Immediately the man asks redress, and you 
 say your fence was not lawful. Then in my State the law says the 
 fence shall be so high and shall have so many wires. If you did not 
 have a lawful fence you could not collect any damages. 
 
 But if the stock should get into a public road which leads across 
 the public domain or forest reserve, the ranger has a right to sue the 
 man and collect damages of a certain amount if he finds they have 
 damaged the grass that much, and I understand from Mr. Potter 
 that the Supreme Court has upheld that. 
 
 Would there be any justice in a thing of that kind — that your stock 
 could break through a man's fence and eat him out of house and 
 home, and yet under the State law he could not collect anything for 
 the reason I have stated, but the forest ranger can make him pay 
 $100 damages if his stock has inadvertently got into a highway and 
 mussed up the grass a little bit ? If the Supreme Court has made any 
 decisions of that kind against State rights, we need a revision of 
 things in the United States. 
 
 Mr. Heard. My idea on that is this: That while it is quite true 
 that when the administration of the forests was first commenced — 
 and I happen to be quite familiar with that question — there was a 
 good deal of friction. It is also a fact that year by year the adminis- 
 tration of the national forests by the Forest Service has become more 
 practical and that there is less and less complaint; that there is a 
 
100 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 greater beneficial use of the forest grazing lands each year and that 
 the amount of cattle grazing upon those lands is increasing, and that 
 there is less friction of the character you refer to than there formerly 
 was. . . 
 
 It seems to me they have had so much administrative experience 
 in bringing about cooperation between the users of the forest ranges 
 and the service that they would be in an exceptionally good position, 
 with some similar power, to take care of these grazing ranges which 
 immediately adjoin the forest ranges. In our bill we provided for 
 this local board, composed of those using the range at the time this 
 act may be put into operation, they to constitute, with this grazing 
 officer, an administrative board, who would try to straighten out 
 these questions. 
 
 I think the experience which has been had in making the forest 
 range a success would be of infinite value in making these public 
 grazing ranges a success. 
 
 I would like to say one more think on that line. I believe in our 
 State of Arizona, where these forest reserves were first put into op- 
 eration, and they asked the stockmen to pay a fee for that grazing, 
 it was unfair and rank dictation on the part of the Government, 
 and I believe to-day if you went onto the forest ranges of Arizona, 
 the great majority of the users of the rangers would say they would 
 infinitely prefer to pay fees and have the protection that is given 
 them than to go back to the old method of unrestricted, free use of 
 the ranges. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Some of us, including myself, are not familiar with 
 the mountain States, and as I understood Judge Eaker, his objec- 
 tion went, not so much to the language of the bill, but to the prac- 
 tical operation of it out there. 
 
 If I got his thought yesterday correctly, it would not matter so 
 much what language we would write into the bill or print in the 
 book, the fellow who was out there on the ground with a revolver 
 or a rifle would not give very much attention to that, and the real 
 difficulty with the settler would be on account of his contact with 
 the herders — with the fellows in the saddle — and if his 640-acre 
 homestead was surrounded by grazing lands, with cattle liable to 
 break down his fences, and with herders looking after the cattle who 
 did not know what was in the book and who did not care a great 
 deal, that it would be practically impossible for him to maintain his 
 home and range there. 
 
 From what you stated your practical experience does not enable 
 you to deal with the question, but I would like to hear something 
 about that, and I would like to hear the Judge's objection and Mr. 
 Fergusson's objection 
 
 Mr. Heard (interposing). We are going, later in this hearing, to 
 bring before you men who have had practical experience both in 
 the forest and on the public grazing lands, who will answer these 
 questions cheerfully and fully. I am going to confine myself to the 
 merits of the bill. These other gentlemen will, I think, be able to 
 fully answer any practical questions of that kind which you may 
 put to them. 
 
 Mr. Eaker. Have you any men here who have had any practical 
 experience with men entering large fields to apply for homesteads 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 101 
 
 under the laws that existed when any man could fence in the public 
 domain — before the act of 1885 ? 
 
 Mr. Heard. I presume we have. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I want to give you that idea, that when you find an 
 inclosure, whether or not it was permissible for any third party to 
 go into that inclosure and locate a homestead without considerable 
 difficulty. 
 
 Mr. Heard. If yon desire to take up that matter, I will withdraw, 
 and we can put on another man who has had practical experience 
 along that line. 
 
 Mr. Raker. No; I do not want to take it up now, but I suggest 
 that to you so that you may have somebody appear before the com- 
 mittee later who has had some experience along that line and whom 
 we can ask some questions in regard to it. 
 
 Mr. Fergttsson. It is only a question of fencing. Mr. Potter sug- 
 gested the idea that it did not necessarily mean inclosing by a fence 
 the separate pastures allotted to different men. Do you agree with 
 him? 
 
 Mr. Heard. It seems to me the principal Tise that will be made of 
 fences will be the drift fencing. I do not believe there will be many 
 large inclosed pastures. But I do think the value of the community 
 pasture to many small men in Arizona would be very great, and I 
 know, as a matter of positive personal knowledge, that lots of small 
 men who are to-day using the public grazing land under no control 
 whatsoever would welcome the opportunity to go into community 
 pastures to-day. 
 
 Mr. Fergttsson. How much would that relieve the present situa- 
 tion of everybody having a right — you mean to limit the number ? 
 
 Mr. Heard. No; to-day nobody knows what their rights are. No 
 one is encouraged to-day to develop water and breed their stock, 
 because they do not know but that it will go on indiscriminately. 
 There will be under this bill an opportunity for encouragement 
 of that kind and for creating pastures. 
 
 Mr. Fergttsson. Do you think the big pastures will be fenced ? 
 
 Mr. Heard. Not very much. 
 
 Mr. Fergttsson. For half a dozen men ? 
 
 Mr. Heard. They may desire to have small pastures, so that they 
 may shut off their bulls, wean calves, and hold cattle gathered for 
 shipment. 
 
 Mr. Fergttsson- Then, instead of each permittee — if I may so term 
 them — having a fence around what land he has, it will be permitted 
 for them to join together — five or six of them to join together — and 
 they will have a general or joint fence around that? 
 
 Mr. Heard. Quite probably true. 
 
 Mr. Fergttsson. Then the fact is that there is an objection in 
 behalf of the homesteaders still left ; is that not so ? Please explain 
 that to me. 
 
 Mr. Heard. The homesteader should have a perfect right to go 
 into that pasture. 
 
 Mr. Fergttsson. Suppose he is a fellow who has his wife and 
 children, and suppose in a 50,000-acre pasture he has 640 acres; he 
 has to fence that in the first place, will he not ? 
 
 Mr. Heard. I think you will find very few large pastures under 
 this act. 
 
102 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I mean the 640-acre fellow who goes into this 
 fenced area, he has to fence his 640 acres ? 
 
 Mr. Heard. I presume that depends on the settler. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Suppose he does not fence it ; what sort of head- 
 way would be make with the fellows with the large number of acres 
 and cattle ? 
 
 Mr. Heard. My personal impression is that he would find that the 
 neighboring big man would show a disposition to cooperate with 
 him in a fair spirit. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Do they not build his fence for him ? 
 
 Mr. Heard. I am going to say that on that particular question we 
 have some men here who live on this public grazing land. I pro- 
 pose to talk about the things I am particularly familiar with, and 
 not discuss matters with which other men are more familiar. They 
 can give you all the information you desire on that particular subject, 
 I am sure, and I know they will be very glad to answer your 
 questions. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I cheerfully acquiesce in that suggestion. 
 
 Mr. La Foixette. Where the homestead of 640 acres is in the cen- 
 ter of one of these pastures, would not the homesteader have to fence 
 it all, unless the stockmen fenced it, because he would be between 
 those other men. and he would have to fence it to protect himself? 
 
 Mr. Heard. We are going shortly to introduce a number of men 
 who are actually on the ranges, and they will be able to answer you 
 right off the bat. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I do not think anybody could answer better than 
 you can. 
 
 Mr. Heard. There are a lot of men here who understand this par- 
 ticular matter better than I do, and I would prefer to let them 
 answer that. 
 
 Mr. Church. At the present time, everybody who wants to can 
 occupy the public domain with stock on the area adjacent to it? 
 
 Mr. Heard. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Church. This leasing proposition will limit the number who 
 may occupy it, will it not ? 
 
 Mr. Heard. It will define the people who may occupy it; it will 
 establish what their rights are. 
 
 Mr. Church. My question is, Will it not limit the number? 
 
 Mr. Heard. It probably will. 
 
 Mr. Church. That is all. 
 
 Mr. Brown. Perhaps an answer to that would be that it would 
 not decrease the number in all probability, although it would limit 
 the number of new ones who might come in on it. 
 
 Mr. Heard. I would like to suggest this to Mr. Church : There is 
 no question in my mind that as this policy of regulation and control 
 is developed it will absolutely increase the number of cattle which 
 can be grazed on a given area. 
 
 Mr. Church. But limits the number who may graze their cattle 
 on it ? 
 
 Mr. Heard. I do not think so, because the preference is given ab- 
 solutely to homesteaders, and we are hoping they will increase, and 
 T think when this measure is passed and carried out under an ad- 
 ministration such as suggested, it will result in many more small 
 herds and a reduction of the large herds. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 103 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Heard, you are a strong, influential man, and 
 anything you say here is going to have weight. I want to see if I 
 have your idea correctly. 
 
 You say that in a given area within the fence, under this regula- 
 tion in this bill, that it is your opinion that the same area will pro- 
 duce a larger amount of cattle than it would if unrestricted, and I 
 agree with you about that. 
 
 But do you think such portions which have homestead possi- 
 bilities—you do not say that the land which has those possibilities 
 and which has agricultural possibilities would produce more cattle 
 as a pasture than as a homestead area? 
 
 Mr. Heard. I want to say to you that personally I am in favor of 
 the homestead wherever it is practicable to make one. 
 
 The Chairman. I know ; but suppose now that here is a 100,000- 
 acre pasture. Your statement is that the 100,000 acres of land will 
 produce more cattle under regulation and under control than it 
 would if it were loose? On that I agree with you. I do not think 
 you need to amplify that. 
 
 But you do not believe that the same 100,000 acres of land which 
 has agricultural possibilities would produce more in that pasture 
 than it would fenced in section homesteads. 
 
 Mr. Heard. But if that land has agricultural possibilities I think 
 it should be developed as agricultural land under agricultural home- 
 steading. There is no question in the world but what the agricul- 
 tural homestead, properly developed, is better than grazing, and we 
 propose that wherever that land exists within this grazing area, 
 which is fitted for agricultural homesteading, we think that is the 
 best use of the land. 
 
 The Chairman. Does that not bring us to the proposition of a 
 classification before you start out with this? 
 
 Mr. Heard. It does not seem that this is necessary at the start. 
 
 The Chairman. Then our line of distinction is just as plain as 
 can be, that you think the two can run in harmony, whereas my per- 
 sonal opinion is that they can not. 
 
 Mr. Heard. I think they can run in harmony. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. It is provided in the bill that there shall be an 
 advisory board for each grazing district laid out by the Secretary 
 of Agriculture. 
 
 Mr. Heard. If I might answer that, I will answer it as to my own 
 State. You will notice on the map there on the wall that in Arizona 
 we have 40,000,000 acres of these reserved lands. As I undestand it, 
 it is divided into 34 districts, Avith one supervisor for the entire 
 State, and in each district there would be a ranger, with supervision 
 in that district. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. It is provided that this board shall consist of 
 stockmen and a man designated by the Secretary of Agriculture. 
 That is the provision in the bill now. 
 
 Mr. Heard. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. To have jurisdiction over how big a district? 
 
 Mr. Heard. I assume in every small district ; that would seem to be 
 a practical way. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Do you think it would be fair to the small man 
 to let him have no representation on this board ? 
 
104 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Heard. I can see no objection to having the homesteaders in 
 a given district having representation on the board. Personally, 
 
 1 can not see any objection to that. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I think that would be very fair. 
 
 Mr. Heard. I would like to say also that in the original working 
 out of this measure it was thought it would be better not to attempt 
 to put into it all the details, but to assume that the administrative 
 officers who might be appointed by the Agriculture Department 
 would work out the details in a satisfactory way. 
 
 Mr. Baker. Who would determine the price to be paid? 
 
 Mr. Heard. That would be a matter for them to work out. 
 
 Mr. Eaker. I was asking for your practical opinion. 
 
 Mr. Heard. I think in many cases men would voluntarily be will- 
 ing to serve. 
 
 The Chairman. We will take a recess at this point until half past 
 
 2 o'clock. 
 
 (Thereupon, at 1.25 o'clock p. m., the committee took a recess until 
 2.30 o'clock p. m.) 
 
 AFTER RECESS. 
 
 The committee reassembled, pursuant to the taking of recess. 
 STATEMENT OF MR. DWIGHT B. HEARD— Continued. 
 
 The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Heard. 
 
 Mr. Heard. I am going to try to be very brief, Mr. Chairman, and 
 I think I can finish in a very few moments. 
 
 I think that almost all men who are conversant with conditions 
 existing on the forest reserves will agree that the present conditions 
 are unsatisfactory, and that there should be some relief which will 
 bring about a greater beneficial use of the grazing lands, which would 
 create more certain conditions and increased cooperation among the 
 users of the ranges. 
 
 There is no question that those who understand range conditions 
 will also agree that under the present conditions the carrying 
 capacity of the range is steadily decreasing. 
 
 Now, it does seem as if the time had arrived for the need of some 
 large constructive policy for the purpose of encouraging develop- 
 ment, and it is because I believe, and the stockmen generally believe, 
 that some bill founded upon the principles which are in this bill you 
 are discussing will bring about those improved conditions that we 
 are here to-day. 
 
 Now, we in Arizona have had a very interesting practical example 
 on the study of range conditions which has been made by Prof. J. J. 
 Thornber, a botanist of our State university. 
 
 Mr. Kent. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the introduction 
 which Mr. Heard is about to give to Prof Thornber be placed preced- 
 ing Prof. Thornber's statement which has already been introduced in 
 this hearing. 
 
 The Chairman. Without objection, that may be done. 
 
 Mr. Heard. Mr. Kent has introduced a statement prepared by 
 Prof. Thornber on this subject, and I would like to say a word rela- 
 tive to Prof. Thornber and his work. 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LAXDS. 105 
 
 He has been associated with onr State university for many years. 
 For the past eight years he has devoted the larger portion of his time 
 to a study of grazing conditions, a study of the natural grasses, a 
 study of how those grasses can be best protected and developed, and 
 a study of other grasses that may be brought onto the range, in order 
 to get the greatest amount of feed grasses on a given range area. 
 
 Prof. Thornber is not a theorist. He is a man of practical ex- 
 perience, who goes right out every year and lives on the range, and 
 studies conditions at first-hand. 
 
 He has been exceedingly fortunate in having, through the coopera- 
 tion of the Department of Agriculture, an opportunity to study the 
 range grasses which are under production in the mountains, south- 
 west of Tucson, on an area of about 50 square mines in extent. When 
 that Work in connection with these grasses was taken up that range 
 was in a very bad condition. Photographs taken at that time will 
 attest that fact. 
 
 Under this method of use, allowing some stock to be on it all the 
 time, but by careful handling these grases have been steadily built 
 up, until it is a fact that in recent years in quite a portion of the 
 country they have cut quite a little hay on what was formerly prac- 
 tically a denuded range. 
 
 It has been shown beyond question that a tremendous increase in 
 forage can be produced by proper protection. 
 
 Now, this man is a fact hunter ; he does not fool himself or anybody 
 else with illusive theories, but he gets to the facts of the case and 
 applies them, and you will find this statement from him, after years 
 of practical experience and thorough study, having no possible self- 
 interest in the matter, a statement that he believes that a bill such 
 as is proposed will be of immense advantage to the Nation generally ; 
 that it will result in a large increase of meat animals. 
 
 Now, other men who have studied along the same lines as Prof. 
 Thornburg, who have no possible interest except the interest of 
 students, men trying to get at the facts without prejudice, have 
 reached the same conclusion, and we think that is rather convincing 
 testimony. I am going to say one other word in regard to my per- 
 sonal interest in this matter, and how it would benefit me as a feeder. 
 We are all the time, under our great irrigation project in the Salt 
 River Valley, raising more hay and more forage, and products of 
 that sort, and the best use of it is to be put into meat animals. We 
 want more meat animals. If this bill goes into effect more meat 
 animals will be produced on the adjoining ranges, and can be brought 
 down and fed in the irrigation valleys. 
 
 Another feature that interests me is this. If you will look at that 
 map there on the wall you will see a little spot of blue where the 
 Salt Eiver Valley is located. If you will look toward the northeast 
 you will see an area which is colored in a greenish color. That is 
 all in forest or Indian reserves. We spent a great deal of time in the 
 Salt River Valley trying to get that country put into forest and 
 Indian reserves. Why ? Because we knew if that could be done the 
 water supply would be regulated. In other words, all the country 
 you see there acts as a natural regulator of the Roosevelt Reservoir. 
 A similar improvement will be brought about by similar regulation 
 of the grazing lands. 
 
106 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 I want to say just a few words in conclusion. It seems to me that 
 this is what this bill does, with the suggestions and improvements that 
 have been offered in this committee. It will encourage genuine home- 
 steading cooperation among the inhabitants of the range, and secure a 
 greater beneficial use of the grazing lands. It will protect and con- 
 serve the range grasses. It will result in the production on these 
 lands of more meat animals. It will substitute stable conditions for 
 uncertain conditions warranting the occupants in developing an ad- 
 ditional water supply. You must realize that the water supply of 
 a grazing country is one of the greatest factors in its development, 
 and under less certain conditions there is not much encouragement 
 in developing water supply. It will prevent great loss of animals. 
 It will encourage better breeding of stock, prevent waste, and en- 
 courage cooperation among all those who use this great grazing area. 
 
 In conclusion, I want to thank you gentlemen for your very courte- 
 ous attention. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Mr. Chairman, I have here a telegram which I re- 
 ceived from the Mohave County Cattle Growers' Association, in 
 which they suggest a specific amendment to the bill, and I want to 
 ask Mr. Heard a question or two in reference to the amendment 
 which they propose. I will read the telegram. 
 
 Kingman, Ariz., March 1, 1914. 
 Hon. Carl Hayden. M. C, 
 
 Washington, D. C: 
 
 At a special meeting of the Mohave County Cattle Growers' Association held 
 at Kingman, Ariz., February 28, 1914, the following resolution was unani- 
 mously adopted by the members present : 
 
 " Re.tolccil, That, referring to H. R. 10539, a bill for the improvement of 
 grazing on public lands of the United States, that a telegram be sent to each of 
 our Representatives in Congress respectfully calling attention to page 2 of said 
 proposed bill, commencing at line 10, where it states giving preference, when 
 practicable, to homesteaders and present occupants of the ranges who own 
 improved ranches or who have provided water for live stock, and so forth, 
 we suggest that the words ' when practicable ' be stricken out in line 11, as we 
 apprehend that it might be construed to work a hardship in our locality, where 
 every alternate section of land is railroad land through virtue of a land grant, 
 and we would respectfully request you to oppose that section of the bill, if you 
 think it does not amply protect the homesteader and small cattleman." 
 
 Knowing as you do that our conditions here are different to other sections 
 and having confidence that you will protect our interests through your legal 
 ability, we respectfully submit the above recommendation, and we will ever 
 pray. 
 
 Geo. A. Boneixi, President. 
 L. M. Teale, Secretary. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. What do you think of striking out the words " when 
 practicable,'' in line 11, as suggested in this telegram? 
 
 Mr. Heard. I would like to look at that just a moment. As I 
 understand, Mr. Hayden, the desire of these gentlemen is only to 
 strike out the words " when practicable," and as I read the section 
 I presume there would be no serious objection to striking out the 
 words " when practicable," and I also assume that the reason those 
 words were put in was that some time it might not be practicable to 
 do anything. 
 
 I would like to ask Mr. Reid, who is from northern Arizona, 
 whether he thinks there would be any objections to that proposed 
 amendment? 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 107 
 
 Mr. IIeid. It is perfectly immaterial, I think, with reference to 
 that part of the bill. 
 
 Mr. Heard. Do you think it would be satisfactory to cut out those 
 words ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. I think there would be no objection; I think it simply 
 affects the phraseology of the bill. 
 
 Mr. Kent. It does not mean anything one way or the other. 
 
 Mr. Heard. I do not think it is a serious matter. 
 
 Mr. Kemt. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that this railroad propo- 
 sition was brought to my attention when we adjourned, and that 
 situation is something we will have to cover in the bill. You will 
 find in the. country where I am especially familiar with the situa- 
 tion — in Nevada — that the railroad owns the alternate sections and 
 has been in the habit of leasing those alternate sections to anybody 
 who wants them. I have leased a great deal of that railroad land. 
 The railroad leases up to the present time have practically included 
 the Government land, because no man can go on the Government 
 land, which is practically unsurveyed, without trespassing on the 
 railroad land. The time must come when the Federal Government 
 must be recognized in the right to control these alternate sections,, 
 and the railroad can not expect to receive full rental value for their 
 sections, which also include the Government sections. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Has the railroad any day in court when they 
 can show what their lines are? Have they ever tried to keep any- 
 body off if they can not establish what their boundaries are? 
 
 Mr. Kent. The Government has never put in detailed surveys; 
 nobody knows where they are. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. If the railroad does net know where these lands 
 are, how would they have any cause for actions against anybody? 
 
 Mr. Kent. A man comes in and goes over the railroad sections 
 and in certain cases he can be found to be trespassing on railroad 
 lands. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. If the lines have never been established ? 
 
 Mr. Kent. They have not been definitely established. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I do not think the railroad could ever get a 
 decision in a case of that kind. 
 
 Mr. Kent. I do not think so either. I think we must have a sur- 
 vey there to establish that proposition. That is all a matter to be 
 taken care of in the bill later on, when we start to amend the bill, 
 and consider it by sections. 
 
 As I understand Mr. Heard, who is in charge of the cattlemen's 
 end of this proposition, he desires to have Mr. Killian address the 
 committee next. 
 
 Mr. Heard. Yes, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Killian will be the next 
 speaker on behalf of the cattlemen. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. J. B. KILLIAN, OF DELTA, COLO. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Killian, will you please give your full name 
 and your residence to the reporter? 
 
 Mr. Killian. My name is J. B. Killian, and I live at Delta, Colo. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I want to say that 
 I was very much pleased to notice during your proceedings this morn- 
 ing that you were narrowing this down to a question and answer 
 
108 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 proposition. That pleases me very much, because I am not a trained 
 speaker. This is (he first time I have ever appeared before a legis- 
 lative committee. I am not gifted in the art of public speaking, or 
 of appearing in public, and so I appreciate that proposition, the 
 stand you take, Mr. Chairman. 
 
 I -will say that I came down here from Colorado, the highest State 
 in the Union, the crest of the continent. I am a member of the 
 public land and grazing and forest reserve committee of the Ameri- 
 can National Live Stock Association, and I enjoy the honor of com- 
 ing down here in their behalf. 
 
 I desire to impress upon you, though, that I come down here in the 
 interests of the small community of stock growers and farmers of 
 whom you have been talking ever since I came into this room, and 
 if what I might say, or the answers I might give you in a practical 
 way, might shed any light upon the subject before you, then I shall 
 feel more than gratified that I came all the way from western Colo- 
 rado to Washington to appear before your committee and to discuss 
 this subject with you. 
 
 Our State, as I "understand it, contains about one-fifteenth of this 
 323,000,000 acres of land which you are talking about, or approxi- 
 mately 32,000,000, including the national forest acres, or about 
 1 9,300,000 of this unreserved public domain area ; and we have, gentle- 
 men, as you know, it is stated that about 80 per cent of the arid 
 lands of the West are grazing lands, and as you know, naturally, our 
 mean altitude in Colorado being about 6,800 feet above sea level, we 
 naturally have less agricultural land than almost any State in the 
 arid West, and where that character of land does exist, I want you 
 to bear in mind that it has more intrinsic value to the settler and to 
 the people of Colorado than any other State in the Union. 
 
 In Colorado, where we have beet lands, the by-product of an acre 
 will finish a bullock, and we have a ton and a half of beet sugar left 
 to put on the market and to return other products to us. Remember 
 that in our country the product of an acre, as is stated, finishes a 
 bullock. So that our proposition resolves itself, on what little farm 
 land we have, as you see, into intensive farming of a most valuable 
 kind. So I am proud, too, and glad to see you take the interest in 
 the homesteader which you seem to take. I do not want to see the 
 exploitation of any of our homestead lands in Colorado ; we can not 
 afford that. Our people are a unit on that proposition. Now, gen- 
 tlemen, in appearing before you, I am extremely sorry and I regret 
 very much that my friend and neighbor and fellow citizen, Congress- 
 man Edward Taylor, is not here to-day. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. We regret it more than you do. 
 
 Mr. Ktllian. I would feel more at home, gentlemen. But from 
 the smiles you have all given to each one appearing before you, I do 
 not feel particularly embarrassed, because I believe you will take 
 care of us, and while you may, possibly, harass us and be a little 
 drastic in some things, yet, at the same time, gentlemen, I hope you 
 will get some practical information out of this hearing. 
 
 Gentlemen, I went into Colorado and made it my adopted State 
 30 years ago. I went into the western slope of Colorado. Montrose 
 was my first location, and then I went to Delta, both of which towns 
 are in the same valley. That country of which we are speaking was 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 109 
 
 a great public domain. It was a virgin country. The Ute Indians 
 had just gone out, and they left a stock range that, in my judgment, 
 for small herds, was unsurpassed on the face of God's green earth. 
 It carried me way back to the phenomenal stories that I read about 
 Texas in the pioneer days of the great West. 
 
 So that I went in there, and to all appearances every pioneer set- 
 tler in that country concluded, and he had a reason to conclude such 
 a thing, that it never could be made anything but a grazing country. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, under the act of your body we have what is 
 known as the great Gunnison Tunnel, which reclaims in the neigh- 
 borhood of 165,000 acres of valuable agricultural land, a part of it 
 orchard land, a part of it alfalfa land, and a part of it sugar-beet 
 land and vegetable land. So that, gentlemen, with all due regard for 
 all the measures that might be presented on homesteading, I say, 
 first, last, and all the time, whatever you do, whether it be in passing 
 a homestead law or otherwise, do not sacrifice our agricultural land 
 in Colorado, because we need it. That is the position I take, Mr. 
 Chairman ; and I know that is the position my friend Congressman 
 Taylor takes. Of course, my friend Taylor would like to see, as I 
 understand it, this entire public domain turned over to the States 
 wherein it lies, but according to my last interview with him he has 
 back stepped from the simple fact that it appears that such a thing 
 is impossible ; from the simple fact that nobody knows where and 
 what the value of that land is, and the State of Colorado can not 
 afford to purchase land on the probable price fixed in that way. 
 Since I went in there I have been engaged in the cattle business. I 
 have owned some land, bought and sold some, and took up one desert 
 claim. I am a small man, and that is the kind of man you have been 
 talking about, and my neighbors are all engaged in the raising and 
 production of live stock in a small way. 
 
 Now, we went through the same history that all countries have 
 gone through. We went in there and placed our herds on those virgin 
 ranges; and largely on account of an overstocked condition, we met 
 our Waterloo'; and we came out with nothing; and we repeated it; 
 and because of misuse and because of lack of regulation, because of 
 no restriction and no control, I have seen that range three times eaten 
 up and overstocked and heavy losses entailed, nobody getting out with 
 any benefits. 
 
 This condition existed not only in the forest-reserve ranges as they 
 are now laid out there, but it existed all over — down in the valleys, 
 on the mountain sides, and everywhere. 
 
 As you may remember, when we woke up to the fact that our tim- 
 bered area was exhausted, and woke up to the necessity of forest 
 reserves and the necessity for the preservation of our timbered area, 
 there was nothing done toward conservation. There was no step 
 taken to conserve any resources. 
 
 And then came the proclamations in regard to the forest reserves, 
 affecting one neighborhood after another, for the purpose of protect- 
 ing this timbered area. A great deal of land in that premature elimi- 
 nation or segregation, a great deal of land that did not belong in there 
 was naturally taken in temporarily, and since has been eliminated. 
 And I think that was wisely done. 
 
 What I want to do is to try to show you the influence and control 
 of this grazing area in forest reserve under department regulations, 
 
HO DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 becailse following the preservation of the timber comes along the 
 preservation of the grazing resource. In other words, as you know, 
 under the law of 1891, in regard to the control, that gave the Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture of the United States the prerogative .of control of 
 its uses, and here comes along the next step as to the grazing resource. 
 
 Our people observed that under this establishment of forestry regu- 
 lations we could come in — and, in fact, we were invited to come in— as 
 small stock growers and participate and cooperate with the Forest 
 Service in establishing the management and control of this range, 
 under some restrictions, in order to keep it from being overstocked 
 and to produce the greatest amount of benefit to the stock growers 
 and farmers. 
 
 So we organized what is called in that locality the Delta County 
 Live Stock Association, and I was made president of it, and I am 
 president of it yet. That was in 1906. I am president of that organi- 
 zation, and we have a membership of over 300, who are grazing in 
 these reserves an average per man of about 122 head of cattle. So 
 that you see, going into this cooperative plan and placing the proper 
 restrictions on that range, we were enabled to give the matter a thor- 
 ough test. We had tested the other method and found out it was a 
 failure. 
 
 So we decided to go in and give the matter a thorough test, and, as 
 I tell you, we organized with this membership of 300, and entered into 
 cooperation with the Forest Service in the handling and management 
 of range matters. 
 
 We did that with these results : In 1906, under the overstocked con- 
 ditions, we were forced to cut down. We recognized the fact that we 
 must do that; and we resigned ourselves to the condition; and we 
 were willing to do that and accede to that proposition. So the matter 
 was fixed. The inspector of forestry came in and went over range 
 conditions with our advisory boards and decided how many cattle 
 could range in each district which they had at that time fixed. We 
 then went over the applications and cut down the number of cattle 
 pro rata. 
 
 So that since that time we have been watching the progress of this 
 system. I want to say, gentlemen, that at that time I was buying as 
 well as ranging cattle; I was buying cattle from my neighbors on 
 the south side in the Uncompahgre reserve, and on the north side in 
 the Battlement reserve, and I was shipping cattle to Denver and 
 Kansas City and Omaha, and I noticed and took account of all these 
 shipments, and I found that we were not producing at that time, at 
 the beginning of this era but about 10 per cent of shipping cattle 
 on the range that would bring in competition between the beef buyer 
 and feeder buyer. We went along, and I notice that this percentage 
 increased with the same age cattle and under the same conditions. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Right there, Mr. Killian, I think the committee prob- 
 ably does not understand this proposition. I understand it myself, 
 but you talk about cattle that are in competition between the beef 
 buyer and the feeder buyer, and I think you ought to explain that 
 to the committee because that is an important proposition. 
 
 Mr. Killian. I will explain that as best I can. When you go to 
 market there are buyers of all kinds. Of course the speculator comes 
 in, but there is the feeder buyer as well as the beef buyer. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. Ill 
 
 Mr. Thomson. What is the feeder buyer? 
 
 Mr. Killian. The feeder buyer is the man who lives in the corn 
 belt and buys feeder cattle. 
 
 Mr. Kent. The feeder buys stuff that is not fit for beef. If a man 
 can produce off the range that is capable of being killed for beef 
 he gets a higher value on it, a higher value for that stock than if he 
 produced what is known as feeding stock. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes, and he gets greater weights. The fatter the 
 animal tha more weight you get out of it, and, as a rule, you get a 
 better price. So that this improvement went along, and now, or 
 rather last year, I found that in our shipments to market we had 
 competition on about 50 per cent of the cattle. 
 
 Mr. Kent. That is, about 50 per cent of these cattle could either 
 be used for beef or for feeders, which means a much higher price. 
 
 Mr. Kdllian. This same competition existed and it does to-day, 
 and always will exist in the markets as long as we have herds on 
 the ranges. There is always the two classes of cattle we go to market 
 with — feeders and beef. So the feeder buyer comes in competition 
 with the beef buyer, and there was competition last year on about 50 
 per cent of these cattle. 
 
 Now, I do not stop there, gentlemen. ' Under the regulations of the 
 service and our coercion, our people were forced to salt their ranges; 
 every man was forced to put on his pro rata of the salt, and maintain 
 his part of the salt expense, and under our coercion he was obliged 
 to put on good bulls, and by that means in the Battlement reserve, 
 the Uncompahgre reserve, and the Holy Cross reserve, we have been 
 able to go down to Chicago and take not only the blue ribbons, but 
 three years in succession we have taken the purple ribbon on feeder 
 cattle. 
 
 Mr. Kent. What is the blue ribbon for? 
 
 Mr. Killian. That is the first prize in the class they are in. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Kange cattle ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes; and the purple ribbon designates the grand 
 championship. 
 
 Mr. Kent. For beef ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. For feeder cattle or beef. We took those cattle down 
 there, and they were mostly 2-yearrolds or yearlings. I took the 
 grand championship in Denver. I took that on a bunch of grade 
 cattle produced in the San Luis Valley. I bought them of Mr. 
 Adams or the man who succeeded him. He overused his pasture to 
 his own detriment. There was nobody else to advise with him, and 
 he took his thoroughbreds into the same show, and I took the grades 
 -that I had previously bought from him to Denver and took the grand 
 championship over his thoroughbreds. These were high-grade prod- 
 ucts. 
 
 I have just spoken of this to show you why we were led down to 
 the proposition of embodying the public domain area that lies in 
 and around these reserves of which we now have control under these 
 conditions. Our people are a unit in favor of extending this same 
 control down over the public domain if it can be done without inter- 
 fering with our settlers and our homesteaders, because nearly every 
 one of us are homesteaders, and nearly every one of us went in there 
 as desert-land entrymen or homesteaders, and we desire to see them 
 first of all protected in their entry upon this public domain. 
 
112 DISPOSITION OF GBAZING LANDS. 
 
 The Chairman. Would it disturb you if I asked you a question or 
 two right there ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. No; I will be glad to have you do so. 
 
 The Chairman. What per cent of your county is taxable area; 
 I mean what percentage of the whole area? 
 
 Mr. Killian. You mean of the county ? 
 
 The Chairman. Of your county? 
 
 Mr. Killian. I should say there is about — I can only give you a 
 guess- 
 
 The Chairman. Just approximately. 
 
 Mr. Killian. About one-third of Delta County. 
 
 The Chairman. That makes your tax fairly high? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Well, it makes — not necessarily. 
 
 The Chairman. You have to provide for your roads, your school- 
 houses, your courthouse, and things of that kind. Would that not 
 make your taxes pretty high with such a small taxable area? 
 
 Mr. 'Killian. Our farming belt, Mr. Chairman, is very rich and 
 the land is valuable. We went in under the cash valuation this last 
 year ; now our land is valued pretty high. 
 
 The Chairman. Your assessor puts a cash valuation upon it ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. What rate do you pay on the cash valuation? 
 
 Mr. Killian. An average, I should think, of 40 mills. It varies; 
 it goes up in some school districts ; it is controlled by the levy in the 
 school district. 
 
 The Chairman. Are you right about that — the county, the State, 
 and the school tax? 
 
 Mr. Killian (interposing). I am right about that; yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Four-tenths of 1 per cent? 
 
 Mr. Killian. About 40 mills. 
 
 The Chairman. Are you quite sure about that? 
 
 Mr. Church. That is on a thousand dollars. 
 
 The Chairman. Are you correct in stating that about 30 per cent 
 of Delta County has gone to patent? 
 
 Mr. Killian. No; I believe not. A part of this land is under 
 entry that has not gone into patent. 
 
 The Chairman. That, of course, is not taxed. 
 
 Mr. Killian. No ; that is not taxed. 
 
 The Chairman. What part of it has gone to patent, do you think, 
 so that it takes its place on the tax rolls! 
 
 Mr. Killian. Well, we claim 25,000 acres of orchards. 
 
 The Chairman. That is all deeded? 
 
 Mr. Killian. That has got to be deeded ; yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. And you are still sure you are right when you 
 say that you only pay four-tenths of 1 per cent ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. In some school districts much less. We pay 40 mills; 
 that is about 4 per cent, I think ? 
 
 The Chairman. Oh, yes ; 4 per cent instead of four-tenths of 1 per 
 cent. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I think that is the highest tax I have ever 
 heard of. 
 
 The Chairman. That your county, State, and school tax, you think, 
 is about 4 per cent ; is that right ? 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 113 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes ; that would be about 40 mills. 
 
 The Chairman. That is a pretty high taxation. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes ; it is. 
 
 The Chairman. It is to the interest of every man out there — cattle- 
 man, stockman, sheepman, farmer, and everybody else — to get all 
 the land deeded as fast as you can ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Not unless used for agricultural purposes. 
 
 The Chairman. Your statement is that something less than 30 per- 
 cent of your area has taken its place on the tax rolls by final proof 
 and deeding ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Well, I would hardly like to make that as a final 
 statement. 
 
 The Chairman. You only make that as a guess. I am not trying 
 to tangle you up at all. I would not if I could. 
 
 Mr. Killian. i would rather not have a statement like that in the 
 record unless 1 know whereof I speak. 
 
 The Chairman. You said that was only approximate. You are, 
 however, pretty sure about the tax rate ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes ; that is 40 mills. 
 
 The Chairman. If it were submitted to a vote of the people of 
 your county as to whether or not any law should be passed that 
 would even in the slightest degree interfere with homesteading, they 
 would all be against it, you think ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes; we would all be against it. 
 
 The Chairman. You think all of them would be against it? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. And your Congressman, Mr. Taylor, fairly rep- 
 resents the sentiment out there, does he not? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Well, yes; I think so, to some extent. However, we 
 do differ with him. Our locality has always differed with Mr.. 
 Taylor. 
 
 The. Chairman. But the people as a whole have agreed with him, 
 have they not? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Not on this subject; no, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. He has been reelected each time, and his views are 
 very well known out there, are they not? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Would not that indicate that they agreed with him 
 pretty well ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. I do not think so, necessarily, Mr. Chairman, because 
 this matter did not enter into the campaign. 
 
 The Chairman. Is he not very active in public-land matters and 
 very outspoken in regard to his public-land views, both at home and 
 abroad, and are not the people of Colorado thoroughly conversant 
 with his views? 
 
 Mr. Killian. They are, I think. 
 
 The Chairman. Just one more question. If it should develop that 
 we could not pass a leasing bill at all, how would you feel toward 
 the enlarged homestead bill suggested by Mr. Fergusson? Would 
 you be for it or against it ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. I would oppose anything of this sort. It would not 
 suit our country at all. 
 
 The Chairman. Would your stockmen, generally, oppose that? 
 
 35074— pt 1—14 8 
 
114 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Killian. I will tell you the reason, Mr. Chairman. Land 
 there that you can plow — that is, not irrigable land — and we know 
 from past experience that that land is reclaimable, or may be some 
 day, under the rapid improvement of irrigation. We can see the 
 time when possibly that land might be made a home for some fami- 
 lies and perhaps for some of our sons and our daughters. There- 
 fore we would be opposed to having it placed as grazing-land home- 
 steads, as is proposed under Mr. Fergusson's proposition, because it 
 might be reclaimed, and it might be valuable for agricultural pur- 
 poses. 
 
 The Chairman. Let me get at your view in regard to this matter. 
 Then, even though the land has agricultural possibilities in the fu- 
 ture, you would still think the leasing law ought to be applied, 
 would you? * 
 
 Mr. Killian. I think so. • 
 
 The Chairman. Suppose that one-third of your county, embrac- 
 ing 50,000 acres, was land that had agricultural possibilities and 
 might be reclaimed in the future, would you still think that ought 
 to be leased ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes, sir ; I think so. 
 
 The Chairman. There has just been a call of the House, and the 
 members of the committee desire to respond to the call, and we will 
 resume our session when the members of the committee return from 
 the Hall of the House. 
 
 The committee reconvened at 4.30 p. m. 
 
 Mr. Killian. I will say that my reason for concluding that the 
 bill will work there as it has worked in the forest reserve under the 
 proposition proposed in this bill is this: I contend that it would 
 place no hamper on the homesteader. We watched this policy, gen- 
 tlemen, very carefully as the first and prime thing to be looked after 
 in this matter. We watched the progress of the settler in these for- 
 est reserves under which he lives, and I know plenty of my neighbors 
 who have gone up there and taken claims that they thought they 
 could make a home on, and a great many had to be abandoned. I 
 want to say that the service has been very liberal, and, with a very 
 few exceptions, we have never had any hamper placed on our home- 
 stead entries to lands on forest reserves. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Why did they abandon them ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. They could not make a living on them, 
 
 Mr. Kent. Did you not have any chance on the 640-acre tracts? 
 
 Mr. Killian. No, sir; 160-acre tracts. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Do you believe these same people would have made a 
 living if they had 640-acre tracts instead of 160-acre tracts, barring 
 the timber? 
 
 Mr. Killian. I do not. The altitude is too great. As I stated in 
 the first place, our State has a mean altitude of 6,800. The facts 
 are that there is a great deal of land in Colorado that we never can 
 use for anything, unless perhaps it contains some of the precious 
 metals, or coal, oil, or the phosphates. Now, that is a fact when you 
 come to consider the topography of the country. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Your statement is in reference to the portion of 
 Colorado where you have seen these things tried; you are speaking 
 only of Colorado? 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 115 
 
 Mr. Killian. I am speaking locally, Mr. Fergusson; I am not gen- 
 eralizing. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. You are speaking as to Colorado ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. I am speaking as to Colorado, but more especially 
 of western Colorado. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. What altitude is the section in Colorado of which 
 you speak ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. On the western slope ? 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. About the average altitude. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Delta is 5,600 feet above sea level: 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. That gives a general idea. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes, sir. We raise good crops at that altitude. In 
 fact, I have a ranch up at 
 
 Mr. Feegusson^ (interposing). That is,, where you can get irri- 
 gation ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes, sir; I mean where we can get irrigation. I 
 want you to understand that we can do nothing without it. We have 
 not succeeded very well in dry farming over there. 
 
 Mr. Raker. This land you speak of is level land or fresh land ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Oh, there is some level land there that is pretty high. 
 For instance, Taylor Park has an altitude of about 9,000 feet. 
 
 Mr. Rakee. Well, take the 4,000 or 5,000 foot elevation. There are 
 some tracts of that which is level land, relatively rolling land ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes ; there is some level land. 
 
 Mr. Rakee. Sagebrush land ? , 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Now, does that character of land in its natural state, 
 if unused, produce a very good grass, and fairly thick ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. If it is regulated and restricted 
 
 Mr. Rakee (interposing). Now, I do not want any question of 
 regulation or restriction. It does not require any regulation or re- 
 striction. If you go to work and inclose 160 acres of land and no 
 animals of any kind are permitted to pass over it, will that land 
 produce good crops of grass ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Rakee. About what height ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Well, the regular height of the grama grass and 
 blue-joint grass. Then we have a browse there that is fairly good. 
 It is fairly susceptible to the seasons ; that is, the white sage, which 
 may be eaten down and rapidly recuperates. That white-sage browse 
 is very valuable there. That comprises the principal varieties of 
 forage in this country. 
 
 Mr. Rakee. How high is this grass? 
 
 Mr. Killian. The grama grass will grow up like that [indicating] . 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. How many inches? The reporter can not get 
 that in the record. 
 
 Mr. Rakee. Eight or nine inches. 
 
 Mr. Kent. How much hay will it yield to the acre ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. I do not know, sir. 
 
 Mr. Kent. It is too sparse to be cut ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Kent. It would be less than a ton to the acre ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. I do not know, but I think likely. 
 
HQ DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS,' 
 
 Mr Eakek. All right. That is a mighty good yield for an acre. 
 Now I have raised hay in its natural condition, and the amount of 
 tons 'per acre without irrigation would produce a good gram crop, 
 would it not ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. No, sir ; it will not. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That is all for the present. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. How late are those winters and springs in this lo- 
 
 Mr Killian. Well, these vary. We calculate on getting our live 
 stock out about the 20th of March to the 10th of April. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. You mean to go to the reserves? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes, sir; that is when they commence to approach 
 the reserves. We turn them out into what is called the slope below 
 the forest-reserve line. That includes an intermediate slope from the 
 main valley back to the edge of the main forest reserve, and in the 
 fall our cattle (unless we hold them back by drift fences) commence 
 to drift with the storms. Sometimes that varies. In fact, it always 
 varies. Sometimes we can keep our cattle up there in the forest- 
 reserve areas as late as the 1st of December. A few of them will 
 hang back. In some seasons they come down earlier. We estimate 
 and figure that we use the reserve range about six months, at least, 
 in my country. In some districts, of course, we use them eight 
 months. I think there is one district in my section of the country, 
 in the Uncompahgre Reserve, that is used for eight months in the 
 year, but it contains some areas that merge down into the fall range. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. The climate is more temperate. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Well, it is the way it lies to the sun. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. You were starting to say that the grama grass 
 grows so high, and I asked you to state in inches how high it was. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Between 6 and 8 inches in our country. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Have you not known it to produce a fine crop of 
 hay in certain sections? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Not in my section. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. It is too high there ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Well, it is a grass that does not seem to grow into 
 a crop that is capable of cutting at all. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. It is varied by the seasons. It rains more some 
 seasons than others ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Now, take a good rainy season. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Then it would be better. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. They do not cut it in your section? 
 
 Mr. Killian. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. You are not acquainted with New Mexico or any 
 other section? 
 
 Mr. Killian. No, sir ; I do not know anything except from just 
 passing through your New Mexico territory and the Arizona ter- 
 ritory. 
 
 Mr. H&yden. Mr. Killian, before we recessed Mr. Fergusson asked 
 you about the application of a grazing-homestead law to your coun- 
 try, and your answer indicated that you were opposed to such a law 
 because it would permit the entry of irrigable land in large tracts. 
 Now, if a grazing homestead was permitted on land that is chiefly 
 valuable for grazing and had no possibility of irrigation, either 
 
DISPOSITION- OF GBAZING LANDS. 117 
 
 from pumps or streams, there would not then be objection to that 
 kind of a homestead. 
 
 Mr. Killian. No, sir; there would not. But we have land there 
 of the nature of which you speak that is rolling and rough and yet 
 might be made good pasture land, but never irrigated or cultivated. 
 So that I do not see that we could raise any objection to that, but 
 we would object to any land that might be in the future available 
 in our section of the country for agriculture. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. If the qualification in the act is " are not susceptible 
 of irrigation from any known water supply," that would eliminate 
 the irrigable land you mentioned from entry. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes ; I think our people would be satisfied. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. I want to ask you with reference to your state- 
 ment when you began that you did not think any leasing bill such 
 as we are considering here would hamper .agricultural development 
 at all. You stated that ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. I did. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. Now, in sections of the country where the people 
 believe that 640 acres would enable them, with the help of these new 
 forest plants, such as the soudan seed and the other new seeds, would 
 help their agriculture, do you not think that 640 — or is your experi- 
 ence wide enough to know 
 
 Mr. Killian (interposing). It is not. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson (continuing). In which a man could raise a family 
 and support it with the stock on that farm, aiding all he could with 
 agriculture ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. I could not answer that question, because I am not 
 informed as to the land or territory you have in mind. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. Your testimony is directed to what you know in 
 your own State? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes, sir. As I stated, we have a large portion of 
 this public domain area. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. I would like to ask you this question: If in case 
 a large pasture is fenced, say, 20,000 acres, and a man knew of a 
 place in there where the grass grew and he was willing to take a 
 chance if he could get those 640 acres and locate in a homestead, do 
 you think he would be as free to build a home and to have his chil- 
 dren attend school and live like people want to live, as a family, if 
 he could only get that by entering a stock range, a great big_ pasture 
 full of cattle, with cowboys running all over it? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Replying to that question, Mr. Fergusson, I will 
 say that I could not answer it, because it would be purely speculative 
 and based only on a knowledge of my own country, because I do not 
 know of a 640-acre tract that is not available for agricultural pur- 
 poses that a man could go on and could live on. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. But if there should be a section that is so fertile- 
 that a man would be able to make a good living if he could raise 10 
 or 15 beeves a year or 40 to 50 mutton on the grass we have now and 
 others that might be cultivated, would you think that such a man 
 would have a fair show if he had to go into a range and try to raise 
 a family in the midst of herds of sheep and cattle ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. I do not think so. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. In the first place he has to go through a fence to 
 get there ? 
 
118 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergttsson. And his 640 acres would be entirely surrounded 
 by leased land in the hands of big cattle and sheep men, with their 
 cattle grazing all around his home. Do you think he would be as 
 free to send his children to school and look after his family as he 
 would be if he had neighbors around him and churches and schools 
 to populate the surrounding country ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. My answer to that would be hearsay. 
 
 Mr. Feegttsson. "Well, I have assumed a fact that you might take 
 for example, that a man might take 640 acres with the grass there, 
 and I asked you if he would have as good a chance to build a home 
 inside of a pasture . as he would have in an ordinary homestead 
 country. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Oh, yes ; I think he would if it were handled like it 
 is handled in the big reserves in my part of the country. 
 
 Mr. Raker. The stock association you belong to contains about 
 300 members? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. What is the size of the territory in which these men 
 run their stock? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Well, we graze about 
 
 Mr. Raker (interposing). I mean, do you cover one county or two 
 counties ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. We graze in three counties. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Three hundred men constitute the organization, and 
 they are grazing now in three counties? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. What are the counties? 
 
 Mr. Killian. I will say four counties. We have a few members 
 in Montrose County. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Name the counties. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Delta County, Mesa County, Montrose County, and 
 Gunnison County. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Now, state to the committee if you will the number of 
 people living in these four counties. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Well, I could not tell you that, Judge. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Would you not estimate it in the neighborhood of 
 fifteen or twenty thousand ? Does anybody here know ? I want to 
 get it in the record. 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. Well, Mr. Killian's opinion is very good. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Well, give us a rough estimate. We can get it later, 
 but I would like to get a comparison. 
 
 Mr. Killian. It would be merely a guess, Judge. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Well, 6,000 for a county would be a very small popu- 
 lation, would it not? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Four times six is twenty-four, and 24,000 would be 
 pretty big" for a county. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes; I should judge. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Wellj that is enough. It runs from 20,000 to 40,000 
 in these four counties. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Well, the town of Delta alone has 3,000 people, so 
 you are not going wrong about that. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Well, may I say 60,000? 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 119 
 
 Mr. Killian. The town of Montrose has about 4,000 people, and 
 there is an intermediate town which has about 1,000 people. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That is 8,000. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes, sir ; Grand Junction claims 6,000 people. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. What they claim out there in the West and what it 
 is sometimes varies. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Well, we are like all the rest of the United States 
 in this regard. 
 
 Mr. Baker. You think I can say 60,000, safely? 
 
 Mr. Thomson. I do not want to interrupt Judge Raker, but I do 
 not see that we are going to get anything of value on this bill by 
 guessing at the population of these four counties. 
 
 The Chairman. I believe the objection is well taken. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. He has told you two or three times that he does 
 not know. 
 
 The Chairman. He can not answer anything he does not know, 
 and it is of no consequence to the committee to have him speculate on 
 something he does not know anything about. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Some of those counties have a very sparse popula- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Now, assuming that there are 60,000; 300 are stock- 
 men and have formed a stock association in this territory. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Now, hold on, Judge. I do not claim that our mem- 
 bers constitute the population of all four counties, in the first place. 
 Tsay that we have members who live in these four counties, but 
 they do not graze the full territory of these four counties, nor have 
 I assumed that they constitute the population of those four counties. 
 
 Mr. Eaker. Now, I have a theory about this matter and I will get 
 there before I get through. About what is the average number of 
 cattle that each one of these 300 own, grazing upon the public 
 domain within national forests and that without it in these four 
 counties ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. We struck an average— our advisory board — at our 
 iast convention, I think, and we estimated that we graze about an 
 average of, I think it was, 122 cattle to the permittee, if I am not 
 mistaken. 
 
 Mr. Kent. A man would not get very rich off of 122 cattle. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You 300 men have agreed as to the kind and condition 
 of the range in this country and the way in which it should be 
 handled ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes, sir ; we - handle it in the community way. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You have had perfect harmony in these four counties 
 among these 300 men in reference to running your cattle on this 
 forest reserve since it has been established ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Then there has been perfect harmony between these 
 men so far as ranging your cattle upon the public domain within 
 these four counties is concerned ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. In these four counties? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Not in the public domain. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Well, I say between the 300 members belonging to 
 this association. 
 
120 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Well, there has been practical harmony, yes, amongst 
 the men of the organization. 
 
 Mr. Kakee. That is the question I put, that there has been practical 
 harmony between the members of the organization so far as ranging 
 the cattle upon the public lands is concerned not within the reserve 
 in these four counties. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes; but 
 
 Mr. Raker. Well, if you are not through I will give you time to 
 answer it. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Judge, we do not consider the public domain very 
 available as it stands, and I will tell you the reason why. The men 
 who graze the desert of Utah graze it principally with sheep. They 
 come and go through this stretch of winter range, and in coming and 
 going they eat out this range, and consequently it has ceased to be 
 valuable for the farmers and stockmen of my community. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Your counties are on the Utah line? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Your normal winter range would be largely near Utah? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes, sir ; the Utah line runs through this watershed, 
 which, with the Uncompahgre reserve, constitutes the Gunnison 
 project which runs to Grand Junction ; beyond that is a great desert 
 on which they can feed in winter. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. When do they come and go ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. They come in the spring along about the 20th of 
 March and move slowly along. Sometimes they linger in there for 
 three weeks or two weeks and then in the fall it is controlled by the 
 snow flying. They start down from the forests in the high ranges 
 where they graze in the summer, and they stop again, say from the 
 20th of October to the 1st of November. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. They eat up your local range? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes; they eat it up; they eat up this range coming 
 from and going to this forest belt. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. And you would want to have the use of that range 
 yourself? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Our community would have what I consider the 
 priority and the preferred right, it seems to me, without any question 
 of doubt. 
 
 Mr. Raker. In an answer you gave to my colleague from Cali- 
 fornia as to Utah, you stated that the four counties you named are 
 not included in Utah. 
 
 Mr. Killian. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And you are confining yourself to the four counties in 
 Colorado ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That is right? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Now, have there been any differences between the stock- 
 men and the local farmers as to controlling and handling the range 
 in these four counties ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Farmers? 
 
 Mr. Raker. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Killian. No, sir; the farmers are nearly all stock raisers. 
 
 Mr. Raker. This does not constitute all the farmers in those four 
 counties ? 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 121 
 
 Mr. Killian. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Some of them have 10 or 15 or 20 head. 
 
 Mr. Killian. And some have none at all. 
 
 Mr. Eaker. Well, a farmer must have some cattle. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Oh, just a few in the pasture. 
 
 Mr. Eaker. Your view as a cattleman and the view of your stock 
 association is that that remaining public land in these four counties 
 should be turned over for leasing, in such blocks and tracts at the 
 present time as the department or board may determine, in order 
 that you cattlemen might lease it and fence it so as to handle your 
 stock? 
 
 Mr. Killian. I think so. We could increase the production of 
 live stock there and make a greater consumption for farm products, 
 like alfalfa, hay, and other pasture products. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. And have more beef to send to market. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Sure ; that is the result. I think it would encourage 
 the live-stock industry, and whereas a great deal of stuff might 
 otherwise go to waste for the want of this additional reserve, it 
 would be checked. 
 
 Mr. Raker. For what additional reserves ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Within the public domain. 
 
 Mr. Raker. But is not this public domain now being vised by 300 
 men belonging to your association, and other parts of it by many 
 farmers in your community ? It is being used, is it not ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. We use it in a way, Judge, but we do not get any- 
 thing out of it. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Well, I did not want to go into that right now. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Well, there is nothing to it. It is simply a drift 
 ground. These cattle come in there, and these farmers feed them 
 because they have got to do it. We can not shorten our feeding 
 season. We have 'to take care of our stock and we have no oppor- 
 tunity to encourage the feed business. We have no place to increase. 
 
 Mr. Raker. In other words, you intend to convey to the committee 
 that in these four counties, as now maintained, the land constituting 
 the reserve is not producing as it should. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Now, I— — 
 
 Mr. Raker (interposing). Is it producing good, fair feed for the 
 stock that is there? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Why, it is not producing what it should produce. 
 I will answer you that way. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Then your purpose is to have it leased and fenced and 
 reduce the number of stock that is permitted to go upon the land ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Sure, sure. That is, to keep these nomad herds of 
 stock from misusing and denuding it, and give it an opportunity to 
 recuperate itself. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Well, I am not talking about the question of nomad 
 stock. If those 300 men were permitted to lease all that land, it 
 would not only keep out the nomadic stock, but also the stock of the 
 farmers living in that community as well, would it not ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. I do not apprehend it at all. 
 
 Mr. Rakhr. Are you advocating a leasing bill that gives a man a 
 right to fence his land and then permits anyone who wants to enter 
 that fenced land to do so at will? You do not mean that? 
 
122 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Killian. I do not think that — taking absolutely the forest 
 reserve with its regulations 
 
 Mr. Raker (interposing). Now, pardon me one moment. I do not 
 want to get on the forest-reserve question. 
 
 Mr. Killian. I would like to make a comparison. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Why do you not let him answer in his own way? 
 
 Mr. Raker. I know ; but I would like to get through. Ordinarily 
 when you question a witness he should confine himself to the question 
 and answer it. Now, will you answer the question? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Well, the forest-reserve range is the only example 
 we have in our part of the country of a range under control and 
 regulation. That is the idea exactly. We desire to have the same 
 regulation meted out to the open range and make it capable — that is, 
 the public domain — of recuperation and producing a greater amount 
 of live stock, and benefit the farmers in that way, or the community 
 around which it lies. 
 
 Mr. Fergttsson. Mr. Killian, you spoke awhile ago of increasing 
 the capacity of the range to produce meat, beef, and mutton? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Let me ask you this : If you do not think that a 
 grazing-homestead bill, where the range would be served by a man 
 who has made it his home, with all the benefits of the experiments of 
 the Agricultural Department, including soudan grass and dry farm- 
 ing; if you do not think a system such as is outlined in my bill would 
 tend to increase both the agricultural and the meat-raising capacity 
 of the semiarid West? 
 
 Mr. Killian. I can not answer that. You are talking about a dif- 
 ferent territory to me. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I am talking about your territory. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Well, I consider this protection the same as your 
 contemplated fence. I consider that in our reserve over there we 
 can not go in and destroy it if it is a forage crop, and I think the 
 same condition would exist down in the public domain as exists on 
 the forest reserve, if it was protected. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Mr. Killian, as I understand it, your stock is practi- 
 cally migratory. In other words, your winter range is apart from 
 your summer range? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Kent. In case that is a fact, can you see any particular use in 
 having a 640-acre homestead without a lease where the stock is mi- 
 gratory ? In other words, would it not be better to have a grazing 
 bill in addition, so that a man could have a lease to supplement the 
 range he owns? 
 
 -Mr. Killian. We are a unit in the desire to have a leasing law to 
 be applied to this public domain area. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Mr. Killian, did you say that you want a leasing bill 
 to operate as the grazing bill is now operated upon the forest 
 reserves ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. That is our idea. 
 
 Mr. Raker. There are no fences so far as separating tracts upon 
 the forest reserves at the present time is concerned ; that is, no fences 
 separate tracts set aside and designated? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Oh, yes; there are. 
 
 Mr. Raker. In any county? 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 123 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Are there any in your district ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Of what size is the territory? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Well, I have in mind the divided district, the Bat- 
 tlement Reserve, There is a grand divide that divides it right in the 
 middle. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That is onlv a divide to keep the cattle from drifting ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes. S 
 
 Mr. Raker. It is not inclosed on all sides ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. That is to keep the cattle from going away from 
 their home valley. 
 
 Mr. Rakek. But there are no tracts inclosed to prevent the stock 
 that is in from getting out? 
 
 Mr. Killian. That is what I was trying to answer. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Very well. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Take district No. 3. We have a drift fence that 
 severs it right in two, just like that [indicating]. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Mr. Killian, I think you understood what I said. I 
 ask you if there are any tracts of land there with a fence that in- 
 closes the entire part of the area and keeps the cattle that are in 
 in and those that are out out ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You are opposed to any leasing bill that will permit 
 tracts of land to be fenced? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Well, I can not say that I am where the commu- 
 nities 
 
 Mr. Raker (interposing). I was stating what you said as to the 
 reserves — that you would be in favor of the reserves used as they 
 are now. I asked you if you were in favor of the reserves, and you 
 said you were; then you can not certainly be in favor of inclosing 
 tracts of 640 acres 
 
 Mr. Killian (interposing). I understand your question thor- 
 oughly, I think. We have no pastures there yet and no fences, and 
 our community has considered the feasibility of putting below some 
 of those districts a drift fence, as you might call it, which would 
 really practically inclose the forest reserve. We have contemplated 
 asking the Forest Service to put in those fences. The erection of this 
 contemplated fence would make an inclosure. We have none now, 
 except those made by the erection of drift fences and the fences of 
 the farmers who live higher up near the forest reserve, the fence of 
 this divide. That condition exists in many cases there, and we could, 
 by running drift fences — or an inclosure, if you please to call it so — 
 constitute a pasture which would contain a community interest. In 
 other words, a great many of our members with small bunches from 
 now on would be using that pasture. It would not be an individual 
 pasture, but a community pasture. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And you have had no experience in inclosing ranges 
 at the present time? 
 
 Mr. Killian. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Have you had any experience in inclosing large tracts 
 of land with other individuals in that country either filing upon the 
 remaining public land 
 
124 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Killian (interposing). Nothing in my part of the country. 
 
 Mr. Baker. Now, is it your desire that a leasing bill should pro- 
 vide for fencing by which the lessee would be in control of the fenced 
 inclosure ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Well, subject to the public-land laws; yes. If it 
 appeared more convenient to put the fence around it; yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Well, an inclosure around a 10,000-acre tract of land 
 womld practically prohibit any other party going within that in- 
 closure and establishing a home? 
 
 Mr. Killian. I think not. If I were to assert that, it would all be 
 conjecture. The only information I have is hearsay. 
 
 Mr. Baker. Do you know, from your examination from the be- 
 ginning of history down to the present time, of any place or any con- 
 dition where men have been permitted to inclose their land and that 
 others have been permitted at will to enter that inclosure and es- 
 tablish homes or to establish mining camps within that inclosure. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Well — — 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Is this B. O. or anno Domini? 
 
 Mr. Raker. Just from his knowledge and conclusions. If you 
 have information B. C. I think you ought to give it. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. From the beginning of history. 
 
 Mr. Baker. Do you know of any place or any circumstances where 
 a man has been given a right to inclose a private land and where 
 others have been permitted to go at will in and out of that inclosure 
 and locate more land in there and establish homes? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes ; I have known a case over east. 
 
 Mr. Baker. Well, that has caused trouble. 
 
 Mr. Killian. I did not hear of it. Of course, when those men 
 were ordered to take their fences down it was, of course, contrary to 
 the law, as I understand, and they were compelled to remove their 
 fences and doubtless under the contentious and uncontrolled meth- 
 ods employed there was contention. 
 
 Mr. Baker. Well, do you not believe now, from a practical farm- 
 er's or cattleman's standpoint — you are both, are you not? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Baker. That if third parties, at will, were granted permis- 
 sion to enter and reenter a tract of land that was inclosed in which a 
 man bad his stock, horses, cattle, and sheep, that it would necessitate 
 more or less trouble and wrangling all the time? 
 
 Mi*. Killian. I do not think so. I will tell you why I draw that 
 conclusion, Judge. It is from the conduct of these entrymen in the 
 various reserves. You know we have a year's permit and we have 
 leasehold for six months 
 
 Mr. Baker (interposing) . They go out and turn 50 head of cat- 
 tle on the range and they have no fence to contend with. 
 
 Mr. Killian. No; but we contemplate it. 
 
 Mr. Baker. Is it not one of the burning questions in all countries 
 that a third party should not be permitted to go in and out of your 
 inclosure and leave gates open? Does not that cause trouble! I 
 mean, just to travel through. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Well, I think if there were no restrictions and a 
 man would expose a lessee's cattle to scattering and getting away, 
 he ought to be prevented 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 125 
 
 Mr. Raker (interposing).. Now, right there. As a matter of 
 absolute daily practice, do we not have to appeal to the legislatures 
 for laws in regard to even permitting men to go on private roads? 
 In other words, each man is so jealous of his inclosure that he will 
 not allow .any other man to pass over it. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Oh, litigation forms quite a prominent part in this 
 United States history. 
 
 Mr. Kent. What constitutes a private inclosure? This thing" is 
 not i private inclosure; it is a regular inclosure. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I am trying to drive the witness's attention to the fact, 
 and I shall continue to do so as long as I can stay upon this committee, 
 that if you give a man a right to inclose his tract of land in order 
 that he might maintain his stock, that must of necessity mean some- 
 thing, and you can not leave the gates wide open for Tom, Dick, and 
 Harry to run all over it, and I am trying to ask what policy he 
 would like to have inaugurated, namely, the policy on the forest 
 reserve now, or a leasing bill where they would be permitted to fence 
 the land ? In other words, Mr. Killian, you do not know what effect 
 a policy of this kind will have upon the public lands, do you? 
 
 Mr. Killian. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Well, that ends it. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. I assume that you have in mind certain tracts of 
 land in your State that would form a practical leasing: limit under 
 this bill. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. I would like to know the extent of that, the length 
 and breadth, and whether or not any of them contain homestead 
 'entries or lands that are being farmed at the present time, and what 
 effect the bill would have on them ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. As I told you in my remarks at the outset, I believe 
 that these lands that would fall under this leasing law, if you pass 
 such a law. might in some future day be reclaimed. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. No ; I mean at the present time whether the exterior 
 limits of the leasehold embraces any land that is new being farmed ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes. sir; in some enses some rf the stock growers 
 would live in this domain, who would be occupants of most of the 
 area I have in mind. You could not conceive of a community area 
 taken in consideration with farm land. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. About how many farms have you in the area you 
 have in mind? 
 
 Mr. Killian. On one side of the river there would be perhaps 4 
 or 5. On the other side of the river there would be perhaps 6 or 12. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. How large? 
 
 Mr. Killian. One hundred and sixty acre tracts. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. In how large a leasehold would they be ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Well, they would perhaps be in an area covering 20 
 or 30 miles long and from 10 to 15 miles wide. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. And how widely scattered are they ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. That is on each side of the river. You might say 
 about 30 miles by 30 miles of the area that I have in mind. That is 
 on our slope, on our watershed. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. I was just trying to get at the extent to which. the 
 leasehold would be checkerboarded by the present occupants. 
 
126 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Well, there would be perhaps 12 or 15 settlers al- 
 ready in the area about 30 miles by 30 miles — not all cultivated, but 
 some of it waste land. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I would like to ask you a question in reference 
 to the statement you made about these large bands of nomadic stock 
 that were going back and forth and eating out your range. Are we 
 to understand that those stock are being taken in on the forest 
 reserve? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. They have acquired some rights on that forest 
 reserve ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes,; they graze up there. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Would it be possible for you to get a lease that 
 would prohibit that stock from passing oyer your land ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. I think you should provide for the passageway of 
 that stock. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. So that you would practically have the same 
 condition if you had this law ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. No, sir; you would not. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. You think you could force them through quickly 
 and you would not have the range eaten out to the same extent? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes. sir. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I do not see how you could use it and prevent 
 them from using it for grazing in going and coming if they have 
 already acquired that right. 
 
 Mr. Killian. I would not attempt to go into the details of this 
 measure. But if you look at it you will see that it provides for the , 
 driving of stock across any leasehold. I have it in mind that the 
 proposition that you present could be handled in the way that this 
 bill provides. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. But the difference is that one is taking stock 
 from one part of the stock reserve to the home of the driver, whereas 
 this other bill applies to men going hither and yonder and no 
 man knows where. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Well, if this bill passed, a man would have to lease 
 his territory out in Utah in the desert. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Then you think that the reserves in one State 
 should go partly in another State? 
 
 Mr. Killian. That Avould often occur. I did not understand that 
 this bill would be so restricted. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. His idea is this : That owners of sheep having bands 
 in Utah would lease certain lands down there for their range and also 
 have a range in Colorado, and between those places there would be 
 trails to go from one place to another, and that they could not linger 
 on the way and take up the public domain and eat up the grass. 
 
 Mr. Killian. That is it. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I can easily see that that would be feasible pro- 
 vided they would not need more than a path a few acres wide, but, 
 as Mr. Johnson said, they have been grazing there from time im- 
 memorial .and have acquired some rights there. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. I think Mr. Killian's idea would be to take the con- 
 ditions as you find them and adjust yourself to them as near as 
 possible. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 127 
 
 Mr. Church. Will you be kind enough to state about how many- 
 leases you think could be made in these four counties. Just an 
 estimate of about how many leases. 
 
 Mr. Killian. I could not give you that, sir. 
 
 Mr. Church. Do you think there would be as many as 300 ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Well, there would be 300 participants in our asso- 
 ciation and there are other associations that graze part of these 
 counties. 
 
 Mr. Church. But do you think these four counties would separate 
 into 300 separate leases? 
 
 Mr. Killian. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Church. Then, there are some of them who are now grazing 
 their stock on this public land that would be cut out ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. No ; I do not look at it that way. 
 
 Mr. Church. Oh, then you would double up? 
 
 Mr. Killian. No; you could go to the various reserves and lower 
 the individual allotments according to the size of his range, and 
 the Forest Service would deal fairly with all, as it does now. 
 
 Mr. Church. About what per cent of the cattle that is grown in 
 your four counties do you 300 stockmen own ; about half ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes; I should judge we own half of them, just ap- 
 proximately. 
 
 Mr. Church. Is it your idea that there are any that are not in this 
 association that would be accommodated with leases? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes, sir. Of course, they would have their com- 
 munity leases, as I contemplate it. 
 
 The Chairman. Are you through, Mr. Killian? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes, sir. I have no desire to stay any longer. I 
 have been standing here answering questions and no doubt I have 
 bored you. 
 
 The Chairman. Not at all. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Mr. Chairman, here are a couple of letters and some 
 resolutions that I want to put into the record and if we had time I 
 would be very pleased to" read one or two. 
 
 The Chairman. Unless there is objection we will print them. 
 
 Mr. Killian. This is from a neighbor of mine now up in Gunnison 
 County, in a different watershed, and he belongs to a different asso- 
 ciation. 
 
 The Chairman. It is relative to this bill ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. It is relative to this bill, and he takes the same 
 position, as a representative of his association. I think they have 
 something like 180 or 200 members, all small stock growers, and 
 they come out in this letter and ask the same thing, and I wish to 
 state that that expresses the universal sentiment of Gunnison County 
 cattle growers. 
 
 The Chairman. Unless there is objection that will go in at this 
 point. 
 
 (The letter referred to is as follows:) 
 
 Gunnison, Colo.. Fenrnurti 23, 191.J/. 
 Hon. Scott Ferbis, 
 
 Chairman Public Lands Committee, 
 
 Souse of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 Deak Sir: I desire to present through you to the Public Lnnds Committee 
 the views of many of our cattlemen of Gunnison County in regard to H. R. 
 10539, also the conditions that led up to our support of said bill. 
 
128 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Gunnison County has 2,096,000 acres, of which 1,935,000 are still unpatented, 
 or a little larger than the State of Delaware. About one-half of this last 
 amount is used for grazing purposes. The lowest altitude in the county is a 
 little over 6,000 feet above sea level, with many mountains from twelve to 
 thirteen thousand feet high. The valleys produce only native hay, wire grass, 
 timothy, red top, and a small amount of alfalfa, and this by irrigation. 
 
 The seasons are too short and cold to raise anything but hardy grasses. 
 These grasses are very nutritious, and when put up for hay and fed to stock 
 they need no grain, even going so far as to make good beef from hay alone. 
 Thus, climatic conditions make it a cattle country, and that for the small cat- 
 tlemen, for all cattle have to be fed for about three months. 
 
 The ranges on the mountain sides furnish good summer pasture, but some 
 of it is open Government land and some in the forest reserve. It would be far 
 better if all was under Government control, as is proposed in H. R. 10539, 
 giving a community-interest plan where several of us can run our cattle to- 
 gether and pay by the head. We are all small cattlemen ; not a man in this 
 county has to exceed 800 head — mostly from 100 to 400 head. If the above 
 bill should become a law. it would give a permanency to the business and we 
 could build up our herds both in quality and in numbers. As it is, big herds 
 from the outside can come in and eat up our grass on the low hills, which is 
 our spring and fall range, when our cattle are high in the mountains on the 
 forest reserve. Snow falls early in the forest reserve, forcing our cattle down 
 on the low foothills, and if these ranges are eaten out by outside herds or cattle 
 or bands of sheep, it leaves us no place for fall feed and will soon put us out 
 of business. 
 
 The high price of cattle is putting many back into the business, which makes 
 ranges in demand without any law for their control. This community-interest 
 plan is the best proposition for the small cattlemen that has ever been pro- 
 posed. The maximum rate of 4 cents per acre, or its equivalent, by the head, 
 is too high, for many acres have nothing upon them and some areas are inac- 
 cessible. Further, we now have to compete with Argentina, which pays but 
 very little for grazing purposes. The development of stock water on many of 
 the low ranges would be a material help both in the quality of the cattle and 
 in numbers, for stock would not have to get footsore going to water. Men do 
 not like to develop stock water unless they have an assurance they can have it. 
 
 I trust and hope you may see your way clear to pass this bill, and do not let 
 be eliminated the cun.iiiunify-interest feature. 
 Sincerely, 
 
 T. W. Gray. 
 
 i\[r. Killian. Now, here is a letter from a neighbor in the Uncom- 
 pahgre Reserve. This man is a member of our association and he 
 gives a very lucid outline of the situation which I have tried in a 
 feeble way to lay before you. 
 
 The Chaikman. Unless there is objection, that will be incorporated 
 in the record at this point. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Who is the gentleman? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Dan Casement, 
 
 Mr. Raker. What is his business? 
 
 Mr. Killian. He is in the cattle business. He has a farm at the 
 edge of the Uncompahgre Forest Reserve. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I am satisfied that he is what you say, but what strikes 
 me is that he has such a nicely typewritten letter. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Well, Judge, he does that himself. 
 
 (The letter referred to is as follows:) 
 
 American National Live Stock Association, 
 
 Colorado Springs, Colo., February g8, 1914. 
 Dear Mr. Tomunson: After counting confidently on getting to Washington 
 at this time and having the privilege of doing something in support of the Kent 
 bill, it is with the keenest regret that I have to advise you of my inability to 
 keep my appointment with you. It is the more distressing since the very condi- 
 tions which Mr. Kent's bill seeks to correct have given rise to the circumstances 
 which detain me here. I got in last night from the ranch. The grand jury in 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 129 
 
 Mesa County has just indicted a bunch of thieves whose criminal career has 
 evolved quite naturally out of the open-range practice. Their cases will be 
 called in the district court in a few days, and I simply must be on hand to press 
 them. 
 
 As a small cattleman I have for the past 33 years enjoyed (speaking ironi- 
 cally) the privilege of this range, the unrestricted and unsupervised use of which 
 has led not only to the loss beyond redemption of the valuable forage which 
 once grew upon it, but also to the moral degeneracy of many of those who still 
 persist in its unprofitable use. During all of these years its use has never 
 returned satisfactory profits to any of its users because of the lack of some 
 authority to administer and regulate the conditions of its use. I have seen it 
 once depleted of its grasses and practically abandoned in consequence. I have 
 seen it miraculously recover, in part at least, after abandonment, only to be 
 again unprofitably and foolishly destroyed by the same agencies that had form- 
 erly depleted it. As a direct result of its abuse and of the fact that led to this 
 abuse — viz, that as the property of no one it was coveted by everybody — I have 
 seen a community of self-respecting, law-abiding, open-hearted, happy range men 
 turned into a bunch of crooks and cow thieves that are a grave burden and men- 
 ace to the community. Its final destruction is now being completed by sheeping 
 it beyond its capacity. I know of no better example than this range affords of 
 the inevitable result of the short-sighted policy that our Government has thus 
 far persisted in with reference to the public grazing areas, and I certainly would 
 like an opportunity to give my testimony in support of the Kent bill, which looks 
 to the correction of these conditions. 
 
 Fortunately my home ranch is adjoined by a national forest and when, a few 
 years ago, conditions became unendurable on my old range I was able to 
 obtain a small privilege on the forest, where I now run a few cows in comfort 
 and under circumstances that contrast strongly with my former plight and gives 
 me a chance to speak with some authority as to the operation of both systems. 
 By failure to enact grazing legislation, such as the present bill contemplates, 
 Congress has done a great injustice to the people of the Nation in whom the 
 title to these lands rests, and to the men who are patiently persisting in their 
 unprofitable use under present conditions. With administered grazing the 
 range man can make far more profit than he is making at present and take a 
 smaller price for his product. 
 
 The theory that these lands are potential homes is no longer of any force. 
 Their most beneficial use; the way in which they can contribute best to the 
 interests of their real owners, the whole people; their greatest value in con- 
 tributing to the prosperity and happiness.of the communities in which they are 
 located, are all served best by such administration as this bill provides. In 
 the grass that finishes his product the small ranch man will then have a real 
 asset instead of a problematical speculation; the owners will have a property- 
 increasing rather than deteriorating in value, and the business of making beef, 
 mutton, and wool will proceed on legitimate and ordered lines to prosperity 
 and expansion instead of running headlong to destruction and extinction, to 
 which destination the present policy certainly leads. 
 
 Regretting exceedingly that I can't be with you and! hoping with all my might 
 that this bill will receive favorable consideration, I remain, 
 
 Very, sincerely, _ _ 
 
 ■" Dan Casement. 
 
 Now here is a letter from the Plateau Valley Stockgrowers' 
 Association. That is over on the other side, m Mesa County, and 
 this gentleman represents an association of 150 members, and here 
 is a resolution accompanying it, and also a letter from the secre- 
 tary of a cattle and horse growers' association in the Plateau coun- 
 try, and also some resolutions of his association. 
 
 The Chairman. Unless there is objection the matter will be in- 
 corporated in the record at this point as a part of your remarks. 
 35074— pt 1—14 9 
 
130 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 The matter referred to is as follows: 
 
 Plateau Valley Stockgrowers' Association, 
 
 Collbban, Coi.o., February 21, 191k. 
 
 Mr. T. W. Tomlinson, 
 
 Denver, Colo. 
 
 Dear Sir: In reply to yonvs of the 17th regarding the Kent bill, H. B. 
 10539. I have referred the matter to our executive committee and they have 
 instructed me to advise (you that this association does most heartily indorse 
 the proposed measure and further sincerely hopes that you secure the passage 
 of the bill at this session of Congress. 
 
 In reply to your inquiry as to how our cattlemen feel toward the forest 
 reserve,- I could not answer better than to inclose you a copy of resolution 
 adopt at our regular meeting in December, which I trust will explain that 
 question fully. There is not the least friction between the users of this 
 reserve and the forest officers, which usually occurs when matters are not 
 satisfactory, and through the assistance of the officers we are enabled to the 
 better enforce the State laws relative to stocking the range with bulls salting 
 their cattle, and all other matters relative to the operation of the range that 
 tends to facilitate the handling of the cattle, and make the business a safe 
 investment. The number of cattle owned by our members is about 110 head, 
 and we have about 95 per cent of the users of this reserve as members of our 
 association. 
 
 I think I have the question thoroughly in hand in regard to the users of 
 the forest reserve and any information in regard to that I would be glad to 
 answer any questions that you may wish to know about. 
 Yours, for success, 
 
 Willis Hodgson Secretary. 
 
 Whereas we believe in the present forest reserve administration of our graz- 
 ing resources, which is being operated at the present time within the Battle- 
 ment National Forest; and 
 Whereas we have by our sturdy cooperation with the supervisor established 
 that inseparable business relations which has added another prosperous year 
 to our industry : Therefore be it 
 
 Resolved, That the Plateau Valley Stock Growers' Association in convention 
 assembled, does hereby recommend the continuation of this policy with un- 
 abated firmness and vigor : Be it further 
 
 Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be sent to our supervisor, Mr. John 
 W. Lowell, jr., and to the district forester, Denver, Colo. 
 
 Figure 4 Eanch, 
 Austin, Colo., Feoruary 19, 191k. 
 T, W. Tomlinson, Esq., 
 
 Secretary American National Live Stock Association, 
 
 Denver, Colo. 
 Dear Sib : I have watched with great interest for the past 35 years the re- 
 sults of unrestricted use of the public domain, and also the misuse of same for 
 this long period. Anyone who has watched the progress of the cattle industry 
 in Texas during the past 30 years, since wire fences have been available, must 
 be convinced that cattle under fence as compared with cattle at large is greatly 
 in favor of the former. The history of the forest reserve is also as good an 
 example as one can rind. The careless, thriftless handling of the public domain 
 in this section of the country has reduced it to almost a barren waste, when 
 with careful use it might be made to support thousands of live stock. 
 
 As to the settler, he need not be restricted, and in most cases on what land 
 is now left he would be better off were he at least better guided, if not re- 
 stricted. The sheep and cattle could be divided so as to best conserve the land, 
 and also let each interest know just what they might expect. The loss of cattle 
 by theft could be reduced to a minimum where now it is a serious loss. I 
 know of no law that could bring about more good and do less harm than the 
 bill providing for the leasing of the public domain through the arid west. 
 Sincerely, F. Gilpin. 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 131 
 
 EEBOLUTION NO. 1. 
 
 Whereas there is and has been maintained Federal supervision over infectious 
 diseases among live stock throughout the different States of the Union and 
 especmlly over^the malignant diseases known as "scabby" or "mange" 
 throughout the West and Middle West; and mange, 
 
 Whereas we believe that such supervision has been highly beneficial in con- 
 n^hl v<f SP , r - e - d of w lnf + ect i ous disea ^ among our live stock in Colorado, 
 
 ^J?x£!*&gSli% made the work of our state S ™^ ^ 
 
 Resolved, By the Colorado Live-stock Growers' Association, in convention 
 assembled on the 22d day of January, 1914, in the city of Denver, that we are 
 unalterably opposed to the withdrawal of Government supervision over in- 
 specting live-stock diseases prevalent in some parts of our State 
 
 Resolved, That we memorialize the next session of the Colorado State Legis- 
 lature to make the necessary appropriation for enabling our State sanitary 
 board to employ a sufficient number of sanitary inspectors to assist the Federal 
 Bureau of Ammal Industry in its work of sanitation. 
 
 Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Bureau of 
 Animal Industry in Washington, D. C, and a copy to the State board of stock 
 inspection commissioners in Denver, Colo. 
 
 RESOLUTION NO. 2. 
 
 Whereas certain misrepresentations continue to be made concerning the desires 
 
 of Colorado citizens in the matter of the Government's conservation policy; 
 
 and 
 Whereas we believe that such policy is not only of great benefit to all of our 
 
 people, but of special benefit to the stock-growing industry of the West : Now, 
 
 therefore, be it 
 
 Resolved, That we pledge anew our devotion to the principles of conservation 
 as announced from time to time in our State and National Live Stock Asso- 
 ciation. 
 
 Resolved, That we congratulate the country upon the effective work that is 
 being done by Secretary Lane in adding to the efficiency and permanence of 
 our national conservation policy. 
 
 Resolved, That we recognize in Chief Forester Henry S. Graves a conscien- 
 tious and capable public servant, who is successfully carrying forward the 
 good work of his predecessor in cooperating with local, State, and national live- 
 stock growers associations. The development of our grazing area upon the 
 national forests to an increased capacity has greatly improved our herds and 
 added to the stability of the cattle industry with those who are using these 
 forest reserves for grazing purposes. 
 
 Resolved, That we favor the enactment into law of House bill No. 10539, in- 
 troduced in the Sixty-third Congress by Congressman Keut, entitled, " For the 
 improvement of grazing on pubic lands of the United States and to regulate the 
 same, and for other purposes," as a solution of the problems now existing in 
 the unappropriated grazing area of the public domain. 
 
 Resolved, That we send a copy of this resolution to Secretary Lane, to 
 Forester Graves, and to Congressman Kent. 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. How much land is there in your neighborhood 
 within the public range that would be affected by leasehold under a 
 leasing law? 
 
 Mr. Killian. I will answer that by stating that there is in the 
 Montrose land office district — the Federal land office district— so 
 Judge Barry told me, about 4,500,000 acres of public domain which 
 will enter into a proposition of this kind. That clusters right around 
 through these little reserves — through the Battlement, Gunnison, and 
 Uncompahgre, and other reserves. 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. Has the Delta County Live Stock Association or 
 any other association of live-stock people ever applied to the forest 
 reserve to get them to include some unreserved nonforested land in 
 their reserves? 
 
132 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Killian. There has been an application — I got this direct- 
 made for the extension of the forest reserves there for over 277,500 
 acres of land, and it shows that those men are so eager to have this 
 extension that they are trying hard to get it. I went to the Forest 
 Service and tried to get the extension made, but we could not get it 
 because it was not timbered acreage. I want to say further that there 
 has been application after application and intercession after inter- 
 cession made to our association to get permits for stockmen who are 
 running their cattle in the Uncompahgre domain to get into the 
 forest reserve. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Mr. Killian, you said there are about 300 members in 
 your association? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Does your association include all those people who are 
 in the grazing business in those four counties you have mentioned 
 or are there other people in your association ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes; they live right there. 
 
 Mr. Kent. But you say there are 300 people in your association? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Kent. And does that include all the people who are in the 
 grazing business in those four counties ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. No, sir; there is the Gunnison association and the 
 San Miguel association and the Plateau association. 
 
 Mr. Kent. I asked that question because the gentleman from Cali- 
 fornia apparently tried to show that the whole tract is monopolized 
 by the 300 people. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Oh, no; the gentleman from California was trying to 
 find out facts, and was asking questions to that end. 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. Do these other associations take the same view 
 as the Delta County association? 
 
 Mr. Killian. The papers submitted will show that. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, these letters were handed to me to- 
 day, and I desire to present them to the committee, by request, not 
 desiring to be bound by the views expressed therein. The first is a 
 letter from the Virgin River Stock Association, signed by the presi- 
 dent and secretary. The second is a letter written by Mr. D. J. 
 Sheehan, also dealing with the same subject. I present these letters 
 by request, and I might or might not agree to the views expressed 
 by them. 
 
 (Thereupon the committee proceeded to the consideration of other 
 matters, after which it adjourned.) 
 
 (The letters submitted by Mr. Johnson are as follows:) 
 
 Committee on the Public Lands, 
 
 House of Representatives, 
 
 Thursday, March 5, 191k- ■ 
 The committee was called to order at 10.15 a. m., Hon. Scott Ferris 
 (chairman) presiding. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Mr. Killian wishes to make a brief statement in the 
 way of correcting his remarks. 
 
 Mr. Killian. What I have to say will be very short. You will 
 remember that yesterday your chairman asked me a question which 
 I did not expect would be relevant in a case of this kind. I answered 
 it in this way : In regard to taxation in my own county, as you know, 
 
DISPOSITION OF GBAZING LANDS. 133 
 
 we have our taxation based on a one-third valuation, one-third of the 
 cash valuation, and a levy was made accordingly to raise the re- 
 quired revenue under the old law, which was absolutely stated ap- 
 proximately 40 mills, Avhich, according to my statement, was true- 
 that it did run approximately 40 mills in some districts. Now, the 
 new law came in and we anticipated the placing of values on the cash 
 basis. 
 
 The Chairman. Full cash value? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes, sir. In. raising the required' revenue under 
 that law of course it anticipated a reduction of the levy two-thirds. 
 In other words, then under the new law, under the present year's 
 collection of revenues, we have about one-third of a levy, which 
 would approximately be 12|, or 15 mills. 
 
 Then, I believe, Mr. Thomson, from the Chicago district, asked me 
 to explain this : I think everybody understands that we award prizes 
 on products that are entered in any of these shows, and these are two 
 of the colors represented [exhibiting]. 
 
 The Chairman. Those two of blue and pink? 
 
 Mr. Killian. They are blue and purple, and that is the royal 
 purple of the grand championship, so I want to explain to the com- 
 mittee that in awarding prizes the blue ribbon, the red ribbon, and 
 the white applies in classes, and it is a very nice arrangement, the 
 symbolic application of this effect. Of course, we get this from our 
 mother country 
 
 Mr. Fergusson (interposing). I would move to strike that out as 
 irrelevant and immaterial. What has that to do with this hearing ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. I only wished to make an explanation. The chair- 
 man asked me what was meant by a blue and purple ribbon. 
 
 The Chairman. I think you have made sufficient explanation. 
 Unless there is objection, the reference to emblems and royal pedi- 
 gree will be stricken out. 
 
 Mr. Killian. I presume that is all right. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I would like to ask one question. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Do you want to correct your statement that you 
 made to me yesterday, that the homesteader could go on a 50,000- 
 acre tract and get his homestead just as unhampered as on the public 
 domain ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. I think so from the evidence. I think, in that case, 
 he can go in there without any hampering at all. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. You stand upon that? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. In the central part of Oregon we have a great many 
 320-acre homestead filings, and there will be maybe two or three, 
 we will say, every mile, or every alternate two miles, such a filing, 
 reaching, for instance, a distance of a hundred miles. There are 
 probably 200 or 300 filings in that scope of territory. Now, what 
 would be the practical operation of the leasing law there? Would 
 it compel the lessee to didge in and out among those claims, or do 
 you think it could be practically put into effect there? 
 
 Mr. Killian. I do not think it would interfere with either one_ or 
 the other. Honestly, I do not, from my experience and observation 
 in my country. I do not see why it should. In fact, in a stock 
 country like we have, where, as I said yesterday, over 80 per cent of 
 
134 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 it is grazing territory, nearly everybody is aspiring to go into the 
 stock business, and they are engaging more or less in the business. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Would there be a good deal of contention between 
 the big lessees and these men having these small holdings ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. I assume not. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. I thought probably there was contention arising 
 from the fact that it would be pretty difficult for the big stock men 
 to keep from encroaching in the door yard, as we might call it, of 
 the small holder. 
 
 Mr. Killian. Well, that is the beauty of the operation of control. 
 He is under restrain the same as the other man, and more so, because 
 it anticipates the protection of the small man, and the way it has 
 worked in our country it benefits always in all cases ; it has benefited 
 us small men, and that is why we are asking for it. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. The big man and the small man could dwell in 
 harmony ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes, sir; perfectly. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Of course they are not small men in the sense you 
 are small ; they are much smaller. 
 
 Mr. Killian. As you describe; no. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. A man running a hundred cattle in that section 
 would be considered a pretty substantial cattle raiser ? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. We call a small man one running 5, 10, or 25, or 30 
 head of cattle. 
 
 Mr. Killian. We have men turning out cattle there as low as 5 
 and 10 head, as you say, and getting a permit up in the reserves. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Do they run as low as that in your association? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. What is the maximum in your association? 
 
 Mr. Killian. About 1,000 head. I think that is the largest num- 
 ber I know of in either of our reserves. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. And the general average 122? 
 
 Mr. Killian. Yes, sir; about that. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. S. W. M'CLURE. 
 
 The Chairman. Where is your residence? 
 
 Mr. MoClure. I live in Salt Lake City, Utah, and am secretary 
 of the National Woolgrowers' Association. 
 
 The Chairman. Are you interested in woolgrowing other than as 
 secretary of this association? 
 
 Mr. McClure. No, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. How long have you been connected with the asso- 
 ciation ? 
 
 Mr. McClttre. With the woolgrowing and live-stock business U 
 years and with the National Woolgrowers' Association 4 years. 
 
 The Chairman. Have you been all that time in the Mountain 
 States? 
 
 Mr. MoClure. In Montana, Washington, Oregon, Utah, and 
 Wyoming. 
 
 The Chairman. Go on and make such statement as you see fit to 
 make. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 135 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. Mr. Chairman, I think my statement will be very- 
 brief, but I appreciate beforehand that there is a lot I would say 
 that will not meet with the approval of many members of the com- 
 mittee, and I only regret that other members of the committee who 
 have been here previously are not here. 
 
 So far as the National Wool Growers' Association is concerned, 
 which includes the woolgrowers of the West, I might say that we are 
 not asking for the leasing of the public domain and are not asking 
 for any change in your land laws. For many years the national 
 association has been vigorously opposing a lease law for the reason 
 they felt it was against their interest to have a lease law. However, 
 it was our understanding when these bills were before your com- 
 mittee that probably the administration felt that there should be a 
 change in our land laws, that we should be compelled to pay for the 
 use of the public lands, and in a spirit of cooperation our national 
 association decided that if it was the desire of Congress to change 
 our land laws that the National Wool Growers' Association would 
 cooperate with it in bringing about the best change that they felt 
 could be made. I feel that as users of the public lands we have an 
 interest in them. I feel that Congress would desire to protect our 
 interest in any legislation that it might enact. 
 
 I might say further that a great many of our woolgrowers are in 
 favor of the leasing of the public domain. At our last national 
 convention in Salt Lake City Mr. Kent's bill was presented to us to 
 consider. The woolgrowers had some objections to some of the fea- 
 tures of that bill. They did not indorse the bill, but they left the 
 matter in the situation that if they called for a hearing that the wool- 
 growers should send a delegation here to cooperate with you gentle- 
 men and give you our suggestions in regard to the form it should 
 take. 
 
 Speaking personally and not for the association, I might say that a 
 very great number of the people in the West — I would think a con- 
 siderable majority of them — have recognized there should be some 
 form of control over our public domain. It is thought if the proper 
 kind of legislation could be enacted that we could increase our pro- 
 duction and probably reduce the cost of production that that would 
 be a mighty important factor with us. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, for two days I have sat here and listened to 
 an attack upon the live-stock interests of the West. It has been my 
 construction, based on what I have heard, that Congress feels that 
 every man who is engaged in any way in the live-stock industry of 
 our country is a criminal and that he is of no importance or of no 
 consideration in the West. I am unwilling to sit here as a repre- 
 senttive of a live-stock organization and permit such accusations to 
 go unanswered. I am intimately acquainted with the interests of the 
 West. I went there 14 years ago and have been there since. There 
 would not have been any West had it not been for the live-stock men. 
 These are men who have gone out and carved out of the desert and 
 the wilderness the possibilities of a great empire. The people who 
 are now farming in the West and who are in the cities of the West 
 would not have been there had it not been for the hardihood and 
 endurance of the pioneer live-stock men. So that no matter what 
 may be said here, no matter what has been placed in the record 
 against our stockmen 
 
136 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson (interposing). I would like to ask to what you 
 refer as an attack on the live-stock men? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. I heard it said yesterday we were drawing a dead 
 line around the pastures inside of which no man could go. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. I want you to be specific. You said for two days 
 you listened to an attack on the West. I want you to be specific. 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. It has been assumed here we were trying to do 
 something to injure the homesteader, and I have heard it said here, 
 I think, before this committee, that a man would not consider the 
 possibility of going inside of a pasture for fear somebody was going 
 to assassinate him. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. Who said that? I want you to be specific. 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. That was said yesterday. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. I am here in the interests of the small stock grow- 
 ers of the West. 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. I am, too. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. I want you to be specific if you have any charges 
 to make. 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. I think the Congressman from California made the 
 statement that we were drawing a dead line, and the whole trend 
 of events here has been that we were trying to provide a pasture 
 inside of which the homesteader could not go. I understand that 
 this is. an unpopular line of talk here, but I think the committee 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson (interposing). It is unpopular for you to make 
 reflections on men. ' 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. I was simply referring to the record, Mr. Fer- 
 gusson. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. Go ahead ; I will not interrupt you. 
 
 Mr. McCltjke. The question of a leased pasture has come up. I 
 feel that it would be decidedly in the interest of the homesteader to 
 have a leased pasture to go into. He would be more apt to go in 
 there than he would in the absence of a leased pasture. In the event 
 that the leasing law is passed, the sheepman would not want to fence 
 his land. It would only be an expense of $400 a section to him that 
 would give him no benefit. I think the cattlemen should have a 
 right to fence their land. I think in some cases it would be neces- 
 sary. The development that has come about in the West in recent 
 years is largely due to the efforts of our stockmen. The largest 
 area of dry-land farming in the State of Utah has been brought 
 about by the efforts of the sheepmen in that State. I know of one 
 man who went out and developed wheat raising, developed it him- 
 self, and all the wheat that has been raised there since comes about 
 by reason of his efforts. 
 
 Mr. Brown. Do I understand you to say that this Kent bill was 
 considered in your convention ? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Brown. And was not approved? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. We felt there should be some changes. 
 
 Mr. Brown. What changes were suggested ? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. It provided at that time for a minimum of one-half 
 cent an acre charge, and we thought the minimum feature should be 
 stricken out. We thought there might be some changes in the ad- 
 ministrative features of the bill. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 137 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Are you prepared to suggest specific changes 1 
 
 Mr. McClttre. I do not care to, because we are not asking for it. 
 If you gentlemen want to pass a leasing law we are here to help you, 
 if you desire our help— help you to formulate it so that it will not- 
 be an injury to our country. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. I do not know how the other members of the com- 
 mittee feel, but I shall appreciate it if you will put into the record 
 any specific amendments you might suggest. 
 
 Mr. Brown. I was under the impression that they had suggested 
 something in the convention. 
 
 Mr. McCltjee. Not in our convention. The American national 
 did at Denver. Just a little more about my general statement and 
 then I will be glad to go into it in detail, and it is not going to be 
 very popular. We have heard a great deal about the homesteader 
 here. I want to assure you, gentlemen, there is nobody who has more 
 interest in the legitimate homesteader that the live-stock men of the 
 West. The homesteaders who come out there make a living by work- 
 ing for the live-stock men, and if they produce anything their only 
 market is the stockmen. So our stockmen have never put a straw 
 in the road of any legitimate homesteader who desires to come into 
 their community. In fact, they have been glad to see him come. 
 I want to say, however, that a very decided number of so-called 
 homesteaders who have come into the West in recent years have 
 not been legitimate homesteaders. A very great number of them 
 have come out on the ranges, located where they can not hope to 
 survive under any existing law or any land law that ever- will be 
 passed, and many of them — I do not know how great a number — are 
 there for the purpose of obtaining title to a little piece of land and 
 selling it to the stockman. In regard to the 320-acre homestead 
 act, I want to say within a very few years that a majority of the 
 land that has been taken up imder that 320-acre homestead act will 
 pass into the hands of the stockman. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. Why do you say that? 
 
 Mr. McCluke. Because he can not make a living there. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. Precisely. If you give them enough land can not 
 they make a living with a small herd ? 
 
 Mr. McCdttke. It would take them years to do it. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Can not a man who owns 15 head of cattle be an honest 
 man ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Yes, sir; absolutely. We are not complaining of 
 that. The association I represent is made up of small stockmen as 
 well as large stockmen. In' fact, we have no large stockmen any 
 more. They are all gone ; but I have thought for a long time that 
 there has been such a world of misinformation spread broadcast over 
 the country relative to the character of our lands that Congress 
 should protect these innocent people who are being led to believe 
 that these are productive lands, that they can go there and take 
 them free, and I think Congress ought to appoint a commission to 
 go out there and go over these lands and find out what lands a man 
 can make a home on. I do not believe we have done a man a kind- 
 ness when we tell him he can go out there and have for nothing a 
 ! section of land upon which he can not make a living, and he will 
 spend the few dollars he happens to have. I know whereof I speak. 
 
138 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Your suggestions interest me very much in this, 
 that you feel the necessity of Members of Congress having more 
 knowledge of the conditions out there and the productiveness of the 
 land. Do you think any commission that we could appoint, with 
 the necesary limited time they could spend there, could get any 
 information more reliable than we could from the Members of Con- 
 gress from those localities? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Why? 
 
 Mr. McClure. They do not believe us when we come down here 
 and say this. We have our commercial clubs and railroads and a 
 lot of institutions in the West. 
 
 Mr. Graham. I think you misunderstood the question. I did not 
 refer to the accuracy of the information you gentlemen could give 
 us, but to the knowledge of the Congressmen coming from those 
 sections. 
 
 Mr. McClure. We have special interests down here, and, there- 
 fore, they are discrediting our statements. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. You do not represent any special interests? 
 
 Mr. McClure. No, sir; I am one of the small homesteaders, if I 
 am anything; but if we could get you gentlemen to come out there 
 and see this condition and send a committee of eastern Congressmen 
 out there and let us go over the land with them, if you do not come 
 back convinced there is an incomparable injury being done to thou- 
 sands of people all over that country by the dissemination of wrong 
 information as to its productiveness, then I will come before this 
 committee and beg its pardon. I do not ask you to accept my state- 
 ment, but I ask Congress to come there and see what is there. The 
 agricultural lands of the West are gone. The lands of the West 
 upon which a man can make a living, any reasonable tract, are gone; 
 they have been gone for years. 
 
 Mr. Gkaham. Is there no hope to hold out to the man who desires 
 to own, in his own right, his own home? Are we without domain? 
 
 Mr. McClure. So far as that fellow is concerned, you are. There 
 will be a little tract here and there, an isolated spot, but there is no 
 considerable area of lands in the western country on which a man can 
 establish a home with the expectation of becoming independent. 
 And, another feature. We imagine that because a man can go out 
 and take up this land, 320 or 160 acres, that necessarily he is a poor 
 man. Now, a poor man has no chance in the world. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. God help the poor man, in your estimation. 
 
 Mr. McClure. So far as these public lands are concerned, what 
 is he going to do ? It takes all kinds of money. He has to have 
 money to live out there three years; he has to have money enough 
 to fence his land and build himself a home and buy his equipment 
 and machinery. In other words, in order to make it stick, he has 
 to be a man who has money to go and improve his farm, and you 
 gentlemen will agree with me, if you come out there and look at the 
 situation, that has not always been true. We have had much valu- 
 able agricultural land in our country, but it has laid there for 50 
 years, and it is only natural to assume that anything that is worth 
 anything has gone long before this. As I said before the lands that 
 are left—I would say 95 per cent of them — are grazing lands that 
 must be held in large tracts in order for anyone to survive. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 139 
 
 The Chairman. I am wondering if this might be true: In my 
 own home, when I went there 13 years ago, the whole county was 
 fenced up practically by cattle fencing. It was a cattle country, 
 and the men were making money. The contention of the cattlemen 
 was at that time that we poor homesteaders — I have homesteaded 
 and proved up with a farm in the last dozen years — within a short 
 time would be rolling up our barbed fences and taking our loved 
 ones and going back from whence we came. In some instances that 
 has happened, but as distinguished from that being the case in toto, 
 I wish to say that I live in a town in the middle of that county of 
 10,000 people. The streets are all paved with asphalt, we have 
 street car lines and school buildings, fine ones, and a Government 
 building; and from that original county there have been made sev- 
 eral counties and parts of counties, each having a county seat com- 
 posed of from 2,500 to 4,000 people. These little towns are pros- 
 perous, and nine-tenths of the people in these six or seven counties 
 are making money — not making money as the cattlemen did with 
 their great interests ; but they are staying there and educating their 
 children and raising cotton and farm products on those dry farms, 
 and in 10 years more, judging by the 10 preceding years, the farms 
 will have an average valuation in the area I have mentioned .of 
 from $5,000 to $10,000 apiece. That would seem to belittle the state- 
 ment and judgment of the cattlemen of 12 years ago in that county, 
 and I wondered if 10 or 12 years' more experience in your county 
 might not overthrow what is now your best judgment. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. I would like to know the valuation per acre, Mr. 
 Chairman, of these farms you refer to. 
 
 The Chairman. I would be glad to give it, but I do not want to 
 supersede the witness. But probably that might have some interest. 
 When that country was opened 12 years ago relinquishments sold 
 from $150 to $400 apiece. For instance, No. 1, who had made a 
 filing, would relinquish to No. 2 for a consideration of $450 for 160 
 acres. You can not to-day buy a farm within a radius of 20 miles 
 of my town for less than $4,000, and they will average $2,500, and 
 there is a minimum average of $3,500 a quarter to $6,000 a quarter. 
 
 Mr. Kent. I would like to make this suggestion: That this par- 
 ticular territory you speak of has not been lying outside of our 
 doors very long. It has been opened. 
 
 The Chairman. The conditions are identical. 
 
 Mr. French. May I ask Mr. McClure a question? Is it not a fact 
 that there have been in one land office in a district in Montana in the 
 last 15 days— the last 30 days— 1,000 final proof notices filed ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I think it would be true. 
 
 Mr. French. Many of those fellows are the three-year home- 
 steaders ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. French. And they perhaps took it up from three to five years 
 ago, coming approximately in the period you mention ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. FerCusson. Three hundred and twenty acres? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Yes, sir; many of them 160 acres. 
 
 Mr. French. Do you apprehend 95 per cent of those fellows are 
 not going to stick? 
 
140 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. McClure. I know a great number of them have offered their 
 relinquishments to live stockmen at $1,600 a quarter. 
 
 Mr. French. They have been offering these relinquishments for 
 the last 50 years. 
 
 Mr. McClure. Yes, sir; but there has not been many to get. I 
 may mention that in the particular section I happen to be acquainted 
 there were relinquishments offered 7 or 8 years ago for $1,600 a 
 quarter— lands which are now worth $8,000 a quarter. That was 
 up in the northern and eastern part of Montana. You take Valley 
 County ; I think unquestionably that is a wheat country. 
 
 Mr. French. And Chouteau County? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Chouteau County— they are not doing very well. . 
 
 Mr. French. Then your statements do not apply to Montana? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Yes, they do ; I do not want to eliminate Montana. 
 
 Mr. French. What particular section of Montana? 
 
 Mr. McClure. They apply to the extreme southern and eastern 
 sections. You have a lot of homestead entries, an enormous number. 
 
 Mr. French. I believe 15,000 or 16,000 in the last year in Mon- 
 tana. 
 
 Mr. McClure. If you do not require me to give the gentleman's 
 name, I would like to recite a little incident that came up in a letter 
 I received the other day. A gentleman in Montana wrote me, and 
 in reply I asked him what suggestions he would like to make relative 
 to changes in the public land laws. He wrote me a rather harsh 
 letter, blaming the association for not having taken more interest 
 in the matter. He said, -1 1 have no suggestions to make." He said, 
 " My ranges have been taken up by 320-acre homesteaders who have 
 left the country, and I am buying them at $1,600 a quarter and I own 
 my ranch." 
 
 Xow, I do not wish to be understood as saying there are no 
 wheat lands out there, but we are dealing with the lands in this 
 3,000,000 acres that are left. They have been open for 50 years. 
 
 Mr. French. Along that line: Of these 17,000 who have filed 
 during the last year in Montana what per cent of those will fail? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Inside of five years that land will be in the hands 
 of stockmen. 
 
 Mr. French. Has a very large per cent of those who have filed in 
 the last five years gone into the hands of stockbrokers ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I think so. You are going to except your wheat 
 countries there. 
 
 Mr. French. So in eastern Montana, in that great range country, 
 in Dawson and Rosebud Counties, that would be the case ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Your filing did not start down there until three 
 years ago. We had two of the best years ever known in the history 
 of Montana, and they are feeding their sheep with wheat up there; 
 they are not shipping it; the only market they have is our live-stock 
 men. It" is my judgment — and 1 think I am sustained by our agri- 
 cultural college — that wheat growing is not profitable on a small 
 scale. You take our freight rates up there, and there is nothing left. 
 We pay 48 cents a hundred to river points on this. The rate from 
 Chicago to New York is only 6 cents per 100, and we are paying 
 30 cents a bushel. If wheat is worth 85 cents in Chicago and we 
 have to give up 30 cents a bushel to get it to Chicago, and we are 
 compelled to do that, there is not much left. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 141 
 
 Mr. French. "We only give up 18 or 19 cents. 
 
 Mr. MoClttre. In eastern Montana. When you get in southern 
 Montana the rate is 48 cents a hundred in either direction. 
 
 Mr. French. Would you like to state what percentage of these 
 men will be in the hands of the stockmen ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I think ultimately your wheat men must all either 
 sell to stockmen or become stockmen. The Canadian Government 
 has just made a report in which it says the cost of producing wheat is 
 62 cents a bushel at the railroad station. What chance has the little 
 fellow got? 
 
 Mr. French. Do you apprehend that perhaps the inauguration of 
 diversified farming out there, with the aid of information that can 
 be given to them by the Government and through the State agri- 
 cultural colleges, will materially change conditions there? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. Providing you enable them to increase their hold- 
 ings. 
 
 Mr. French. For instance, the man with 320 acres ? 
 
 Mr. McClttre. That fellow will increase his holdings. He will 
 buy out two or three of his neighbors and ultimately get enough land 
 to do all right. That must come about. Mr. La Follette here lives in 
 the best dry-land wheat country in the world — eastern Washington and 
 Oregon. It is the best land we have. We have nothing in Montana 
 like it, or in my country like it ; but the tendency has been for those 
 fellows who hold 160 acres of land to sell out to some one. I am inti- 
 mately acquainted with the country, and they are holding that wheat 
 land up to 5,000-acre tracts. You go around the city of Pendleton — 
 it is a fine city, surrounded by good wheat land — and the small men 
 have been bought out by their neighbors, and those fellows have been 
 farming on a large scale. 
 
 Mr. French. I do not want to get into an argument with the wit- 
 ness, because I know he is doing his best to give us information. I 
 have known him for many years. But I will say that, according to 
 my experience and observation in Montana, it is not the fellow with 
 the great big wheat farm — it is the little fellow — who is raising the 
 wheat. 
 
 Mr. McClttre. The situation in your country is that you have a 
 new wheat country there, and the people expected more than they 
 have received. The traction men have gone in there and sold the 
 farmers traction machinery, and they can not pay for them. They 
 could not pay for the machinery sold to them. 
 
 Mr. French. Have you not found the little fellow with the team 
 and two or three cows, such as the homesteader would have who goes 
 out on these lands, gets through better than the fellow who has 
 bought a traction engine and farms a large area ? 
 
 Mr. McClurb. That might be true up there ; it is not true in the 
 wheat country, I know ; and I can say all over our wheat country the 
 tendency is toward a material increase in the acreage. 
 
 Mr. French. It has been just the opposite in certain sections of 
 Montana. 
 
 Mr. McClurb. You have a new country there; you have not had 
 time for the thing to get to work. 
 
 Mr. French. On the other hand, the big wheat farms are getting 
 cut up into small tracts. 
 
142 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. McClure. I imagine now is the time to do that. If I had a 
 large wheat farm and was situated in a country of uncertain rain- 
 fall, the most profitable disposition I could make of it would be to 
 cut it up in small sections and sell it. I know they are doing that. 
 
 Mr. French. I am certain that is the case with the large stock 
 men. Many of the best friends I have were large stock men, and 
 they are just coming to the conclusion that we have a wheat country 
 up there, and they are turning off their sheep and going into the 
 wheat business. 
 
 Mr. McClure. You have had two or three favorable years, years 
 of unusual rainfall. Montana has the highest average wheat pro- 
 duction in any State. Your average acre of wheat production is 
 26 bushels. That ought to be just cut in two, because it takes two 
 years to produce those 26 bushels. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. As conditions now are in Montana, I do not 
 think that your statement is quite correct. 
 
 Mr. McClure. That 26 bushels takes in all the stuff raised on 
 irrigated land. 
 
 Mr. French. That is very little. 
 
 Mr. McClure. I do not think so. A higher average of wheat is 
 produced in the Gallatin Valley. 
 
 Mr. French. Is it not true that they are raising pretty near as 
 much wheat there as in other places? 
 
 Mr. McClure. They will eventually. You have more in that 
 locality than in other parts of the State. 
 
 Mr. French. The conditions you spoke of do not apply to Mon- 
 tana. 
 
 Mr. McClure. Yes ; they do, only in those sections where we know 
 or ought to know that wheat growing can be done. In your county 
 it has always been recognized as one of the best counties in Montana. 
 Gallatin County is in the same situation. I want to apply it to the 
 great range country in eastern and southern Montana. 
 
 Mr. Kent. This wheat country you are talking about, is it your 
 idea that it would come in under a leasing bill ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. No, sir ; we should hope not to have a leasing bill 
 passed that was going to apply to agricultural land. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. That would necessitate some classification. 
 
 Mr. McClure. The people out there are entitled to some classifica- 
 tion. Here are poor fellows with a team, and probably a plow and 
 a hoe and maybe $200 in money, who are mastered by a lot of specu- 
 lators who take them out and locate them on land that some one has 
 just left. There are hundreds of cases where the farmer comes out 
 and tries to make a stake and fails, and when he comes down to the 
 railroad station he is pestered with land sharks, and they turn his 
 relinquishment over to another man, and he in turn fails. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Does that apply to California? 
 
 Mr. McClcre. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. What part? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Down in Curzan County. 
 
 Mr. Raker. This proposition as to the statement you made in re- 
 gard to filing a relinquishment, you say that appiles to California? 
 
 Mr. McClure. In a general way. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And you say this man who goes out and makes his 
 filing can not make a living in California ? 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 143 
 
 Mr. McClure. I have no doubt it applies to a great area in Cali- 
 fornia. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You can not find a spot that it applies to in Califor- 
 nia. I do not like to see a statement like that go in the record. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Are you acquainted with the lands in Utah ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. With a good bit of them. I lived at Salt Lake City 
 for a year. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Are you aware of the fact that a system of dry farm- 
 ing has been recently inaugurated in that State ? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. And that much of this dry land, which is susceptibla 
 of irrigation because of lack of water, is being farmed very success- 
 fully, there being wheat, oats, barley, and even orchards. 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. On dry land? 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Yes. 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. There is not a successful orchard on dry land in the 
 whole western country. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Do you say that from personal knowledge? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. Absolutely. There is not a successful dry-land 
 orchard in the western country. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. What do you mean by successful ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. A man making a living or profit by it. The sooner 
 our people find that out the better off the people will be. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I want to say to you as a matter of fact that person- 
 ally I own an orchard which is a dry orchard ; it has never had any 
 water on it, and it nets me a hundred dollars an acre each year. 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. I would suggest that so far as my experience goes, 
 and it has been broad, that the average net acre earning of orchards 
 in the northwestern country under irrigation 
 
 Mr. Johnson (interposing). I am talking about Utah. 
 _. Mr. McCltjre. Your average net acre earning in Utah is decidedly 
 less than a hundred dollars an acre. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Even less than a hundred dollars would be suc- 
 cessful. 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. I am not arguing against an irrigated orchard. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. You have reference to an irrigated orchard ? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I am speaking of orchards which receive no irriga- 
 tion whatever. 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. Where are they? Along- the bases of forests. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. How large an orchard ? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. There are various orchards. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Anything on the agricultural size ? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. What do you call an agricultural size? 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Twenty acres. 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. Yes; there are a number of them. In the Sante 
 Fuji Valley there are three or four of them ; at Mount Pleasant there 
 are three or four ; two at Fairview, the same county. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Are you aware on this land, which was considered 
 worthless because of its heredity, it has a production of 25 to 30 
 i bushels of wheat to the acre ? 
 
 ; Mr. McClure. Yes; you have dry-land areas in Utah; that is, 
 
 where you do not irrigate. Take in northern Utah, where they are 
 
 ) raising from 6, and may be in an occasional year 30 bushels per acre. 
 
144 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I invite your attention to the irrigation lands where 
 they are raising from 30 to 40 bushels per year. 
 
 Mr. McClure. Iowa does not raise that. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I am talking about Utah. 
 
 Mr. McClure. You do not mean the general average is as high as 
 30 to 40 bushels? 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I mean to say that a certain firm in my State, who 
 cultivate from 6,000 to 8,000 acres annually — not dry-land wheat- 
 average above 30 bushels to the acre. 
 
 Mr. McClure. Over what terms of years ? 
 
 Mr. Johnson. A term of five or six years. 
 
 Mr. McCluee. That is old agricultural land that was taken up 10 
 or 15 years ago. That has been there for five years. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. You say that as a fact? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. You said they raised it over a period of five years, 
 and that is probably some old agricultural lands. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. The fact is that it is not. This land was never 
 thought of until this dry-land farming was rendered feasible. 
 
 Mr. McClttre. It must have been at least six or seven years ago. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. And it is land over which the stock ranged and it 
 was considered worthless. Are you aware that the filings the last 
 three years in the Salt Lake land office for 320 acres have been very 
 great because of the facilities offered by this dry-land method of 
 farming ? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. I understand it entirely. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Do you know that public land to-day, both in 
 Utah and in other States, is being subjected to this dry-land process 
 and has become extremely valuable as grain-producing land? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. They have had 50 years to look them up. . 
 
 Mr. Johnson. They did not practice dry-land farming 50 years 
 ago. 
 
 Mr. McClure. "We practiced it for a good many years in Oregon. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. The Campbell system was only started in the last 
 10 or 12 years. 
 
 Mr. McClure. That is true. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. And the land has been found to be excellent grain 
 land. Do you not think that much of this land sought to be leased 
 in the public domain will be taken up freely by homesteaders and 
 under this dry process they will make very prosperous homes? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I think not. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. If these 320 acres remain a portion of it?. 
 
 Mr. McClure. Let us cut it down. I do not intend to say there 
 is not any land ; I want to say that 95 per cent of it is not agricultural 
 land. 
 
 Mr. French. And never will be. 
 
 Mr. McClure. And never will be. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. What States are you referring to? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Utah, Nevada, Oregon, Wyoming, and Washing- 
 ton. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. How about San Juan County? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I have not been down there. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. You do hot know as to the character of theJand 
 .there? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Only in a general way. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GKAZING LANDS. 145 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Crossing over the line into Colorado from San Juan 
 County* are you acquainted with the land? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. I am not. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Are you acquainted with the public lands lying 
 south of San Juan River? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. I think so, in a general way. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Is it not a fact that there are large portions of that 
 land perfectly level? 
 
 Mr. McClure. The Utah desert is the most level land you have. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Do you say that kind of land is not adapted to dry 
 farming? 
 
 Mr. McClure. You are talking about the desert? 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I am talking about this level land. Of course, 
 there is some desert, but do you say that large quantities of this level 
 desert is not adapted? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I think your rainfall is too low. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. What rainfall is required to make that a success? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. I have seen Government reports that claim, in an 
 experimental way, that profitable crops have been raised on an 8-inch 
 rainfall. It has to be around 15 and 16 inches. Your average rain- 
 fall in Utah would be about 8 inches, and you have very little in 
 that desert. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Will you kindly tell me how you get those figures, 
 that the average rainfall in Utah is 8 inches? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. I get them in your papers out there in your land 
 office. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Have you examined them? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. I do not say I have. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Do you not know the average rainfall in Utah is 14 
 inches? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. I think not. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. You say that is not so ? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. I say I think it is. If it is 14 inches it still leaves 
 a lot of your State that must have a very low rainfall. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Do you know as a matter of fact that 14 inches of 
 rainfall is ample for dry farming and is ample for these flat lands ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Let us remember that our rainfall this year might 
 be 14 inches and next year 6 inches. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. And even 18 inches? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Yes, sir; 18 inches. And when it is only 6 inches 
 you are not going to get a crop. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. I have a telegram here from Mr. M. I*. Powers, 
 secretary of the Arizona Wool Growers' Association, and Mr. H. E. 
 Campbell, president of the same association, in which they state that 
 it is impossible for them to attend these hearings, and go on to 
 say: 
 
 Can you request hearing held open for, say, 30 days, until we can send repre- 
 sentatives? Arizona sheepmen opposed to lease bills due to our peculiar condi- 
 tions. If great majority of sheepmen in country at large favor it, we want bill 
 to incorporate features applicable to Arizona conditions. 
 
 Have you met these gentlemen at the national conventions of your 
 association ? 
 Mr. McClure. Yes, sir. 
 
 35074— pt 1—14 10 
 
146 DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Can you give the committee any idea of the peculiar 
 conditions to which they refer, or the way in which they would desire 
 to have this bill changed ? 
 
 Mr. MoCluee. "No ; I could not ; because, as I said, we are not 
 asking for the passage of a lease law. If Congress wants to pass 
 one we will help them. If we are to have a lease law we will have 
 one that is a practical one. It is a question of getting through the 
 country down there. Their sheep are somewhere up in the national 
 forest and winter down in the desert, and they apprehend there 
 might be some difficulty in getting through the country. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Do you think if that difficulty was removed they 
 would be satisfied? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I think your Arizona men are opposed to a lease 
 law. My understanding is that the Arizona Wool Growers' Asso- 
 ciation is opposed to a leasing law, and the Eastern Montana Wool 
 Growers' Association indorses a leasing law ; the Washington Wool 
 Growers' Association, I think, are in favor of a lease law ; the wool- 
 growers of New Mexico are opposed to it ; the woolgrowers of Utah 
 and western Montana and Colorado are in the position that if you 
 gentlemen want to pass a lease law we can see some benefits from it. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Do you know of any farmers' association in favor of a 
 lease law ? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. They use the range very little, and I think, as a 
 general rule, the smaller owners are in favor of a lease law. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. If you were to perfect this bill to satisfy the wool- 
 growers of the country, what changes would you make in it? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I am not advising you gentlemen. A lease law to 
 suit the sheepmen would require that this minimum charge be cut 
 out; that the privilege of fencing or not fencing should be given; 
 that if sheepmen improved tracts of land within a fence that it abso- 
 lutely be his for the period of the lease. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. And prohibit homestead entries during that time? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I am not asking that. I am asking that you protect 
 us against all kinds of homesteading except legitimate homesteading: 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Will you define that ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I mean the man who comes there for the purpose of 
 making a home and believes when he comes there he can make good. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. How can you dissect his mind ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. We know them out there. 
 
 Mr. Raker. If a man who comes in there and wants to get a home- 
 stead, you will ask him to get out ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Only when they get title and sell. There has been 
 something said here about applying one section of homestead to the, 
 lease law. While the woolgrower does not cut much ice, he is going 
 to oppose the leasing of land to him, and then to making any pro- 
 vision which will take that land away from him. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. That is to say, during the period of the lease, in 
 order to get a return on any investment he could make, that he 
 should have the exclusive right to manage and control that land, 
 and that any homesteader or anybody else be prevented from com- 
 ing in? 
 
 Mr. McClure. No. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Where do you draw the line ? 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 147 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. You have a 160-acre homestead law. We do not 
 want you to put agricultural lands in our lease. If you are going to 
 let us use the land let us have it. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That means just what Mr. Hayden says. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Your idea would be that prior to the passage of 
 a lease law it would be necessary to classify the public domain and 
 then exclude from all areas that might be leased any land acceptable 
 for homestead entry. 
 
 Mr. McClure. We do not expect to lease agricultural land. Such 
 agricultural land that is out there should not be leased. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. That presupposes a classification of the public domain 
 prior to the passage of a lease law. 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. It does not presuppose a scientific classification. 
 There is no classification. There is lots of land there where classifi- 
 cation is not required. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. In areas of that kind, would you give the home- 
 steader the benefit of the doubt, or the stockman ? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. You have leased the stockman something. The 
 benefits of a lease law come from the permanency of it — for 10 years 
 of use. Now, if we are going to lease it to him and not give him that 
 permanency, I do not think you help his condition; but we feel if 
 you lease us just grazing land, then we do not feel the homesteader 
 can come in. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. It strikes me there is logic in your argument. The 
 way the bill stands at the present time and the way the talk has 
 been about this table, a practical operation of it would be that a man, 
 or an association of men in a leasing district, will be permitted to 
 obtain a permit to run fences such as are necessary for the control 
 of the stock ; to go to any kind of an expense they saw fit in digging 
 wells and so on, but, at the same time, if the homestead laws op- 
 erated all the protection for improvements they might make would 
 be removed. I can not see how a stockman would be any more in- 
 duced under that system to carry on extensive improvement than he 
 is at the present time when he has no protection on the public 
 domain. 
 
 Mr. McClure. There has been a great deal said there that is mis- 
 information. So far as this fellow goes inside the pasture, he will 
 want to go in the pasture, especially if it is grazing land, and he is 
 better off there than he is outside, because when you understand that 
 640 acres of land out there would not keep over 100 sheep, you know 
 he can not live there. If he gets inside the pasture, he finds the 
 other fellow has a lease, and he must buy him out, and that fellow 
 who gets into the pasture has a better chance to sell than the man 
 who goes outside the pasture. 
 
 Mr. Graham. You are overlooking a very material fact in refer- 
 ence to the 640-acre homestead. In every case he presupposed there 
 would be some water obtainable; that the homesteader could raise 
 some vegetable stuff, and that he would eke out an existence by more 
 or less farming on his section of land. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. It might be stated further that Mr. Fergusson's 
 bill provides that such areas as may be entered under this 640-acre 
 homestead shall be designated by the Secretary of the Interior just 
 as the areas are designated now under the 320-acre homestead. 
 
148 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Graham. To me the real question is, whether it is possible to 
 have a 640-acre homestead within a pasture lease, meeting the condi- 
 tions stated by Mr. Fergusson, where the pasturage on the 640 acres 
 would be supplemented by sufficiently cultivatable land to enable 
 him to keep his family on. I think Mr. Fergusson did not contend 
 that the 640-acre homestead would be feasible if there was nothing 
 on the section but the pasturage. But, as I understood him, there 
 are a great many places within, say, 10,000 acres of pasturage where 
 many homesteads could be located, giving just such opportunities as 
 I have suggested, but that it would be denied in those cases to open 
 those 640-acre tracts to a homesteader and give him a chance to live. 
 
 Mr. McClure. There is no use of my making the statement that is 
 in my mind. I ask you gentlemen to come out there- and see this 
 country. Come out and find out whether those fellows are making 
 good ; whether we are injuring them or benefiting them. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Which ones are those? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Many of them. I want to put it up to Congress. 
 I want Congress to come out there and go over the situation and 
 find out if we are telling you the truth. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Your contention is that the farmers scattered over 
 the West are not making good? 
 
 Mr. McClure. The farmers who have been there. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Generally speaking. 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. No ; I have not said anything about the farmers. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I think, you did. 
 
 Mr. McClure. There are lots of them who make good. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Those that have filed the last five or six years? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I would not go back five years. I will go back a 
 year, and say many of those fellows can not hope to stay. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Who are on the ordinary public domains"? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Many of them. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Will you designate some localities? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. You mean as to the 320-acre homestead ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. You do not refer to what it would be under the 
 640 acres? 
 
 Mr. McClure. If 320 acres break a man, 640 acres is just going to 
 make him a little worse off, because his expenses are more. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Could you designate some of those localities where 
 homesteaders are giving up and not making good ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I understand it is a very unpopular thing to do to 
 come in here and tell these fellows here and there in the State or in 
 that section are not making good. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You ought to be able to give us some data on that. 
 
 Mr. McClure. I do not want to brand or injure any man in any 
 way ; I want you people to come out and see for yourselves. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Some people say too much about men not making 
 good. I know a particular tract of land in Nevada. They said these 
 people could not make good on it, but they are all sticking there and 
 making good. 
 
 Mr. McClure. How long have they been there? 
 
 Mr. Raker. Six or seven years. 
 
 Mr. McClure. That is a different proposition. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 149 
 
 Mr. Raker. Do you know anything about the lands in Southern 
 Oregon ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Have you been over those lands in Oregon ? 
 
 Mr. McClcke. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Eaker. Do you say that land is not susceptible to farming? 
 The people are trying to get farms on it as fast as they can. 
 
 Mr. McClure. I know a great many of them are trying to get 
 farms. My judgment is that a great many of them will fail. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Would you expect these flat lands would naturally come 
 in under the lease law ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Absolutely. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That is all under private ownership. 
 
 Mr. McClure. There are some around there at Moose Lake. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I have been out there about 25 years and have been 
 over the territory. I do not believe you will find that. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. I want to come back to the general attitude of your 
 association on this bill. If I understood you correctly, you are op- 
 posed to its passage in its present form. You would prefer to see no 
 law enacted at all unless it was such a lease law that would give 
 definite control over the leased area ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. No; not exactly. I am not going to say we are 
 opposed to it. A great majority of the people feel there ought to be 
 some change in the public-land laws. We -are not asking for a lease 
 law or a homestead law or anything else, but if Congress desires to 
 make changes in its public-land laws, we would like to be heard. 
 There are many of our woolgrowers who favor a lease law, and many 
 oppose it, but we thought we would be liberal about this matter and 
 not come down here and oppose the administration. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Were you told this was an administration 
 measure? 
 
 Mr. McClure. No, sir; but there was a lease law before Congress 
 for years, and it is a serious annoyance out there. A man does not 
 know what is going to happen, and we think the thing ought to be 
 settled one way or the other. 
 
 Mr. Raker. These people have been fighting that 10 or 12 years. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Take this bill as it is, supposing a line was not 
 changed in it, would you people rather see it enacted into law than to 
 leave ihe conditions as they are ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Some of them would and some would not. 
 
 Mr. HAtden. Suppose your association had to go on record now, 
 how would it stand? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I would want to present it to them and find out. 
 
 Mr. Hatden. You are not in a position to say ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. If you gentlemen want to pass a lease law, we do 
 not want to oppose you. We want to help you to pass as good a law 
 to protect our interests as you can, and state our side of the case so 
 that you know what our interests are. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. The particular change you desire to have made in 
 this law, that I may get your position correctly, is that you want it 
 fixed in the law that if a man obtain a lease for 10 years he would 
 have absolute control over that area during those 10 years ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Absolutely. 
 
150 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. If the man was classified and he leased it for 10 
 years, it is to be his land for 10 years ? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. Yes, sir; otherwise we do not want a lease. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Would that affect mining? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Kent. But would affect homesteading ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. It has been classified now. 
 
 Mr. Kent. But, at the same time, you could not take that attitude 
 in regard to mining? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. No, sir; we would not care about the mining; we 
 would be glad to have it done. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. I want to see if I understand your attitude cor- 
 rectly toward this proposition. I understand your contention to be 
 that there are certain lands out there in the West that are not adapt- 
 able very well to homesteading, even of the size provided in Mr. 
 Fergusson's bill. 
 
 Mr. McCluee. Exactly. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. And there are other lands out there that are quite 
 clearly adaptable under such a proposition as Mr. Fergusson sets 
 forth in his bill, and there are still other areas that may be one way 
 or the other, depending on some scientific investigation. You would 
 like to see this proposition passed, if passed at all, in such shape as 
 would permit your leasing in that first area, and these leases to con- 
 tain such provisions as Mr. Hayden mentioned, namely, when you 
 get the lands leased you have them for 10 years, and that you would 
 prefer to see it clearly provided that none of the land fit for agri- 
 culture be leased at all, and that such land as may, in one way or 
 another, depend upon investigation and classification, be kept out 
 until such classification is made. Is that your position ? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. I think so. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. You said awhile ago if this law was passed you 
 would like to see such changes made in it, and the first one you re- 
 ferred to is that you would like to have this minimum charge elimi- 
 nated. 
 
 Mr. McCluee. Yes, sir. ' 
 
 Mr. Thomson. What did you mean by that? 
 
 Mr. McClure. The law says the charge shall be not less than half 
 a cent an acre or more than 4 cents an acre. I might explain that 
 we have enormous land in the West on which it would take 50 acres 
 to keep a sheep, and under that system the charges would be enor- 
 mous. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. This minimum is not low enough ? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. There ought not to be a minimum; it ought to be 
 left to the administrative officers to determine what that minimum 
 should be. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Should there be a maximum ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Probably so. The 4 cents an acre is going to be a 
 high charge. I do not think we have any lands that we could keep 
 a sheep on 5 acres. I am pretty sure there are no lands there that 
 would keep more than a sheep on 5 acres. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. When you say "there" where do you mean? 
 
 Mr. McClure. In the West. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. All over the West? 
 
DISPOSITION OF GBAZING LANDS. 151 
 
 Mr. McClure. I understand, Mr. Fergusson, you have some little 
 tracts here and there. I am speaking in a broad general way of the 
 sheep industry of the West. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. You are speaking of land susceptible of acreage ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Yes, sir. I think outside of the desert we are using 
 to-day 7 to 10 acres for a sheep. Of course on the deserts they just 
 pass through. As to your Utah desert, one member of a land com- 
 pany told me in Salt Lake City he felt that probably 50 acres was 
 required to keep a sheep down there. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. There is one desert there of 500 acres. 
 
 Mr. McClure. But we do not use it. There is one other point in 
 a leasing bill we would insist on. This bill provides if we make im- 
 provements in the 40-acre tract to the value of $100, that that shall 
 not be subject to homestead. We surely would insist on that, because 
 what would you do? A man might lease a hundred thousand acres 
 of land and have only one watering place on it, and he would go 
 down there and develop water. It would be unfair to the man who 
 leases the land to have a homesteader come along and take his im- 
 provements. The leased land would have no value if he had no 
 water. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. If a man had a leasehold all he would have to do 
 would be to see that every spot that was valuable for homesteading 
 had a hundred dollars worth of improvements. 
 
 Mr. McClure. We could not afford to do that. You could not 
 afford to do it for the purpose of preventing homesteading, but in a 
 big pasture we would endeavor to develop some water as fast as 
 possible to keep our stock from getting poor. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. There was in the last Congress a bill introduced by 
 the Delegate from Arizona, and I believe it was reintroduced in the 
 last Congress by Mr. Fergusson, providing that anywhere in that 
 desert stockmen who put down wells, obtained water, and paid $1.25 
 an acre for the land could obtain a patent for the particular 40-acre 
 tract on which the well was located. The bill never met with any 
 favor in the department, but it would solve the problem of the man 
 obtaining title to the land on which he had spent money for such 
 improvements. Did you ever hear this matter discussed in your 
 national convention ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Yes, sir; but we opposed it on the ground that it 
 might injure the homesteader; that he would take up these watering 
 places and shut the homesteader out. 
 
 Mr. Graham. I would like to ask you this entirely for my own 
 benefit and to get your judgment, and it goes to what I conceive to 
 be the highest and best use of the land, speaking generally : Suppose 
 a tract of 50,000 acres was laid out, and that within the limits of that 
 tract there were, say, 10 sections of land. That would be 6,400, or 
 about a little less than one-tenth of the whole, that was adaptedto 
 the 640-acre homesteads. In your, judgment, what should the policy 
 of the Government be ? Should the Government so handle that land 
 as to lease the 50,000 acres, less the 10 sections for pasturage, and 
 permit homesteading on the 10 sections, or would you have the Gov- 
 ernment give it all to pasturage purposes ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. You are asking as a matter of policy % 
 
 Mr. Graham. Yes; what the Government's policy should be in 
 that regard ? 
 
152 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. McClure. Well, I would rather that they did not lease us the 
 agricultural land. 
 
 Mr. Graham. You mean that it is your judgment that the best 
 policy for the Government to pursue would be to withhold from pas- 
 ture lease the land susceptible to homesteading ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Yes, sir ; because, Mr. Graham, that works out this 
 way: One of the reasons why many of our stockmen favor a lease 
 law is that we have no permanent rights now. A man can not go 
 and live in the "West on less than 4,000 sheep. We feel that 4,000 is 
 the least number that will return a reasonable profit. Say a man is 
 running 8,000 sheep. Under the present system there is a lot of 
 uncertainty connected with it. He is using a public range to-day, 
 and the next day some one else might have it, and he has lost his 
 ground. He does not know this year whether he can run 10,000 
 sheep or 4,000. So when you develop a leasing policy fix it so that 
 we are going to know the land you lease to us will be ours for a 
 term of 10 years. Then we will put our business on the basis which 
 will make the greatest returns for that period of time. 
 
 Mr. Graham. I think you have a right to know where you stand. 
 
 Mr. McClure. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Would you be willing to leave the matter of ex- 
 clusion to the homesteader? Would you be willing to let the home- 
 steader determine whether the particular section was susceptible of 
 homestea-ding, or would you have the exclusion made in advance? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Made by the Government. 
 
 The Chairman. Let me supplement a question right there, which 
 deals with the practical side of this matter. I think your answer 
 would be preferable were it workable, but it was in evidence here . 
 that at 4 cents an acre it would cost about $12,000,000 to do this 
 classification. 
 
 Mr. McClure. I think there was something wrong about that. 
 
 The Chairman. If that is true, there is no use talking about that. 
 Congress would not appropriate $12,000,000 now to do that. Let us 
 get down to the practical phase of it. Supposing a bill were formu- 
 lated that would make the remaining lands that have agricultural 
 possibilities as attractive to the ordinary homeseeker as the Missis- 
 sippi Valley was, the homesteads being divided into 160 acres. Then 
 could there not be a period of time in which it could be sufficiently 
 attractive to the homesteader to let him go and take up the land, so 
 there would be a natural classification attractive enough to bring 
 the homesteaders there ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Maybe from the standpoint of public policy that 
 may seem right ; but, as I have said, suppose we are going to let a 
 man take up three sections of land. He goes out on our range, and 
 he does not expect to use it. He knows at the end of three years he 
 is going to get title of it and these sheep men must buy him out or 
 quit the business. We want to be relieved of those men who are not 
 on the square. 
 
 The Chairman. You made use of a term there that is not a happy 
 one for you or your people, but you ought not to say " our range," 
 or impugn the good faith of the homesteader who is seeking a home, 
 because nothing strikes as high a chord as the man who is trying 
 to get a home. You have doubtless been annoyed by squatters and 
 people not of good faith, but you ought not to indict the whole 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 153 
 
 homeseeking class because you find a man here and there who is 
 going in there simply for the purpose of selling out. 
 
 Mr. McCluee. I have more interest in the homesteader who is 
 seeking a home and going out there to live than I have in the men 
 1 am representing. I would not want anything I have said here 
 to be construed as charging all our homesteaders in the West with 
 any wrongdoing. A great many of them, as I have said, have come 
 there in bad faith, and a great number in good faith, misunderstand- 
 ing conditions under which they had to exist, and, of course, they 
 had to leave there, and we had to buy out. Our land investment is 
 getting enormous. I figure that our expense per sheep is between 
 $15 and $20 a head in land and equipment, and it has come to a place 
 where it is mighty burdensome to carry it. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. You say $15 or $20 a head for sheep ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. What per cent of the settlers or homesteaders, 
 in your judgment, are there for the purpose of selling out as soon 
 as they can get title, and what per cent are there in good faith? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I would say that 75 per cent went there in good 
 faith. 
 
 The Chairman. Then 25 per cent are renegades for speculative 
 purposes ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, of the 75 per cent who start in in good 
 faith, what per cent of those are deluded? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I am going to get personal if I answer that. 
 
 The Chairman. Let us follow it out to the personal side. I have 
 been a homesteader for a dozen years. Let me have your best opin- 
 ion on that. 
 
 Mr. McClure. On the areas that are now being taken up, 50 per 
 cent of that 75 per cent will not make good. I am not saying that 
 to disparage them. 
 
 The Chairman. I understand that. It is a matter of opinion. 
 
 Mr. McClure. It is my judgment. 
 
 The Chairman. I am going to adopt your opinion for the moment. 
 Now, of the 100 per cent who are homesteading, it is your opinion 
 that 25 per cent are not in good faith ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. But are merely trying to force the cattlemen to 
 buy them out. Twenty-five per cent of them have ginger enough to 
 make a success of it ; 50 per cent go with good intent, but from lack 
 of knowledge they are deluded and have to abandon and sell out. 
 
 Mr. McClure. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. For a moment we will adopt that. What per cent 
 of the 50 per cent that have to get away do actually sell out to cattle- 
 men, and what per cent have abandoned and let the land revert ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. What per cent of the 50 per cent sell out to the 
 stockmen ? 
 
 The Chairman. And what per cent abandon the land to the Gov- 
 ernment? . 
 
 Mr. Graham. Only 25 per cent would be able to hold on in the end i 
 
 Mr. McClure. Yes, sir.. That happens in this way : If a man has 
 not made good and this land locator sees that some one else is put 
 on there, he charges them $25 to $100 for locating. 
 
154 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Graham's technical suggestion is correct, but 
 I think we all should keep in mind the first premises of 100 per cent. 
 You say those 50 per cent do sell out to the cattlemen as soon as title 
 is acquired ? 
 
 Mr. MoCluee. I will not say to the cattlemen, but to some interest 
 around there. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. They do not let it revert to the Government ? - 
 
 Mr. McClure. No, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. He says the process of relinquishment is going on, 
 but of this 50 per cent who get a certificate of final proof they do sell 
 out to somebody ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. What per cent sell out to cattlemen and what per 
 cent of this 50 per cent do acquire final proofs at #11 ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. In some sections of the country, in most sections, 
 the very great bulk go to cattle or sheep men. 
 
 The Chairman. Would you say 40 per cent? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I would not want to say that. 
 
 The Chairman. You say the great bulk of them ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Granted that everything you said is true, is not 
 the Government better off and the county better off and the State 
 better off to have those people on a taxable area, bearing a part of 
 their burden, than to leave them without any regulation or bearing 
 any burden of local self-government? 
 
 Mr. McClure. If that were true 
 
 The Chairman (interposing). I adopted your truths. 
 
 Mr. McClure. If that is true it would be the better policy to sell 
 the land. 
 
 The Chairman. From your own statement we have 25 per cent of 
 good-faith homesteaders. Also that 25 per cent were speculators, 
 whom we all condemn, and 50 per oent started in good faith but fell 
 by the wayside. Do you know that is a much larger per cent of those 
 who succeed than you would find in the mercantile business? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Your per cent is based on the number of fellows 
 who hung on. 
 
 The Chairman. Let us not get away from your premises. I am 
 taking your per cent. Under your statement 25 per cent of them 
 pursued the matter to the final determination and had succeeded. 
 Under your statement 25 per cent are in bad faith and deserve the 
 ■condemnation of everybody. Under your statement of facts 50 per 
 cent started out in good faith and for one cause or another fell by the 
 wayside and are forced to sell out later to the cattlemen or landed 
 interests. Even so, the land has taken its place on the tax roll and 
 the community is ahead. 
 
 Mr. McClure. I do not know about that. Kemember, during the 
 time that is going on we have disturbing of existing conditions out 
 there. 
 
 The Chairman. This is the disturbing of conditions. 
 
 Mr. McClure. While that is going on we have a man who has been 
 running 5,000 sheep, can not run to 2,000, but in the 10 years he can 
 run 10,000 again. In the meantime we have reduced our meat pro- 
 duction. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 155 
 
 The Chairman. You think we should all be evangelized rather 
 than place no ban on the sheep man. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. What would you suggest in the way of an amend- 
 ment to the homestead law that would improve the good faith of 
 the homesteaders? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I do not know that any amendment could be made 
 in regard to that. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. You say that from your own knowledge you would 
 be able to distinguish the homesteaders who are acting in good faith 
 from those who are not, but what governmental way is there to tell 
 them apart ? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. The way we know of them is that they happen to 
 come and get in some place where it is absolutely necessary to buy 
 them out or go out of business. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Would it not be a good place for him at the same 
 time to make his home? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. It would be a good place to sell out. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Would it not be a good place to stay ? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. Not any better than other places. 
 
 Mr. Raker. If a man gets a good -homestead, and if he has his 
 sheep at his back door it is a very good thing for him. 
 
 Mr. McCluee. We are not interfering with homesteading. The 
 homesteader can not live without us, because he feeds his sheep on 
 what we raise. Anything he produces comes to us. If he raises hay 
 we buy it, and if grain we buy it; and during the time he is getting 
 title to his land the very great majority of them are working for the 
 cattlemen out there at $50 to $65 a month and paying his board. 
 
 The Chairman. I wish to take up the question where Mr. Graham 
 left it. Your statement is the first I have heard of any agreement 
 between the two interests, the cattlemen and homesteader, working 
 together. Your statement is that you think one is necessary to the 
 other. In other words, the homesteader in this country could not 
 get along without you people, and, in turn, you need the homesteader 
 to raise stuff to feed your cattle during the winter. 
 
 Mr. McClttre. I would not say that, because if we do not get it 
 from him we buy it somewhere else. We are supporting the irriga- 
 tion projects in the West. Our sheep are eating 4,000,000 pounds of 
 alfalfa a day. The small fellows can not supply that. Those farm- 
 ers have not got the markets. The only market is our live stock I 
 have a little piece of land under the Government irrigation project 
 that I am losing money on. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. You say they have -no other market? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. Those farmers ? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Yes. 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. There is no one else to sell to. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Do not the mining operations furnish 95 per cent 
 of the purchases made of these farmers ? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. The miner does not buy any hay. 
 
 Mr. Raker. What does he do with those six and eight horse teams ? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. What do six and eight horse teams amount to com- 
 pared to 3,000,000 sheep in a State ? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. If a man has enough land to have 30 or 40 head of 
 cattle or a couple hundred or 300 sheep, does he not raise the stuff 
 that is necessary to feed them in the winter and fatten them for the 
 
156 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 market himself ? Is he limited to selling it? Is that the only dis- 
 position he can make of it if he has enough land ? Can not he use it 
 himself, and ship beeves as well as you can ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. If he has enough beeves to make a living on ; but he 
 can not raise that on these grazing lands. ; 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. What do you know about New Mexico ? You say 
 you have been in the West 14 years? 
 Mr. McClure. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. How many years in New Mexico ? 
 Mr. McCltjre. I never lived there. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. How much do you know of the country in New 
 Mexico ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I have been through there. 
 Mr. Fergusson. On the trains? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Yes, sir; and I have driven some little around 
 Albuquerque. We have a number of members of our association in 
 New Mexico, 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. And you correctly quoted them in saying these 
 men were opposed to a leasing bill ? In the detailed statement you 
 made about the number of sheep or cattle raised on a section of fi40 
 acres, all of that is with reference to the section of the country that 
 you represent, or are personally acquainted with ? Is that true ? 
 Mr. McClure. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Do you mean to apply it to New Mexico ? 
 Mr. McClure. Is there any gentleman here from New Mexico? 
 Mr. Fergusson. I am here from New Mexico. 
 Mr. McClure. I want to get a stock man who was running stock 
 on a range there. I know that New Mexico ranges do not carry as 
 much live stock as the northern ranges. The grass is not as good. 
 Mr. Fergusson. How about the eastern part? 
 Mr. McClure. You have a little land down near the Panhandle 
 of Texas. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. How much experience have you had personally 
 that would enable you to speak of the character of the land in the 
 eastern part of New Mexico, next to the Panhandle of Texas? 
 Mr. McClure. I have never lived there. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I want to bring it out that this detailed statement 
 you are making might apply to land where you are acquainted, but 
 not necessarily to New Mexico. 
 
 Mr. McClure. I explained to the committee I am not acquainted 
 with New Mexico. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Of these 25 per cent of the homesteaders that you 
 say come out there to take up homesteads not in good faith, or at 
 least with the intention of getting title and turning it over to some 
 one, what per cent of the 25 per cent, if any at all, come out there 
 for that purpose to get the somestead and then turn it over at the 
 instigation of cattle or sheep men? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I do.not know. I do not mean to say there has not 
 been some of that done, but very little, because we have already too 
 much land investment. I know of a ranch in Oregon where the 
 owner has $25 invested in improvements for every sheep he owns. 
 He is paying 10 per cent interest. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GKAZING LANDS. 157 
 
 Mr. Hayden. The principal advantage of the lease law is that you 
 would 'be able to obtain the use of the land without investing money 
 in the property itself. 
 
 Mr. McCluke. Obtain the use of the land for rental, which would 
 be below the cost and interest as present conditions are. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. It would not require so much capital to go into the 
 stock business. 
 
 Mr. McClttre. "We have it in mind that the fellow with 1,000 
 sheep is a big man, He can not stick. I know the sheep industry 
 for years. There is no place in the West where I would undertake 
 to make a living and profit with less than 4,000 sheep. That looks 
 big; it is big, and he would have to have a land investment of from 
 $20,000 to $40,000. He has to have some capital in order to go in the 
 business and stay in it. 
 
 Mr. Brown. Under the present workings of things, the stockman 
 is obliged to buy about half of the land that is entered by these 
 various entrymen who do not stay. If you passed a law requiring 
 the entry of 640 acres, would the same ratio apply ? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. The ratio would increase. As a large stockman 
 said to me, and he is a very distinguished man in our country — he 
 said : " I am in favor of a big homestead bill." He said, " I want 
 the Mondell bill, because I can buy up this land better and can have 
 control of it. 
 
 Mr. Brown. Does that involve the policy that the homesteader 
 does not homestead, but sells half of it? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. I think it involves that question of your coming out 
 there and seeing what we have, and of classifying our land and 
 protecting the homesteader against the impositions of felloWs who 
 are not on the square. 
 
 (At 12 o'clock noon the committee took a recess until -2 o'clock 
 p. m.) 
 
 AFTER RECESS. 
 
 The committee reconvened at 2 o'clock p. m. 
 
 Present: Representatives Raker. Fergusson, Brown, Church, Len- 
 root, La Follette, Kent, Sinnott, Johnson. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. I desire to offer a letter from Mr. O. M. Plummer, 
 secretary and treasurer of the Portland Union Stock Yards Co., re- 
 lative to the Kent bill. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you desire to have it incorporated in the 
 record ? 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Unless there is objection, it is so ordered. The 
 Chair hears no objection. 
 
 Portland Union Stock Yards Co., 
 North Portland, Oreg., Feoruanj 27. 191 i, 
 Hon. Nicholas J. Sinnott, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D'. G. 
 Dear Sir : As a member of the executive committee, also the resolution 
 committee of the American National Live Stock Association, which met in 
 conve v, tion in Denver e-rly in "Janunry, I wish to urge upon you the importance 
 of your best support for the Kent bill, now before your body. 
 
 The meeting in Denver was a very representative one, thousands of stockmen 
 from all over the United States being in attendance, and the sentiment was 
 
158 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 very unanimously in favor of the Kent bill. The impression was general that 
 it was perfectly fair to both the large and small stockmen. A splendid feeling 
 now exists between the people of the forestry and range service and the live- 
 stock people, and know that this law could be administered in a manner entirely 
 satisfactory to everybody. , 
 
 Yours, very sincerely, 
 
 O. M. Pltjmmee, Secretary. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. I do not want this letter to be considered as rep- 
 resenting my views one way or the other. My mind is open on this 
 bill. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Mr. McClure, Mr. Raker wants to ask you some ques- 
 tions. 
 
 ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF MR. S. W. M'CIURE. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Mr. McClure, in the report of the Secretary or Com- 
 missioner of the General Land Office for 1911, 1 find that in the State 
 of Utah there were 2,110 entries. Now, your contention is that one- 
 fourth of those were people who filed in bad faith ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I do not know how bad the faith was. They filed 
 for the purpose of selling out to stockmen. Under the law, as I 
 understand it, nothing prohibits them doing that providing they 
 have not made arrangements previous to such filing covering such 
 sale. 
 
 Mr. Raker. We will go back to Utah, and I find that in the State 
 of Utah there are three land offices. 
 
 Mr. McClure. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Salt Lake City, Vernal, and railroad. There are 
 two land offices, Salt Lake City and Vernal. Now, how many of 
 those parties of that kind were there that filed in the Salt Lake 
 City office? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I would not undertake to say in that one office. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I want to get something concrete on this matter. 
 
 Mr. McClure. You have the record there, Judge. That will 
 probably show. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I am using the number 2,110 that filed in 1911 in 
 Utah. Now, the 25 per cent of that number just designates these 
 parties that filed in Utah that filed in bad faith to start with. 
 
 Mr. McClure. "Well, they have filed for the primary purpose of 
 selling their right to stockmen. You know lots of people have sold 
 there without having filed at all, really. They have filed, but that 
 was about all they have done. 
 
 Mr. Raker. From where are these people? From what part of 
 Utah? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I would say from all over the State and from 
 outside the State — from all over the United States. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Just name a few of these men. s 
 
 Mr. McClure. I would not care to specify. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I want you to. I am going to insist, if necessary, that 
 he give the names of some of these parties. 
 
 Mr. McClure. I can not give you any of the names. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Can you name a single man now of the 25 per cent! 
 I want to confine you to that first. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 159 
 
 Mr. McClure. I am not making a charge against any man, to be 
 investigated by the Land Department. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You made a statement this morning and I want it to 
 go in the record, the name of a single person who ifiled in the Salt 
 Lake City land office in 1911 that filed with the purpose of selling 
 out to some cattle or sheep man before he even made final proof. 
 
 Mr. McClure. Probably he could not sell out before he made final 
 proof. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Name the man. 
 
 Mr. McClure. I can not do that. 
 
 Mr. Raker. It is a fact you can not do it ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I am not willing to attempt to. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I should like to know if this is a criminal court 
 or a body to investigate the live-stock conditions in the West. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Statements have been made wholesale in the record, 
 and this legislative committee is entitled to know from this man who 
 made the statement that 25 per cent of those men were men who filed 
 with intent never to prove up or do anything else. 
 
 Mr. McClure. I did not say they did not intend to prove up. 
 Nothing of the kind. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I challenge the gentleman to name a single one. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I shall ask him that, and I naturally go into my 
 State, where I know these men personally. 
 
 Mr. McClure. I have asked this committee to appoint a delega- 
 tion of their own members to come out and see whether I am telling 
 the truth or not. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I am not assuming now, and I do not want you to 
 think for an instant that I am assuming, that you are not telling the 
 truth, but I do want to assume that you do not know what you are 
 talking about. 
 
 Mr. McClure. Well, you may assume that, but it will be wrong. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Convince me, then, that I am wrong. 
 
 Mr. McClure. The mere naming of a few names would not mean 
 anything. 
 
 Mr. Raker. But it would mean lots to me. Would your same an- 
 swers apply to the Vernal office? 
 
 Mr. McClure. You might just as well save your time along that 
 line. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Let us take the Vernal office; you do not know the 
 number that filed there — this 25 per cent? 
 
 Mr. McClure. You can cover the whole West by that statement. 
 
 Mr. Raker. The fact of the matter is, then, that statement was 
 made by you just as a wholesale statement, without any specific or 
 definite parties in mind at all ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. With a general knowledge of the facts as they ob- 
 tain in the West. 
 
 Mr. Raker. From what locality does this obtain? Name some 
 locality. 
 
 Mr. McClure. The States I was speaking about. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Does it obtain in California in any place? 
 
 Mr. McClure.. I was not including California at any time. I am 
 not acquainted with it, but I was acquainted with the States of which 
 ' I spoke. 
 
160 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Eakee. What States does this percentage proposition apply 
 to? Name the States. 
 
 Mr. McCluee. I would say all the range States out there, more 
 particularly Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. 
 
 Mr. Eakee. All right. I have my friends living in Oregon, right 
 across the line; I have been there and practiced law in the land office, 
 and they are my neighbors. Let us go to Lakeview, Oreg. Just name 
 one man in the Lakeview land district that you say filed on his home- 
 stead with the purpose of having to sell out his rights to some stock- 
 man. 
 
 Mr. McCluee. I shall not attempt that. 
 
 Mr. Eakee. The truth of the matter is, you do not know. Is that 
 not right? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. No; it is not the truth. 
 
 Mr. Eakee. What? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. No. I have endeavored to tell you gentlemen the 
 truth, but I do not think I came down here for the purpose of being 
 bullyragged. I was invited down here by the committee. 
 
 Mr. Eakee. You may call that bullyragging, but you made the 
 statement here this morning in regard to the general character of 
 the people of the West, and I am giving you now an opportunity to 
 name one single locality or one single man that filed originally for 
 the purpose of selling out his filing to a stockman. 
 
 Mr. McCluee. I shall not attempt to do it, Judge, in any way 
 whatever. I have made the statement, and I believe it is true. 
 
 Mr. Eaker. Do you refuse to do it, or refuse to do it because you 
 do not know the facts? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. I certainly could not give these people's names, all 
 of them, out there. 
 
 Mr. Eakee. Can you give any of them? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. I would not attempt to. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. I object to this. 
 
 Mr. Eakee. Make your objection. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. I must object. I think we have spent as much 
 time as the committee ought to spend on this particular proposition. 
 The gentleman who came here as a witness has made a statement. If 
 Judge Eaker differs with it, very well. Why take up the time of 
 the committee arguing it with him? 
 
 The Chairman. The objection is sustained. We have no power to 
 force the witness to answer. 
 
 Do you desire to ask a question, Mr. Johnson? 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Yes; when Judge Eaker is through, if he is through 
 now. I do not want to break in. 
 
 The Chairman. Are you through, Judge Eaker? 
 
 Mr. Johnson. If he desires, and by permission of the Chair, I 
 will ask it now. 
 
 The Chairman. You may proceed. 
 
 Mr. Johnson.. Doctor, you say you do not care to mention any 
 names. I want to ask you this question: Are you able to mention 
 any names if you felt so disposed? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. I do not care to answer that, Mr. Johnson. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Are you able to designate any particular circum- 
 stance, without mentioning names, where this thing occurred that 
 you speak of ? 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 161 
 
 Mr. McClure. I have said that it occurs all over the range country. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. That is too general a statement for me to grasp. 
 Do you know any particular circumstance in the State of Utah 
 where that particular state of facts existed ? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. I do not care to make any specific charges against 
 uny individual there. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. You have made a general statement, and do you 
 desire to reiterate that general statement that 25 per cent of the 
 homestead entries that are made fraudulently? 
 
 Mr. McClure. No; I never said fraudulently; I said they were 
 made with the intention to sell after title was acquired — to sell out 
 to the stockmen. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Do you not understand, sir, that under the laws of 
 the United States that an applicant that will make an affidavit that 
 it is not the intention to sell or dispose of it, that it is fraudulent 
 if he 
 
 Mr. McCluee (interposing). My understanding is that he makes 
 an affidavit that he has not made previous arrangements for sale or 
 disposition. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. You do not understand, then, the law to be that he 
 makes it for his own use and benefit and not for the' purpose of dis- 
 posing of it? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. Well, it is for his own benefit if he sells it. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. If he has to make such an affidavit as that when 
 making the filing, then he makes the filing with a view of violating 
 that, and you would call that fraudulent, would you not? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. Yes ; but you have qualified it so that it is entirely 
 without the law, as I understand the law. The law does not require 
 that this man shall plant it in wheat or oats or something of that 
 kind. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I am not talking about his planting it in wheat 
 or oats. 
 
 Mr. McClure. No; but you are talking about what is the same 
 thing — the final disposition he is to make of the land. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I am talking about the method of filing on home- 
 stead entry, that he has to make a certain affidavit before his filing 
 can be received. 
 
 Mr. McCluee. I would like to have the specific affidavit that he is 
 required to make inserted in the record here. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. That is a matter of public statute. I do not sup- 
 pose it is necessary for me to get it and insert it in the record. 
 
 Mr. McClure. Then these committeemen may understand the 
 nature of the affidavit. It seems to me it would be well to know 
 what it is. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Do you know what it is? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Then it is unnecessary -for me to furnish you any 
 information on that subject. If you know what the affidavit is, you 
 know he has to make such an affidavit? 
 
 Mr. McClure. He has to make an affidavit to the effect that he 
 has not made arrangements for the final disposition of his land. 
 The affidavit does not presuppose anything beyond the period of his 
 occupancy of the land previous to title. 
 35074— pt 1—14 11 
 
162 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. That is your interpretation of the affidavit, is it? 
 
 Mr. McCltjke. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. The affidavit contains the further language that it 
 is made — a homestead entry is made for his own use and benefit and 
 not directly or indirectly for the use or benefit of any other person. 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. I think so. That is exactly what it is made for. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Then a filing on a piece of land under those circum- 
 stances in the manner that you have indicated would be a fraudulent 
 filing? 
 
 Mr. McCltjke. Absolutely not, for it is for his own benefit when 
 he is filing for the purpose of disposing of it. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Is that your construction of it? 
 
 Mr. McCltjke. I do not know that any other construction can be 
 placed upon it. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I say, that is your construction, is it? 
 
 Mr. McCltjke. Absolutely ; and I think it is the construction that 
 is held in the land offices. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I have not asked you about that. We have methods 
 of determining that question. 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. I am willing to admit, Mr. Johnson, that if a man 
 previous to filing has made arrangements, or has a contract with 
 any party for the disposition of those lands, then it becomes fraudu- 
 lent, but he has not done that. Consequently, it is not a fraudulent 
 act, and there is no way to determine that it is a fraudulent entry. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. By what methods do you determine it, then? 
 
 Mr. McCltjke. By the fact that the fellow, as soon as he gets his 
 title, is willing to sell out. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Then you determine it is fraudulent because he does 
 that? 
 
 Mr. McCltjke. I have not said it was fraudulent. I have said 
 they were made for the purpose of selling the land. I have not said 
 it was fraudulent. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. You assert here, then, that to file upon a piece of 
 land with the intention of disposing of it to some stockman is not 
 fraudulent? That is your statement, is it? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. I said, they were doing that right along. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I say, that is your interpretation of fraudulent? 
 
 Mr. McCltjke. I think under the law it is not fraudulent, because 
 there is no restriction against it. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Just one further question. In the two land offices, 
 in the State of Utah can you point to a single incident where entries ' 
 have been made in the manner that you have described of the 25 per 
 cent entries ? 
 
 Mr. McCltjke. Mr. Chairman, I have said time and again 
 
 Mr. Fekgtjsson. I object. That is the same question Mr. Raker 
 asked. 
 
 The Chairman. Let him give such answer as he wishes. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Judge Raker asked him names. Now I ask him 
 for a single circumstances, without any names — a single circumstance 
 in the whole State. If you can give me one, I wish you would do so. 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. How definite do you desire? 
 
 Mr. Johnson. As definite as you can make it. 
 Mr. McCltjre. That includes the man's name and the fellow who 
 bought the land? 
 
' DISPOSITION OP GBAZING LANDS. 163 
 
 Mr. Johnson, if you desire to give the names we shall be very 
 glad to have them ; but if you do not, you may omit them. 
 
 Mr. McCluee. I have an illustration where a man filed on a home- 
 stead claim, located it so that a lot of bands of sheep had to cross it, 
 and then he held those sheepmen up for $600 in one year absolutely. 
 I have another instance where a man located a homestead in such 
 a place that all the sheep going to a certain district had to cross that, 
 and 80 bands of sheep crossed there, and he charged them $5 apiece 
 for the 80 bands of sheep. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Your contention is that the homestead is in the way 
 of the sheepmen ? 
 
 Mr. McCiiTJBE. Not in the way. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. That he will not allow them to drive over him ? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Why did the sheepmen submit to this so-called ex- 
 tortion if it was not right ? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. Because they could not get to where they wanted 
 to go without crossing this particular tract of land. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Ana he was in possession of it? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. Yes • he had been using it for probably 20 years. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Did he sell out to them finally? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. He has got a tolerably fair income without selling 
 out. That is a pretty fair piece of property. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I asked you if he finally sold out to them ? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. Why should he sell out if he can hold these fellows 
 up, year after year? 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Did he sell out? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. No; he has not sold out. He will play the same 
 thing next year. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. You are getting value received right along ? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. No ; we are getting absolutely no value. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Why do you pay it? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. Because we can not get to the forests or where we 
 are going without paying. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. If you could drive him out of that section, then, he 
 would not be in your way ? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. The question is, whether Congress ought to impose 
 him there. 
 
 Mr. Rakee. The policy of the Forest Service upon the forest re- 
 serves you are satisfied with now, are you ? 
 
 Mr. McCluee. Well, our small sheepmen are absolutely satisfied 
 with the way the Forest Service is being handled; and while many 
 of our large sheepmen have complained bitterly that the reductions 
 that have been made to the forest has handled the forests in the inter- 
 ests and to the profit — the welfare — of the small user of the forest, 
 there are hundreds of men — I probably might say thousands — who 
 are now using the forest for live stock that previously did not use 
 them because they could not compete with the large interests. I 
 think the Forest Service is administered in the interest of the general 
 welfare of the whole country out there, and particularly in the inter- 
 est of the smaller stockmen, who, under conditions which previously 
 existed, could not successfully compete. 
 
 Mr. Rakee. Then you are in favor of the method of ranging the 
 stock upon the forest reserves without fences? 
 
164 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. McClure. Absolutely. 
 
 Mr. Raker. So far as the leasing bill is concerned, with reference 
 to the rest of the public domain, would you be in favor of a leasing 
 system that the regulations would be the same as are now in vogue 
 upon the forest-reserve lands? 
 
 Mr. McClure. That is what, if Congress passes a leasing law, we 
 would want the same regulations and administered by the same de- 
 partment it is now administered by. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That would exclude entirely the fencing proposition? 
 
 Mr. McClure. The sheepmen, Judge, have been bitterly opposed 
 to anything which was going to impose fences upon them, because 
 you know our sheep must not be fenced; there is not any time of the 
 year you can turn sheep into pastures, and as long as you herd them 
 the fence is an additional expense; it would cost us about $400 a 
 section to fence that land, and that additional expense we could not 
 stand. 
 
 Mr. Raker. It was suggested that if there be a method of fencing 
 you would not have to herd. I am asking your view. I know some- 
 thing about sheepmen. 
 
 Mr. McClure. With the exception of a little part of the northern 
 part of California, in the whole Northwest outside of that, there is 
 no land upon which sheepmen would ever be able to run sheep with- 
 out herding them. 
 
 Mr. Raker. The idea then that the leasing bill would be such that 
 a man could fence larger tracts and therefore save his expenses from 
 herding sheep would not appeal, as far as sheepmen are concerned ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. No ; the sheepmen, under the sheep law, would not 
 fence. If they were made to fence they would have to quit business. 
 Under the law, I understand we would not be required to fence. Our 
 sheep land is not fenced ; even a great deal of that which is held in 
 private hands is not fenced, because on account of storms and preda- 
 tory wild animals we never could turn out sheep loose in a pasture 
 with safety. It has been suggested that we could, perhaps, for 
 three or four months in the summer, but in Idaho, Montana, and 
 Wyoming we are not safe from blizzards until, say, the 2Jst of May, 
 then they begin the latter part of October. That is, in the summer 
 season we would be safe on account of blizzards, but in that season 
 there is no grazing on the domain, so we have got to go to the na- 
 tional forests with our sheep, where they are all under herd. We 
 have no grazing during that good season when we could turn the 
 sheep out on the land. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. In that connection, why is not the Australian system 
 advisable ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. The situation is so different. In Australia they 
 lease to a man. They have got some enormous leases there. One is 
 1,200,000 acres, at an extremely low rental. Snow is unknown in 
 Australia; freezing weather is generally unknown. They have no 
 predatory wild animals except a dog, which has become wild in the 
 last hundred years or so, known as the dingo, consequently a man 
 there turns his sheep into the pasture with perfect safety. There are 
 -no storms to contend with. The dingo is a heavy, inactive animal 
 that you can very readily fence out, and in Australia there would 
 be no excuse for herding sheep whatever. In this country we have 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 165 
 
 the storms at almost any season of the year, and we would lose 
 probably— we might in a day lose every sheep we had if one of those 
 storms would hit us. Then the matter of predatory wild animals 
 comes up. Our coyote is extremely more active than the dingo of 
 Australia, and it would probably be impossible to successfully fence 
 him out so the sheepmen would feel any degree of safety. We have 
 had some experience in the West, in the Forest Service, where they 
 have fenced against the coyote, but the owner of those lands tells 
 me that he was mighty uneasy during all the time his sheep were in 
 there. The Forest Service did a mighty fine work, very nicely 
 demonstrated, that probably in some localities there might be fencing 
 done on a small scale, but we never could apply it to our range 
 country, so the sheepmen would— so far as that feature is concerned, 
 the sheepmen would never ask to fenfie land. 
 
 Mr. Raker. It is your understanding he is not desirous of having 
 any land fenced at all? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. Oh. no ; he would not want to be held, because he 
 can not stand the expense. It is very expensive. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Taking the fencing for cattle and horses 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. Well, I think that cattle ranges could be fenced 
 with advantage, because cattle are something that you can not herd ; 
 they do not do well under herd. In the West to-day %e have a lot of 
 land that cattle can not use, because it is in little strips here and there, 
 and the homesteader is in there with his dogs and chasing them 
 around, and cattle can not do well there. Now, it might be that that 
 land could be leased to the cattleman, so he could handle his cattle 
 to. much better advantage. Cattle will do better in pasture than on 
 the open range under present conditions. 
 
 Mr. Raker. If a leasing bill was provided for and permitted to 
 fence — the cattlemen and the horsemen, permitted to fence — your 
 theory and idea is that they should have that inclosure so that it 
 would not be interrupted ? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. I am not speaking for the cattlemen now, Judge. If 
 I was a cattleman myself — the woolgrowers take this position; that 
 is, you have decided to lease the lands that we do not want 
 
 Mr. Raker. I do not think you quite understand my question. I 
 did not want to enter into a- discussion, I just wanted your idea as to 
 fencing. 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. I rather think the cattleman should have a right to 
 fence his land, provided he wants to. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Without interruption, having it once fenced ? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. Personally, that is the way I feel about it. 
 
 Mr. Raker. From your experience with a large pasture inclosure, 
 to maintain and stock it, and keep it in order and condition, it would 
 be practically necessary to keep it so that he could maintain the in- 
 closure at his will ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. In some sections it would. In other sections where 
 there were great areas of range land the cattle would not be interfered 
 with, and the fence would not be necessary. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Of course, I was confining myself to the inclosed pas- 
 tures. I am assuming now the question of fencing a tract of land of, 
 say, 50,000 acres. A man has got his lease for 50,000 acres. Now, 
 would it be advisable for him to have it so anyone could go in and out 
 
166 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 of that inclosure at will, or should he have the use of the inclosure 
 free of interruption ? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. Qualifying by statement by the statement that I 
 have originally made,, that no land should be leased except grazing 
 land, I should certainly insist that he be permitted to enjoy his 
 lands during the tenure of his lease without interruption. The 
 great pastures that we fenced some years ago, Judge, I have par- 
 ticular reference to South Dakota, the homesteaders and settlers 
 went inside their fences and took up land and made it rather em- 
 barrassing for stock that was running in there. 
 
 Mr. Baker. That would be the condition at all times, whether it 
 was 5,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 acres, if men were permitted to go 
 in and occupy the land inside, it would be detrimental to the man 
 who had it inclosed, would it not ? 
 
 Mr. McCluhe. I would think so. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Would it not be serious? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. No ; I do not think it would be serious, because we 
 are just changing the condition there slightly 
 
 Mr. Raker (interposing). I am asking as to any inclosure. I do 
 not care where it is located. 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. I will answer you frankly, if you lease us land we 
 want to be protected. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Right there I think you made an exception 
 against mining operations? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. Yes, sir. We have no objection to any mining op- 
 erations which might be carried on. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. In your opinion would it be practicable or advisable 
 to lease lands, take, for instance, a township which contains from 
 four to eight homestead entries, to lease the balance of that land to 
 stock men? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. Oh, yes ; I would see no objection to that. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. The homesteaders would be interspersed throughout 
 the lease? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. He is already there and has his rights, and he 
 would have some rights in the leased pasture, and we would want 
 his rights protected. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Do you think he could get along in harmony with 
 the stock men ? 
 
 Mr. McCltjre. They are just looking for that kind of places now, 
 Mr. Sinnott. You take the case of the Medazora Cattle Co., of 
 South Dakota — possibly somebody else can tell more about them 
 than I. They put up some fencing — I guess it was illegal, was it 
 not? Now, they had a kind of lease, but anyhow as soon as they 
 got their fences up the small stock men and homesteaders came 
 within the fences and took up thousands and thousands of acres, as 
 they wanted to have the benefits that accrued from running cattle 
 in fenced pastures, and I think that that finally was the compelling 
 factor in those people giving up their lease. 
 
 Mr. Stnnott. Did I understand you to say before lunch that the 
 leases should be confined to grazing lands? 
 
 Mr. McClttre. I think so, because otherwise I do not see how you 
 are going to give us any assurance that you have leased us anything. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. In the case that I have stated there necessarily 
 would be agricultural lands scattered throughout the leased premises? 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 167 
 
 Mr. McClure. Yes; they should be subject to any entry that might 
 be desired, but the grazing lands should not be. 
 
 Mr. Church. Mr. Chairman, there is just one point I should like 
 to bring out by a few questions. Of course, the way the record 
 stands at present, Dr. McClure has given our western country a 
 pretty hard sideswipe, and I want to ask him a few questions based on 
 that. For instance, that only 25 per cent of the people that took up 
 Government lands stayed with their land ; that 50 per cent of them 
 sold out as soon as they had the first opportunity; and that 25 per 
 cent of them simply located for the purpose of working a hardship 
 on somebody else. I do not know what questions were asked. I 
 came in a little late. If I happen to ask any questions which have 
 been ruled upon, of course, they will be withdrawn. Mr. McClure, 
 how many homestead locations do you have definite knowledge of, 
 located in the State of California ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I would not attempt to say. They have the record 
 here showing exactly what it is. 
 
 Mr. Church. I wanted to get from you just what you know. 
 How many do you know of your own knowledge ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Mr. .Church, I have explained that I was not relat- 
 ing to California. I have taken the other States. 
 
 Mr. Church. Then this general statement you made did not apply 
 to California? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I want it to apply to general conditions prevail- 
 ing in range States and on lands similar, probably, to some of the 
 lands in California. 
 
 Mr. Church. Then if you wish it to apply to California I want to 
 inquire into the basis of your knowledge. How many homestead 
 locations do you know of of your personal knowledge in the State 
 of California? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I would not attempt to say. 
 
 Mr. Church. How many, then, in the State of California do you 
 know of who have located homesteads and stayed with it, to be ap- 
 plied to this 25 per cent ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. That is just the same thing we discussed here a 
 moment ago. It has all been gone over and I have explained my 
 position exactly. 
 
 Mr. Eaker. I think he ought to be requested to answer or to 
 refuse to answer one of the two. 
 
 Mr. Church. No one knows better than the chairman that I want 
 to be absolutely in harmony with the chairman and this committee, 
 but the gentleman has made statements here which have been re- 
 peated several times in regard to public lands of the West. These 
 statements will go out and be read all over this country, and I do 
 not want it to go unchallenged that there are only 25 per cent of the 
 people who located on Government lands in the West who stuck, or 
 that the land is not of sufficient value to justify them staying with it. 
 In order to break down that I want the privilege of asking some 
 questions and having them answered as to what knowledge this 
 gentleman has upon which he bases this broad statement. If he has 
 knowledge, very well and good. If he has not, I think it ought to 
 be known. 
 
168 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 The Chairman. If the witness can and is willing to answer he 
 may, and if he can not, or refuses to answer, the Chair has no power 
 to make him answer. 
 
 Mr. Church. I realize that. 
 
 The Chairman. The witness is not even sworn. He is merely in- 
 vited here to come and give such testimony as he has and is willing 
 to give, and when he is no longer willing and has no further testi- 
 mony to give we are through with him, and any other witness may 
 follow him. 
 
 Mr. Church. I have no disposition to argue with the witness, 
 only I should like to get a few direct answers to direct questions on 
 that subject. 
 
 The Chairman. You may proceed. Some of this has been gone 
 over somewhat, but go right ahead and see what you can develop. 
 
 Mr. Church. How many 
 
 Mr. McClure (interposing). Mr. Church, just let me make a 
 statement now relative to my statement. You have not stated my 
 statement just exactly as it was. 
 
 Mr. Church. I am sorry. I intended to do so. 
 
 Mr. McClure. Of course your statement covers the broad ground 
 from the beginning. I am not complaining against the old home- 
 stead entries, which have grown up into prosperous farms. I am 
 confining my remarks to the grazing areas. 
 
 Mr. Church. All right. I will confine my questions to the graz- 
 ing areas. 
 
 Mr. McClure. I said within the last year. 
 
 Mr. Church. As to the grazing areas in the State of California, 
 how many homestead abandonments, I will ask you, do you have per- 
 sonal knowledge of? 
 
 Mr. McClure. No one would know that. 
 
 Mr. Church. Do you have personal knowledge of five? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I am unwilling to answer that. 
 
 Mr. Church. All right, then I will not pursue that. The suppo- 
 sition is you do not know of any. Then I will ask you the same ques- 
 tion in regard to Oregon. How many persons in the grazing area; 
 how many homestead abandonments do you have personal knowl- 
 edge of? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Oh, quite a number. 
 
 Mr. Church. How many? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I will not attempt to say. 
 
 Mr. Church. As many as three? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Church. What are they? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I shall not attempt to say. 
 
 Mr. Kent. I resent the final remark Mr. Church makes in each 
 case when the witness refuses to state definitely. He then puts in 
 the final remark that the witness does not know. That is unfair to 
 go in the record that way, and I object to it. If he wants to ask 
 questions, let him ask questions but not to put an interpretation 
 upon the witness's answers. 
 
 Mr. Church. All right, Mr. Kent. I will try to be agreeable in 
 this ; I have no disposition to be otherwise. 
 
 Now, in the State of Oregon, in the grazing regions, how many 
 homestead abandonments do you have personal Imowledge of ? 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 169 
 
 Mr. McClure. As I say, you can not expect me to know all of 
 them. 
 
 Mr. Church. No. You have not spoken of Washington. 
 
 Mr. McClure. A lot of them ; a very great number. 
 
 Mr. Church. As- many as five? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I would say many times five. 
 
 Mr. Church. You are willing then to make a statement as to 
 how many in the State of Washington ? 
 
 Mr. McClure.. Well, Washington is practically out of this. It 
 is not a grazing State. 
 
 Mr. Church. Your general remarks you did not care to have 
 apply to Washington? 
 
 Mr McClure. Washington is a farming State ; there is very little 
 grazing in Washington outside of the national parks. 
 
 Mr. Church. We will go into a grazing State, then, Montana. 
 How many abandonments have you personal knowledge of, home- 
 stead abandonments, in the grazing regions in the State of Montana ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I do not know. I know I bought 6,210 acres up 
 there and tried to keep 12 horses on it, and could not do it, and that 
 is up there yet. 
 
 Mr. Church. If you think that is an answer to my question, very 
 well. 
 
 Mr. McClure. That is just an illustration. 
 
 Mr. Church. The State of , Idaho, then. I will ask you the same 
 question. Can you answer that? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Yes; a great number of them. 
 
 Mr. Church. How many? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I shall not attempt to say. 
 
 Mr. Church. As many as five? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I would think more. 
 
 Mr. Church. The same question as to the State of Utah? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I would think the answer applies generally. 
 
 Mr. Church. About how many can vou name in the State of 
 Utah? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I would not attempt to say how many. 
 
 Mr. Church. In the State of New Mexico? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I would not attempt to say how many. 
 
 Mr. Church. In the State of New Mexico ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I have not so much information on New Mexico 
 as to that feature of it. I am willing to apply that remark to 
 Wyoming. 
 
 Mr. Church. Do you think that in all the West that you have 
 personal knowledge of 25 homestead abandoments? 
 
 Mr. McClure. By abandonments, I understand you to mean peo- 
 ple who have gone on the land for the purpose of getting title and 
 have left previous to that? 
 
 Mr. Church. Yes. 
 
 Mr. McClure. Twenty-five is not a starter. 
 
 Mr. Church. That you have personal knowledge of? 
 
 Mr. McClure. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Church. Would you care to give the names of some of them? 
 
 Mr. McClure. No. 
 
 Mr. Church. You do not care to do that? 
 
 Mr. McClure. No; I do not care to do that. 
 
170 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES T. MULLEN, PRESIDENT ARIZONA 
 CATTLE GROWERS' ASSOCIATION, TEMPE, ARIZ. 
 
 Mr. Mullen. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I want to explain to 
 the committee that I am not an orator, and I am not a lawyer. I 
 am only one who is interested in the welfare of Arizona generally. 
 Arizona first; then the welfare of other States next. I have been 
 particularly interested in the State of Arizona since I was a small 
 boy. I was born in California, have been in California quite a good 
 deal, and know many people and have many relatives in the State 
 of California. I have been in the cattle business all of my life. My 
 father was a cattleman when I was a small boy. I have been inter- 
 ested in farming since I was a boy. Personally, I now have some 
 interest in Salt River Valley — own a small farm. I own some cattle 
 in northern Arizona on the public domain now unappropriated and 
 unreserved. For years in Arizona we have been up against a mighty 
 hard proposition in the cattle business. We have been endeavoring 
 among ourselves to arrive at something or to enact legislation to 
 overcome many of the obstacles that have been in our way in grazing 
 cattle profitably and with any surety on the open range. 
 
 ,This is a great question. We perfectly realize that. We perfectly 
 realize that we are asking at this time something that appeals to 
 many people when we ask for the leasing of the entire public domain 
 now not appropriated. We have tried to get State legislation to 
 overcome some of the obstacles that have stood in our way. We have 
 been told by attorneys that the State had no right to make laws such 
 as we asked; that they would be unconstitutional. Therefore we 
 have banded together in associations in the State, and we have talked 
 these matters over among ourselves. We have talked them over with 
 our neighbors, with the farmers ; we have talked them over with our 
 bankers; we have talked them over with almost every industry in 
 the State of Arizona ; and we have appeared before committees, and 
 we have sent committees to Washington, and up until this time we 
 have never been able to make any particular headway. 
 
 It seems as though the people do not understand what we are try- 
 ing to get. It is something that is very hard for us to even educate 
 our own people about. The smaller man is led to believe it is the 
 scheme of the big man to drive him out — the little man. We have 
 tried to induce them to believe these were not the facts, and we did 
 have a great many of the little men, of whom I am one, at one time 
 who were not so favorable to this proposition. Along about that 
 time the Reclamation Service and the Forest Service were created. 
 At the time the forest reserves were created, I believe I could safely 
 say that 85 per cent of the users of the forest reserve in the State of 
 Arizona were antagonistic to the reserve ; they did not think it was 
 any good ; they thought they were paying for something they should 
 not pay for. They thought they were charged for something that 
 they had obtained free for years. That talk went all over the 
 State. The forest reserve, nevertheless, went along with its business. 
 It is true that at the time of the start of the forest reserve its methods 
 of doing business and handling the reserves were, perhaps, in all , 
 instances not right, but in the education and in the use of these 
 reserves they have brought about a wonderful change. The people 
 on the reserves now are getting for their cattle from $10 to $15 & J 
 head more for the same grade of cattle than we are getting for ours 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 171 
 
 on the public domain, for the reason that they have protection. The 
 range is cared for ; the numbers have been limited ; the different kinds 
 of stock have been taken care of. No man has been allowed to eat 
 out the other man ; they have been able to breed up their cattle — to 
 grow better cattle. They have brought back the productiveness of 
 the ranges in the reserve until they can grow more cattle, and they 
 know at the end of one year about what they are going to have to sell 
 at the end of the next year, and at this time I venture to say that 95 
 per cent of the users of the forest reserve are perfectly contented and 
 are great believers in the forest reserves and in this method of 
 handling the ranges. 
 
 These methods have made them money. When they were asked to 
 cut down on the start they thought the Government was trying to 
 manage their business for them and tell them what they ought to 
 do. But the Government has demonstrated the advantage of the 
 plan ; they have made money for them ; and to-day you can find only 
 a few men who criticize the forest- reserve management; but there 
 are none of them that want to leave and go into the cattle business 
 off the reserve. 
 
 These are facts. The stockmen on the reserves have come into our 
 association when there were questions of elimination of certain parts 
 of this reserve on account of timber, asking us to send resolutions, 
 and I expect many of you have received those resolutions from our 
 association asking our Senators and our Representatives to try to 
 stop the elimination of these districts until we could get some man- 
 agement of this public domain. 
 
 These men have become advocates of the leasing of the public 
 domain for the reason that they have thoroughly made up their 
 minds it was to the best interest to all concerned in the State, 
 whether in the cattle business, the farming business, the sheep busi- 
 ness, or any other business. 
 
 I want to say just a little on a subject I think has not been touched 
 on enough before your committee. The Government has expended 
 vast amounts of money for the farmer endeavoring to create more 
 and better farms. They have built in our particular locality, in 
 Salt River Valley, a large reservoir that has brought under irriga- 
 tion a large number of acres and have made those acres very produc- 
 tive in food products, in alfalfa, grain, Milo maize, and different 
 products that can be fed to cattle. They have increased that area so 
 fast and the range under new management has decreased so fast 
 that at this time in our valley hay is going begging. You can not 
 sell it. You can not sell your Milo maize. You can not sell your 
 crops. Now, it does seem to me that it should be the policy of this 
 Government, and I think it will be on consideration, that these 
 ranges should be put under control and the best results obtained 
 from those ranges and the larger number of cattle raised so that 
 they can be put onto these alfalfa fields and fed. Also, there should 
 be encouragement for more cattle on these alfalfa fields, and they 
 are being encouraged, but at the same time you can not feed the same 
 number of cattle in the valley the year around without damaging 
 the alfalfa fields. 
 
 If you can raise them on the range and bring them into the valley 
 after the crop is put up and the hay is in the stack and the barley is 
 in the bin, why you can depend on the market for your stuff, and the 
 
172 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 people of the United States are clamoring for more and cheap meat, 
 and it does seem to me this is the only way to get it. 
 
 We have practically agreed on this Kent bill, because it is the best 
 that has been presented to us. If there can be a better one we want 
 that. If this bill can be modified or enlarged or made more protec- 
 tive to certain interests, we are perfectly willing that all interests 
 should be protected. We only ask that ours be protected with the 
 others. 
 
 It has only been a very short time that you could go to the bank 
 and borrow money on range cattle, for the reason that the banker 
 did not know by what you might have now what you would have a 
 year from now, and he did not know how many you might have now, 
 and he had no way to determine that. So they did not consider 
 range stock on the public domain good security. They will some- 
 times lend on it, but it is lent to the man and on the man's credit. 
 
 In the forest reserves the cattle are good security. The banks, 
 since the reserve has been created, have lent money on those cattle 
 and do lend money on them to-day, because they can go to the forest 
 supervisor and find out what that man has paid in 35 cents per head 
 on in that reserve, and they know he has got them, because the 
 foresters have found out how many cattle he had, and the banks 
 know that the cattle in this reserve have protection; they know that 
 they are not going to starve to death, and it makes the cattle good 
 security, while in our instance, those of us who are off of the reserve, 
 we may have so many cattle at this time : when we make our spring 
 round-up we figure we have feed enough to carry so many cattle into 
 December, so we take out and hold so many. All of you know you 
 can not. have more than one rodeo in the spring and do justice to 
 your cattle. Perhaps three or four hundred thousand sheep will come 
 down and go onto our grasses that we have expected to have for our 
 cattle and eat it up. 
 
 I do not want to say that the sheep men are, as a rule, unfair. It 
 is not that that I want to impress upon your minds, but sheep are 
 keep-under herd. The man owning the sheep is not with the nerd. 
 The herder is with the sheep and wherever he can find the best patch 
 of grass it makes the least work for him. If he can be close and 
 handy to a station on the railroad it is better for him. Perhaps the 
 owners of those sheep have instructed him not to antagonize or to 
 stay on the range of the cattle men, but it is easier for him, and you 
 have perhaps no way to get into communication with the owner of 
 the sheep, and they stay there and eat you out and the cattle die. 
 Great losses come from this. I have had to go out and regather 
 cattle and ship them out to save them. I have had to ship feed to 
 the cattle, and it does seem to me that these things can be eliminated 
 by the right to lease this land. 
 
 The remarks of some of the men who have preceded me may sound 
 strange to you, when they have referred to legitimate farming, but 
 they do not sound so to me. I think it is perfectly proper. We do 
 not want to retard legitimate farming, and I fully realize that 
 country that we thought at one time could never be farmed has been 
 farmed, and no doubt countries that we know of to-day that we 
 think can not be farmed will be farmed, because capital will be in- 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 173 
 
 vested, and reservoirs will be built and waters taken out on the 
 valleys, and the valleys farmed from those reservoirs. 
 
 But it does seem to me that this land should not be left in this 
 secluded country awaiting the time when some man may discover a 
 reservoir site or an underground flow of water, or that it should be 
 left until we can get the capital to put irrigation works in with and 
 put it under agriculture and to make it productive. It does seem to 
 me that the country needs the cattle, and it needs the sheep and the 
 live stock, and why not use this land now, and if the time comes 
 when it can be farmed, why, we do not want to prevent the farmer 
 from taking it. 
 
 I agree with what Dr. McClure says, that if a tract of land is 
 leased that we should not be materially interfered with. I mean to 
 say by that, and I want to state in all fairness, that if there is a 
 sufficient amount of farming land in that particular allotment to 
 justify reasonable farming, it should be allowed to go in to farms, 
 but there should be a protective clause some place to prevent abuses. 
 For instance, if there is water that rises in a creek and flows for a 
 distance of one-half mile and then sinks away in the sand; that is 
 the only available water for perhaps miles that that country has, and 
 that land is good for nothing but pasturing cattle; that it is moun- 
 tain-sides with rocks and brush and can never be farmed under the 
 most favorable conditions, it does not make any difference how much 
 we develop later — those places can never be farmed. But there may 
 be a little tract of land along that water which can be farmed, and 
 perhaps a man will come in there and just take up that little land 
 and make a home for one family. 
 
 The distinguished gentleman from New Mexico has spoken so 
 often about the wife and children. It may support one family, but 
 by that man coming in and taking that water he will exclude a large 
 area of land that cattle could run over, and thereby do away with 
 the chance of furnishing meat to a great many families. It seems 
 to me that those things should be taken into consideration, and if 
 there is a body of land of any extent, I can see why it should be 
 homesteaded, but I do not think a man ought to be allowed, where 
 he can only grow a little crop of potatoes or a few onions, to come in 
 and absolutely spoil a whole lot of country that is good only for 
 grazing purposes and shut up that water, where you have no chance 
 to dig wells and develop other water. I think that is the reason 
 why we thought,- in favoring this particular bill, which leaves so 
 much to the Agricultural Department, that the department would 
 take these things into consideration and would do the greatest good 
 to the greatest number of people. It seems to me that should be the 
 policy in considering all of these things that work for the develop- 
 ment of the range. 
 
 There are great masses of our country that are not being used by 
 anyone. It is absolutely vacant to-day. There are lots of our country 
 where people would own and raise more cattle if they knew that 
 they could have a right to this land after they had developed it. 
 There are places now where there is no water, but where you can go 
 and spend quite a good deal of money and build reservoirs in canyons 
 that will hold water for six months in the year, and you can, per- 
 haps, put in a pipe 5, 6, or 7 miles from a spring or from a creek and 
 
174 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 pipe the water down into this new grass country. But you can not 
 afford to do that if after you get it down there another man is going 
 to come along and use it and eat up the grass ; but you can afford 
 to do it if you are protected in it. I will venture to say that as much 
 again of our country as is now being used to-day will be used after 
 we have the leasing law and some protection. It will not only be 
 the increase of the number of cattle on the particular areas which 
 are being grazed to-day, but it will open up just as much area again, 
 and perhaps more. Lots and lots of that country can be developed. 
 We have done some of that and taken the chances, but we could do as 
 much more, and would like to do it, but would do it if we had pro- 
 tection. 
 
 In regard to the homestead law. As I think I have already ex- 
 plained, we do not want to put a straw in the way of the homestead 
 but I do think that the cattlemen in New Mexico and the cattlemen 
 all over this western country, the actual users of the range,- as I have 
 met them, and I have met them from New Mexico to California — 
 there is Mr. Fuller, in California; Mr. Bixby, in California; Mr. 
 Dysart, in California ; and many others I can name with whom I 
 am personally acquainted, who have worked with me in committees 
 to try to get this lease law, and who want it. 
 
 Then, by being allowed to fence up certain portions of our range, 
 we could hold in reserve for cases of emergency feed to take care of 
 us in a drought. If we had old cows in a hard cold winter that 
 needed more grass, we could take them off the range and put them 
 in these fenced areas and save the cattle from starvation. We 
 could use it to put our steers in and put them in good condition for 
 the market in the spring, while to-day we are not allowed to fence 
 up any of these districts at all and have to hold our herds under 
 close herds for 25 or 30 days, and get -them to market footsore and 
 tired. We get a less price for them than we could if we had a piece 
 of ground that we could keep fenced and keep these cattle in. We 
 could raise a larger percentage of calves by being able to have wean- 
 ing pastures ; then we could take the big calf off of the poor cows 
 and put them into the pasture and wean them. We would have grass 
 in the pasture where these calves were put, and the cows could get 
 with calf again, and we could get a better percentage of calves in 
 that way. I have known instances of cows suckling yearlings, and I 
 have seen 2 or 3 year olds suckling. If they had been weaned the cow 
 could have had another calf and, perhaps, two. That would increase 
 the number of cattle produced. 
 
 It will save us lots of expense in conducting our cattle business. 
 By putting up drift fences, we could get along with less horses than 
 we have to have now by having good pastures in reserve to feed our 
 saddle horses. We would not have to have so many saddle horses, 
 and would not have to have so many men, if we could put in drift 
 fences. As it is now, we have to send men off to everybody's rodeo, 
 where the cattle go. They drift off, and if we do not go and gather 
 them up, there is no telling where they will go. They will just keep 
 on going T By building these drift fences the cattle can not wander 
 off and go down into the southern country* We could have drift 
 fences in certain places, a drift fence that might be built by more 
 than one man ; maybe a dozen of them would build this drift fence, 
 and it would keep our cattle from going any farther than that, and 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 175 
 
 thereby we would save a great deal of expense in the handling of the 
 cattle. 
 
 Another reason why a great many of the people in Arizona, 
 farmers and other interests than particularly the cattle interests, are 
 interested in this leasing bill, is that it would bring a revenue to the 
 State of Arizona that will go into schools and roads and those things, 
 and will result in the natural development of this open-range 
 country; it will bring in new property for the assessment roll, and 
 Avill help to pay taxes. 
 
 Another expense that we would be able to eliminate would be the 
 matter of buying bulls. We could have an excluded area and fence 
 up and partition it off into two or three pastures and raise our own 
 bulls, and bulls could be raised on the range instead of on the pas- 
 tures, and the pastures could be used for fattening beef cattle. 
 
 I do not want to take any more time of the committee than I pos- 
 sibly can help. I think I have stated to you some of the reasons. 
 I have left out many that I have noted down. But it seems to me 
 that you all know — that a great many of you must know by this 
 time — many of the reasons why we want to have some certainty where 
 we are trying now to make our living; where we are trying to raise 
 more cattle and better cattle, and I venture to say that there is not a 
 small stockman who has considered this matter sufficiently to under- 
 stand this proposition, or who has studied the proposition, who is 
 not now in favor of this leasing bill. I only know of the objections of 
 some of the large stockmen. The small stockmen to a man that I 
 have been able to talk to, and I have talked to lots of them, are all in 
 favor of this bill. I think that Mr. McClure stated that to you, and 
 I think he rightly did so, that it is only the big sheepmen whom 
 the Government of the United States is protecting, and they are 
 getting all they can get out of the areas that are allotted to them in 
 the forest reserves, and, in addition to that they want to use, and have 
 been able to use and are using all of ours, if they want to. They do 
 not want to be stopped from that. Naturally they would not. 
 
 We want the sheepmen to have a driveway down into the southern 
 country for the summer sheep shearing. We do not want to bar 
 them from that. We want them to have plenty of room to drive 
 through, a mile wide, or whatever is necessary for these people to 
 drive through, we want them to have it. We want them to go 
 through. 
 
 The Chairman. The examination of Mr. Mullen will doubtless 
 take quite a little while. We have with us Mr. Pinchot, and if the 
 committee has no objection, I should like to excuse Mr. Mullen for 
 a few minutes and let Mr. Pinchot come in between so he can then be 
 excused. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. GIFFORD PINCHOT, FORMER CHIEF FOR- 
 ESTER, WASHINGTON, D. C. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. I will be brief and direct my remarks mainly to the 
 general welfare as it is affected by this bill. 
 
 It seems to me perfectly clear that if any of us were individually 
 the owners of a tract of land approximating in size 300,000,000 acres, 
 or one-third of the United States, which is to be affected by this bill, 
 
176 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 we should undoubtedly cease to tolerate the conditions of affairs 
 which exist now. 
 
 It is presumably a safe statement that this area is not producing 
 more than about one-half, and possibly a good deal less than one-half, 
 that it would for the general welfare under proper management, 
 and therefore we should naturally, if we owned it, be in a position of 
 wanting at once to put it under some kind of control and get it to 
 produce what it might easily produce. If you add to that that the 
 supply of meat in the country is growing progressively shorter ; that 
 the prices are rising very rapidly, so as to become very serious ques- 
 tions, and that this area could produce an enormously larger amount 
 of meat than it does, then the general arguments for it, I think, leave 
 practically nothing to be desired. 
 
 The thing is badly managed now. The method of managing it 
 better is reasonably clear on the larger lines, and I think are becoming 
 clear in the details. The need for that management is undisputed, 
 and the only question is as to the passage of a particular bill and 
 how that bill should be modified. 
 
 The question has been up for 10 or 15 years. It has been thrashed 
 out during those years with great care, and we have finally come to 
 a bill which seeks to do the two things. First, to increase the pro- 
 ductive power of one-third of the United States and to do it by 
 means which will increase rather than to decrease the attractiveness 
 of what homesteadable public lands remain, so instead of reducing 
 the possibility of settlement on this land it will largely increase it. 
 
 From the point of view of the stockman the argument, I think, is 
 beyond all controversy. We have tried it in the national forests for 
 eight years now, beginning in the face of a great deal of bitter oppo- 
 sition and not unnatural opposition. Gradually the system has been 
 tested out until we have found that it conduces to the net production 
 or to the gross production of the areas in question for the- public 
 benefit; that the men who use it are not better off, but worse off, than 
 they used to be, and, third and most important, that the men who 
 use it are progressively smaller men than they were at the beginning. 
 The result of the control of the public range in the national forests 
 has been to reduce very largely the size of the individual band of 
 sheep or bunch of cattle grazed and at the same time to make very 
 much more desirable the position of the homesteader, and therefore 
 to lead to a very large increase of settlement in many parts of the 
 West. 
 
 We believe that the same results would follow here; that the con- 
 tribution to the general welfare which would be made by increasing 
 the productiveness of this area would be accompanied by a very con- 
 siderable increase in the attractiveness of lands now difficult to be 
 controlled by the homesteader because he is not certain of what he 
 can have in the way of range, and then we should have both a larger 
 production of meat and a larger production of families settled on 
 the public domain. 
 
 I take it that the questions before you relate mainly not so much 
 to the desirability of increasing the control over this area as to the 
 details, and I suppose that the best way which I can be of use to this 
 committee, if I can be at all, would be in the matter of answering 
 questions rather than attempting to make any general statement 
 concerning the details of the bill. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 177 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Mr. Pinchot, I have introduced a bill for grazing 
 homesteads. I am from New Mexico, and it relates — because a good 
 many of the western men feel like I do about the matter. I should 
 like to begin by stating that I would be perfect willing to have my 
 bill apply only to New Mexico, if you, with your persuasive powers, 
 can do that. But now I have a general bill. The last statement you 
 made reaches the very crux of the difficulty as to whether the State 
 of New Mexico, I will say, where I am thus well acquainted — I lived 
 there for 30 years, and I have been in not only every county, but in 
 almost every precinct in it, and I am thoroughly well acquainted with 
 what I think are the needs of our country. You have stated that 
 you believe that this leasing bill will increase the capacity of New 
 Mexico, we will say, to support homesteaders ? 
 Mr. Pinchot. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Now, if you can convince me of that — if you can 
 point out a method by which it will do it — you will have served my 
 purpose in my bill. I do not ask you to step to do that now, because 
 I have some specific questions I wish to ask you. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. I may answer it in general by saying that has been 
 the effect where similar regulation has taken place in the national 
 forests. 
 Mr. Fergusson. I am talking now about the balance of the domain. 
 Mr. Pinchot. It will have the same effect there, in my opinion. 
 Mr. Fergusson. My idea of the national forests was that they were 
 originally contemplated to be reserved at the headwaters of the 
 streams, to reforest where possible, and to promote generally the 
 good that comes from the existence of timber in the country as in- 
 creasing the flow of the streams to be used for irrigation below 
 where the forest ceases. That is the original idea. I know it has 
 been extended in my State to include a great many hundred thousand 
 acres of ground that has no forest on them at all, so you have had 
 
 some experience in that direction 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. I am familiar with a good deal of those forests, but 
 I can hardly accept the statement that they have no forests at all on 
 them. However, I perhaps need not enter into that controversy in 
 this present hearing. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. In the last campaign in New Mexico I rode 40 
 miles on horseback across a forest reserve, and there was not a tree 
 on it as high as my head on horseback ; not one. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. I have seen a great many forests not as high as your 
 head on horseback. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. That is an outline of my notion of what a forest 
 reserve meant. The particular point in regard to which I want to 
 ask you is just this : It seems to me that there is an irreconcilable con- 
 flict' between reserving all of the great West— as you say, one-third 
 of the United States— in the grazing reserves; that that idea is in- 
 compatible with the settlement of my State, for instance, with home- 
 steaders. 
 
 As far as I know, this bill does not reserve any part of the great 
 western territory of to-day; the public-land laws shall remain in 
 operation on these lands. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Let me ask you how this would work: Take an 
 area, say, of about 60,000 acres, fenced, and within that 60,000 acres, 
 
 35074— pt 1—14 12 
 
178 DISPOSITION OF GEAZING LANDS. 
 
 -we will say, there are scattered in different localities a hundred small 
 farms ; the large area is controlled by a big cattleman or a company 
 or association of cattlemen ; now, some homesteaders come along and 
 want to get homes inside that area; they are men who have their 
 wives and children, and maybe two or three hundred dollars apiece; 
 he is going there to make a home; he is not like the company con- 
 trolling the whole area; he is after a home because he needs it; he 
 is going to live there with his wife and children and build up a home 
 for them. Don't you think these provisions will hamper him about 
 going in that pasture to locate his homestead ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. I would say, in the first place, that this bill does not 
 provide, as I understand it, that the area shall be completely fenced; 
 it is my understanding that drift fences shall be used to limit any 
 large areas of that kind. In the second place, the bill provides spe- 
 cifically that homesteaders may go inside that pasture; free access 
 must be given to any homesteader, and the fact that he must go 
 through the fence does not interfere with his right to settle there. 
 
 Mr. Feegtjsson. Well, suppose he gets in there and finds cattle are 
 grazing all ar„ound his 640 acres; will he not have to fence that? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. No ; I don't know that there is anything in the bill 
 to provide for that. 
 
 Mr. Feegtjsson. Suppose his object was twofold. Suppose his ob- 
 ject was, as the bill indicates, to establish a grazing homestead; sup- 
 pose his object was to have a little farm, "first, say, of 10 acres; sup- 
 pose he locates his 640 acres and he wants to experiment with sudan 
 grass seed or some other kind of grass; he will find that the grama 
 grass will support his cattle very well; but suppose he has an idea 
 that his wife and children will be able to take care of a little garden, 
 and he wants to conduct some experiments to see what he can grow 
 there on his range — these areas out there have been so denuded by 
 the results of the invasion of all sorts of' cattle and big herds of 
 sheep that the capacity of the West has been cut down over one-half 
 to produce meat that it doesn't produce more than half the beef and 
 mutton it did 25 or 30 years ago — but this man, we'll say, goes in 
 there is perfect good faith, with the object of establishing his home, 
 and he wants to make these experiments; he wants to conserve the 
 range in that 640 acres, where he expects to graze his cattle, and to 
 regulate the amount of grazing on it ; he tries to manage it so it will 
 get better from day to day ; he has the intention of making a farm 
 there, and wants to raise enough grass to feed his stock in the winter, 
 to fill his own silos. Now, don't you think that in my State of New 
 Mexico, or in any section where that can be done, it would be better 
 to cut up that big area into 640-acre farms like that ; that it would 
 be much better for my State and the people out there than to have 
 it divided up, as proposed in this bill, into vast areas of 50,000 acres, 
 where the homesteader would have to go through the herds of the 
 people controlling the area in order to get in and out from his home, 
 and where his children would have to go back and forth to school 
 under such conditions? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Is that a question ? 
 
 Mr. Feegtjsson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Then my answer is double : In the first place, unless 
 I am unfamiliar with that region, 640 acres as a grazing homestead 
 would not be any good; more than that is required. 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 179 
 
 Mr. Febgusson. But I didn't mean to say that it had to be 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Just a minute, let me complete my answer. 
 
 Mr. Febgusson. All right ; I didn't mean to interrupt you. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. In the second place, I believe that the time will 
 come Avhen the grazing homestead will be applied. I don't believe 
 we are yet sufficiently familiar with the western country, without 
 classification of these lands, to pass such a bill as this, under the 
 circumstances you describe. Of course, where a man has just a little 
 patch of ground he can go ahead and cultivate it, and by all means 
 I say let him have it, but what I understood you to describe could not 
 be done with 640 acres. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. I have not said anything about this before; but 
 these questions are now getting very personal ; I am getting letters 
 every day from people in my State on this subject which show that 
 men have gone out there, with 160 acres at first, and later with 320 
 acres, and they have made pure, unadulterated failures. They have 
 tried it under the 160-acre law and later under the 320-acre home- 
 stead law, and they have failed again and again. 
 
 My office is full of petitions and letters that have come to me, for 
 I wired to prominent citizens in each county to send on to me such 
 evidence as they could secure, and my office is full of this testimony, 
 which from my State is overwhelmingly in favor of these small 
 farms instead of these big leased tracts; these men say that the 
 homesteader with 640 acres, if he could fence it in, could make a 
 living and establish a home there for his wife and children ; in some 
 sections out there one year out of three, and in some two out of three, 
 they have fairly good seasons and good crops of grama grass. I have 
 myself seen antelope scampering over that section in grama grass 
 up to their bellies. They tell me with the good seasons out there they 
 have been very successful in testing out all the dry-land crops ; they 
 • tell me they can raise enough grass to warrant them building their 
 silos. These men are praying, almost, for the relief they need ; some 
 of the letters have certainly moved me, as I hope they may move 
 some of the balance of you; they are praying for a chance to show 
 what can be done with a 640-acre homestead. They haven't been 
 able to make it a go under the 160-acre law and under the 320-acre 
 law, and many have had to leave ; and I have seen some of those men 
 on the street in my city, driving hacks for a living; but they are 
 praying now for a chance with the 640 acres, for they believe they 
 can make a living with that. Experience has shown that with 640 
 acres they can make a living and be prosperous. But. Mr. Pinchot, 
 I beg your pardon for taking up so much time; I just wanted you 
 to get' my standpoint, because I know how sincerely you are in- 
 terested in the general welfare in all that pertains to these public 
 lands. I have made some notes here, but I think I have taken up too 
 much time, as some of the other gentlemen may want to ask some 
 questions. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. You made some reference, Mr. Pinchot, to the classi- 
 fication of the public domain. That matter was discussed here this 
 morning by Mr. McOlure, representing the National Woolgrowers' 
 Association, and he was of the opinion that it would be impracticable 
 to enact a lease law prior to such classification. What is your opinion 
 about that? 
 
180 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. No; I feel the lease law can be passed prior to such 
 classification. I think it can be worked out as was done in the na- 
 tional forests; the very processes of applying such a law will form 
 the best basis for classification. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. The difference between the national forests and the 
 public domain is this : The homesteader must obtain the consent of 
 the forestry officials to enter the land; as they have control of his 
 right to enter^ but under this bill that right remains with the entry- 
 man. This produces a conflict that does not exist on the forest re- 
 serve, because the Forest Service does classify agricultural land before 
 entry is permitted. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Nevertheless, in my judgment, that objection would 
 not prevent the satisfactory working of this bill. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. The stockmen, from the testimony we have had here, 
 insist that under his lease he should be permitted to control the area 
 covered by it so as to encourage him to make the proper improve- 
 ments. If any improvement is made, for instance, in the develop- 
 ment of water, he would then not be in danger of some homesteader 
 coming along to take away from him the expensive improvements 
 that he has made. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. I think that is very carefully protected in this bill. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. We have a classification of the homestead lands on 
 the forest reserves now. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. We have to have it ultimately, and I see no reason 
 why we should wait for years to do it. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Would stockmen, under this act, with the home- 
 steader having the free right to enter the leased areas, have any more 
 encouragement to develop water and improve the range than he has 
 at the present time? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. How could he, if anybody has the right to come in 
 and take his improvements away from him ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. No one could do that without paying for them. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Wouldn't that shut out the poor man? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. No, sir. What is the language of the bill on that 
 hundred-dollar provision ? 
 
 Mr. La Follette. That hundred-dollar provision has nothing to 
 do with the buying of the improvements from stockmen. That gives 
 the stockmen the right to hold any 40 acres on which he has a 
 hundred dollars worth of improvements for the full life of the lease.. 
 That is what I claim is a joker in this bill, and if Ave had had such 
 a provision in the law 20 years ago half of the homesteads in the 
 West would not be settled now, because no stockman could get a 
 hundred dollars worth of improvements on a choice location and 
 hold it for the life of the lease. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. It says that no permit shall be issued which will 
 entitle the permittee to the use of any buildings, corrals, reservoirs, 
 or other improvements 
 
 Mr. La Follette. That is not the hundred-dollar provision. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. I beg your pardon 
 
 Mr. La Follette. That is on page 3, line 21. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Yes ; it goes on : 
 
 If the parties interested can not agree, then the amount of such payment 
 shall be determined under rules of the Secretary of Agriculture: And pro- 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 181 
 
 vided further, That when buildings, corrals, reservoirs, wells, or other im- 
 provements, except fences, shall have been established on any forty-acre tract 
 to the value of more than $100, as determined by rules of the Secretary of Agri- 
 culture, such forty-acre tract shall not be subject to settlement or appropria- 
 tion under the public-land laws during the permit period without the consent 
 of the owner of such buildings, corrals, reservoirs, or other improvements. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. With that provision in the law, I should say 
 that one-half the homesteads in the West would never have been 
 settled, because all the favorable places would have been taken by 
 the stockmen. 
 
 Mr. Pin choi'. As a matter of practice in the West the development 
 of water in just these places has given a right which has been re- 
 spected in most cases; and the development of water by the stock- 
 men 
 
 Mr. La Follette. In what areas was that? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. In grazing sections, r.nd in a great majority of 
 cases in sections desired by homesteaders. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. The provision mentions water as only one of the 
 items of improvement. If he has a little building on there that is 
 worth a hundred dollars he can stop any entryman from taking the 
 choice 40-acre tract. You read that again. That is a broad section. 
 It would be easy enough for a m:m having a lease on a large pasture 
 to put hundred-dollar improvements on several choice 40-acre tracts 
 all around through the area, which would prevent a man from 
 wetting a homestead on it. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. There are two things to be said in that connection. 
 One is that a stockman is not going to be spending his money put* 
 ting hundred-dollar improvements around on all the choice 40-acre 
 tracts unless there is a genuine interest on his part in doing so ; and 
 the other is that this matter is to be under the general control and 
 supervision of the Government; that where now the homesteader 
 has no degree of protection — no official protection — in his conflicts 
 with the large cattlemen, under this bill he will have men in the 
 employ of the Government who will see that he does get a square 
 deal. I repeat what I said before : In my judgment, under the pro- 
 visions of this bill the homesteader will have better chances on the 
 public domain than he has now. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. To get back to the question of classification, I be- 
 lieve you stated that it had worked well in the national forest re- 
 serves, where classification is made prior to entry ; but no classifica- 
 tion is provided for in this bill. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Well, what would happen that is wrong if you 
 should go ahead? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. After the stockman has made some very valuable im- 
 provements, the homesteader can come along and take them away 
 from him. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. You two gentlemen at opposite ends of the table 
 seem to be somewhat in conflict; one seems to be afraid the home- 
 steader will get the benefit of the lease and the other the stockman. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I think you have been considering two separate 
 portions of the bill. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. It seems to me the bill walks a very straight path 
 between the interests of the stockman and the homesteader, and at 
 the same time the public interest is protected. 
 
182 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Kent. I think it is fair to assume that good faith must be 
 shown by both the homesteader and the stockman. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Absolutely. 
 
 Mr. Kent. I don't know that anybody would object to that. The 
 mere fact that a water supply had been developed would certainly 
 give him his equity in that improvement. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Well, in many cases there would be no necessity 
 for putting these hundred-dollar improvements around, unless it 
 was for the purpose of keeping the homesteader out of his pasture. 
 
 Mr. Kent. I think that is a matter we can take up later on. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. I think it is a wise one, but I do not think it is one 
 of the absolutely essential provisions of the bill. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I believe you said you thought this bill was in the 
 interests of the general welfare; it will restore the meat-producing 
 capacity of this section of the United States, which amounts to one- 
 third of the whole. I will ask you to take in mind a pasture, we will 
 say, of 64,000 acres. That would enable 100 farmers to locate there, 
 each with 640 acres ; if the farmer owned his 640 acres and wanted to 
 improve it with all the new dry-grass seeds, and restore its meat- 
 producing capacity, do you not think that it would be better for the 
 general welfare, to say nothing of the advantage to the State in the 
 matter of taxation, and the building up of the community and in- 
 ducing railroads to come in, and establish schools and churches, don't 
 you think the general welfare would be just as well promoted if that 
 big area was leased out to 100 farmers, instead of giving all that 
 64,000 acres to one man ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. I think it would be very much better promoted ; but, 
 Mr. Fergusson, a vast majority of the land to which this bill applies 
 is of such a nature that nobody can make a home on 640 acres and 
 make a living out of it. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I am speaking now from a very intimate knowl- 
 edge, perhaps not from a scientific viewpoint, as some of you gentle- 
 men do, but I believe that there are many hundreds of thousands of 
 acres in New Mexico that are suitable for these agricultural opera- 
 tions. I have stacks of letters and telegrams certifying to these facts 
 and I will submit them later; of course, these gentlemen who have 
 come here from long distances were entitled to testify first over my 
 telegrams and letters, but after they are gone I will get them in. 
 But New Mexico is full of wrecked men because of the hardship of 
 trying to live on these 160 and 320 acre tracts. More than 5,000 of 
 them have left there in the last five years, men who went there in 
 perfect good faith, with the intention of establishing their homes. 
 And this 640-acre proposition, we believe, with our knowledge of 
 conditions there, will save some of them and give them a chance 
 again in life. So I ask you the question, and you say you believe it 
 would be better to have a hundred farmers on this big tract instead 
 of giving it all to one man. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. It is always better where you can have land occu- 
 pied by the homesteader than anything else ; that is the basis of the 
 whole public-land policy, as I understand it. But I repeat, Mr. Fer- 
 gusson, that the vast majority of the land which is covered by this 
 bill is absolutely out of the purview of any such amount of land as 
 you suggest for those purposes. 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 183 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. I was going to ask you as to classification. I con- 
 cede that there are a great many thousands of acres of land in New 
 Mexico where even on a 640- acre tract a man would have difficulty in 
 making a living; but that brings up the question of classification. 
 It would take years to make a practical and correct-classification, and 
 it may be that is impracticable just now ; still you think it could be 
 fixed so the homesteader would have just as good a chance to get his 
 home in one of these leased pastures ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. The Secretary of Agriculture would have authority 
 under this bill to give your people all the advantages of leased home- 
 steads for 10 years. He would have that authority. If this bill were 
 to be passed to-morrow the Secretary of Agriculture would have 
 authority to make such arrangements in New Mexico as would give 
 to the homesteader complete protection. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. In the^pastures? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Yes, sir ; he could put a fence around it. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. Most all these gentlemen said when a man leased 
 his 10,000 acres he would have control of it for 10 years, and that 
 would shut my men out. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. My understanding is, with reference to these large 
 areas, that the homesteader will have the right to go in except in the 
 grazing season. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. If this bill should be passed, Mr. Pinchot, the ad- 
 ministration of this public domain affected by the bill would pass 
 from the Interior Department to the Department of Agriculture, 
 would it not? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Nothing that the Department of the Interior is now 
 doing would pass to the Department of Agriculture. The jurisdic- 
 tion of the Department of the Interior would be the same as now. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. The Interior Department would still have control 
 of it. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. There is nothing proposed to be done by this bill 
 that is now being done by the Department of the Interior. 
 
 Mr. Kent. There is no change of jurisdiction at all. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. As to this point raised about the hundred dollars' 
 worth of improvements on the choice 40-acre tracts, I understood 
 your position to be, in answer to the contention of Mr. La Follette, 
 that in your judgment the stockman would not spend his money by 
 deliberately developing improvements to the extent of a hundred 
 dollars' worth on each of the choice 40-acre tracts merely for the pur- 
 pose of keeping off homesteaders? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. I think there would be machinery here to take care 
 of that; you can not absolutely provide in advance to prevent that 
 sort of thing; you will always find cases where the stockman will be 
 trying to hold 'up- the settler, and where the settler will be trying to 
 hold up the stockman; but you can give a man authority, as is given 
 to the Secretary of Agriculture in this bill, to see that justice is ac- 
 corded everv man, as far as it can be done. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. You stated that the passing of such a bill as this 
 would, in your judgment, make homesteading more attractive, if I 
 may express it that way ; some of us who come from the" cities are 
 not familiar with these problems, and I would like to ask you, for my 
 own information, to give some of the reasons. 
 
184 DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. The essential reason is that all through this area 
 that would be affected by this bill one of the great difficulties in 
 homesteading has been that a man could not get into a particular 
 region already occupied with stock ; that is, he could not go in there 
 with additional stock with the idea of making himself a home there. 
 Suppose this table represents an area that is fully occupied with 
 cattle and I wanted to come in here with another hundred head; I 
 would soon get into trouble with the man who already occupied the 
 range. But there are provisions in this bill which provide security 
 for the homesteader who has enough stock to support his family, and 
 he is therefore enabled to go into many regions where he has been 
 unable to go. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Wouldn't it also furnish a market for the home- 
 steader's products? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. It would. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Don't this bill provide only for such stock as 
 the homesteader wants for domestic use? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. No. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I think the forest-reserve people have some such 
 provision; a man can only turn in 10 head for domestic purposes. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. That is the exemption from payment in the national 
 forests, for domestic stock, but the homesteader is not restricted to 
 that number. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I would like to know in what way the protection of 
 the homesteader would be increased under this bill over what it is 
 now. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Because there would be a body of Government offi- 
 cers whose duty it would be to look after his interests. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. What authority would there be, under this bill, for 
 a public officer to interfere in such matters any more than now ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. There are no public officers there now, no Govern- 
 ment officers of any kind ; they have State officers. There has been, 
 as some of you gentlemen know, influence used to keep men out of 
 individual areas which could not be and ceased to be used in national 
 forests. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. In order to make this entry, of course, a homesteader 
 would have to comply with the law ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. As also the permittee? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Now, what additional protection — what authority 
 is there in this bill for any Government officer to exercise any control 
 in any way ? Where may I find that in this bill ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Under the general provisions for the Secretary of 
 Agriculture to make such rules and regulations as may be necessary. 
 A practical answer may be found in the administration of the national 
 forest reserves, for the forestry officers have encouraged men to take 
 up areas that otherwise would never have been taken up. Formerly 
 there were many range disputes that kept men from settling there, 
 but that has now ceased absolutely. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Isn't it your view, in the first place, that under the 
 leasing system there would be some guaranty of the interests of the 
 national forests being promoted ; and, in the second place, under this 
 bill, that the homesteader would have a share in that ? 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 185 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Yes, sir; I think both of those. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Without such a provision the homesteader has to take 
 his chance. 
 
 Mr. Febgusson. The homestead bill has no such idea. 
 
 Mr. Kent. We are considering the leasing bill now, Mr. Fergusson. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. May I continue my answer to Mr. Johnson? We 
 found in the case of the national forests that there was a strong 
 pressure on the part of the small homesteader in a great many regions 
 to have the national forests extended over the land in order that the 
 homesteader might not be eaten out of his home by the migratory 
 bands of sheep belonging to the big stockmen. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I think this bill refers to domestic stock, and I 
 believe Mr. Pinchot has taken issue with me. I would like to refer 
 to the bill. 
 
 The Chairman. What page and line? 
 
 Mr. La Follette. On page 2, section 2 [reading] : 
 
 That the 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; norshall anything herein be construed to prevent 
 bona fide settlers or residents from grazing their stock used for domestic pur- 
 poses, as defined under the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture, on the 
 public lands affected hereby. 
 
 There it is in the bill very plainly. It says it shall be his stock for 
 domestic purposes. 
 
 Mr. Kent. It provides that preferences shall be given for general 
 grazing. purposes, and says that from time to time the homesteader 
 must be recognized in the general grazing proposition, and your 
 objection to that, Mr. La Follette, is that the leases shall have to the 
 end of that grazing period ? 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Ten years. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. No; only one year. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. This bill says 10 years. 
 
 Mr. Kent. I want you to realize that the bill provides that the 
 homesteader shall be privileged 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Where is that provision in the bill that gives 
 him the right to change the lease ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Look at page 2, beginning with line 8. The Secre- 
 tary of Agriculture has authority to (reading) 
 
 * * * issue permits to graze live stock 'thereon for periods of not more than 
 10 years, which shall include the right to fence the same, giving preference, 
 when practicable, to homesteaders and to present occupants of the range who 
 own improved ranches or who have provided water for live stock grazed on 
 public lands. 
 
 In other words, the homesteader, when he comes into the new 
 country, in the first place, has the right to bring his domestic stock, 
 and in the second place, he has a preference right. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I thought Mr. Kent stated it the other way, that 
 the homesteader could get his permit for 10 years 
 
 Mr. Kent. You look at line 9, page 3, you will find out what the 
 Secretary of Agriculture can not do; it says 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Yes; I know; I consider that is another joker 
 in the bill. 
 
 The Chairman. As to these two provisions, in the first instance, 
 on page 2, the language just read by Mr. Pinchot undoubtedly pro- 
 
186 DISPOSITION OF GEAZING LANDS. 
 
 vides that the homesteader may also take a lease. And on the next 
 page it provides that if a homesteader goes into a leased pasture 
 he can only have a lease permit for domestic. purposes. 
 
 Mr. La Folijstte. I have never contended anything else. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Until the end of that annual grazing period. On 
 
 line 9 it begins — 
 
 That permits to graze live stock upon land which is subsequently appro- 
 priated 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. 
 
 In other words, the homesteader comes in there bringing his do- 
 mestic stock with him, and at the end of the annual grazing period 
 he has a preference right to bring in more stock. 
 
 The Chairman. I rather think that last construction of yours, 
 Mr. Pinchot, is a strained one. I think that current annual grazing 
 period means the end of the life of the lease. Otherwise, if we were 
 to adopt that construction, Mr. A, taking a lease amounting to 
 10,000 acres, and Mr. B, coming in as a homesteader the second year 
 of the life of a 10-year lease, we would assume that the homesteader 
 would be entitled to have a grazing permit for his domestic stock, 
 which would be his work stock — — 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Until the end of the year. 
 
 The Chairman. Is it your construction that at the end of the 
 grazing period the homesteader can completely supersede the lessee? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. No. I am not quite familiar with this particular 
 provision of the bill, and 
 
 The Chairman. Do you think the cattlemen themselves would be 
 satisfied with that? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Yes, sir; that where the big cattlemen have leased 
 the homesteader comes in at the end of the year's grazing, and he 
 shall be permitted to have a reasonable amount of stock inside the 
 big man's lease and within his own fence. 
 
 The Chairman. I see some of these cattlemen shaking their heads 
 back here, and I don't believe they agree with you. 
 
 Mr. Church. Is not the term " annual grazing period " somewhat 
 flexible, varying with different sections of the country ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Yes, sir ; it would be at different times of the year 
 in different localities, but it could not run over 12 months. 
 
 Mr. Church. But in that 12 months' period it may end in October 
 or December ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Yes, sir ; in different places it would naturally be at 
 different times of the year. 
 
 Mr. Brown. Mr. Pinchot, Mr. Fergusson seems to think his 640- 
 acre homestead bill would be more beneficial to his State than this 
 leasing bill of Mr. Kent's. Do you think there is room for both bills 
 on the public domain? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. My judgment is that it would be best to first pass 
 this bill and then, as the result of classification, have every State 
 take up the homestead grazing bill. Personally I do not believe that 
 we are yet ready, with our lack of detailed knowledge of the public 
 domain, to pass a grazing homestead bill. 
 
 Mr. Brown. The matter of the use of water holes seems to bother 
 several members of the committee. Would an amendment providing 
 that a portion of the rental received from these grazing rights be 
 
DISPOSITION Oh' GEAZING LANDS. 187 
 
 turned over for the purpose of exploration and sinking wells, under 
 the direction of the United States Government? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. It would be an excellent thing, I think. 
 
 Mr. Brown. Would that not help to develop the property so that 
 at the end of the 10-year lease people would know where the water 
 was and the homesteader would be able to make better selections ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. I think there should be a provision in the bill that 
 a certain portion of the receipts should be used for general develop- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Brown. You would make it general and not confine it to the 
 development of water ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Yes, sir ; for the improvement of the range as well 
 as for water. 
 
 Mr. Church. Does the bill contemplate that every owner of stock 
 shall secure a permit or license before he is allowed to graze his 
 stock on the public domain? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. It provides that there shall be a proclamation of 
 grazing districts, and that after one year every man grazing stock 
 must take out a permit; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Church. Don't you think that would be rather burdensome 
 on some of the small ranchers who probably have only a few head 
 of cattle and a few horses ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. No. 
 
 Mr. Church. To compel him to go and secure this permit. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. It has not been found to be so in the national forests. 
 
 Mr. Church. Well, of course, the public domain is surrounded 
 with a great many of these homesteaders and farmers, and the 
 national forest is some distance away, and it seems to me it must be 
 some effort for the farmer and the homesteader and the stockman 
 to take his stock to the national forest just for that purpose, and as 
 a rule the farmers turn out their cows on the public highways any- 
 way, don't they ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Yes, sir; but the national forests are full of home- 
 steaders, within the forests. 
 
 The Chairman. A man making application for a homestead, it 
 would have to be determined by somebody whether or not the land 
 was more suitable for homestead purposes or for grazing purposes? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Under this law a man has a right to settle and 
 take up a homestead any way he likes. 
 
 The Chairman. And go right into an inclosure? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Anywhere he chooses 
 
 The Chairman. I believe you stated that you thought the national 
 forests had stimulated homesteading? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. I saidihat I thought that the control of the national 
 forests had had an effect on bringing more settlers into the forests, 
 because the small man has been protected. 
 
 The Chairman. You think this is generally so? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. In the national forests it is unquestionably so, but 
 in the regions where stock is the main reliance we found substan- 
 tially everywhere a desire on the part of the small man to have the 
 regulation of the national forest extended so as to prevent the big 
 man coming along with his great herds and eating him out. 
 
188 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 The Chairman. Under the regulations governing the Forestry 
 Service there has been some restrictions placed on the homesteader, 
 in that he has to get the consent of the department? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Before those regulations were established they 
 did not have to get any consent from the department, but now they 
 do, and it has to be determined whether or not the land is more bene- 
 ficial for agricultural purposes than for timber purposes ; but, never- 
 theless, you think there is more homesteading now than there was 
 before, where there were no restrictions ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Yes, sir; I think a great many more farms have 
 been established than there would have been if there had been no 
 control of the Government. You see, homesteading has taken place 
 for two entirely different reasons : One was to make a home, and the 
 other was to get possession of timber or mining land and not to make 
 a home — the man who wan ted-to get a home for something else .be- 
 sides living on it has been very much discouraged since th§. regula- 
 tions were established. 
 
 The Chairman. What change has taken place for the legitimate 
 homesteader since the regulation of the forests ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. I have seen men at range meetings — have one par- 
 ticular man in mind now, at a meeting in the Black Hills country, 
 where some settlers came in from outside the forests and wanted the 
 forest lines extended, and I remember one man standing up, a fellow 
 with a pair of overalls on and very little else ; this man was evidently 
 very poor, and with tears running down his face he told of how for 
 three successive nights some big sheepmen had been through his sec- 
 tion and their herds had gotten through his fences and eaten up his 
 crops. Since the regulation of the national forests that kind of con- 
 flict has been absolutely stopped, and the small man, who was before 
 eaten out by the i>ig sheepmen, is now protected from them. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. You think that could be prevented and covered by 
 such a bill as this ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. I know it would be here. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. What are the regulations in the national forests 
 which prevent the big men from eating out the homesteader? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. The range is carefully controlled, and the place each 
 man can graze is allotted to him, and the small homesteader is pro- 
 tected entirely from the kind of thing I have mentioned. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Going back to your answer with reference to the pro- 
 tection the homesteader has from his inclosure, that is a criminal 
 offense, it is not, for the big sheepmen to go through his' fences? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. It may be; it happens 
 
 Mr. Raker. But it is a criminal offense, is it not? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And hasn't he the ordinary rights under the law to 
 prosecute ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Yes; he can go to the district attorney and ask him 
 to arrest these men who go through his fences ; these remedies are 
 available, but it is very rare that they are applied. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Isn't it true that in California they have a 2-mile limi- 
 tation, and a man can not herd his sheep nearer than that ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. That is theoretically true, but as a matter of practi- 
 cal application it is not true, for it is done over and over again. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 189 
 
 Mr. Raker. In my district I know of men who have tried to get 
 the Forestry Service to look after this very thing, and they have been 
 unable to get it done. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Maybe if they had used a little more money it might 
 have been done. 
 
 Mr. Raker. They did all they possibly could. That is always going 
 on to some extent. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Judge, there has never been a crew of men in which 
 these things wouldn't happen sometimes ; but we have had almost no 
 difficulties. I don't know of any cases of killing of stock since the 
 national forests were established; there have been very few cases of 
 any difficulties at all. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You mean rows between the various parties ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. That is what I mean. 
 
 Mr. RAker. It has been said here that there has been practically 
 none of these rows on the public domain. But I would like to ask 
 you what is the object and the reason of the Forestry Service getting 
 rid of all the privately owned land in the national forests — home- 
 steaders and otherwise — if it is not for the purpose of avoiding con- 
 flict with the homesteader ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. I don't think I understand that question. 
 
 Mr. Raker. They are securing all the privately owned land that 
 can be, in the national forests 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. How? 
 
 Mr. Raker. By exchange. We just authorized a bill last year that 
 the Government could exchange a like quantity of land for these 
 privately owned tracts scattered all over the national forests. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. What bill was- that? 
 
 Mr. Raker. For the purpose of exchange— — 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. With whom? 
 
 Mr. Raker. The State of Oregon was one. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Oh, that was a State matter. 
 
 Mr. Raker. We did it for New Mexico last year. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. I think that was for alternate sections — a part of 
 the Atlantic & Pacific Railroad Co. lands. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I introduced that bill. . 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. There is no such effort that I know of, on the part 
 of the national forests. 
 
 Mr. Raker. To exclude the privately owned land in the national 
 forests? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. I have not heard of it. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You think there is no practice of that kind going on? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Not that I am familiar with. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I thought that I would be able to demonstrate that 
 you approved of it. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Personally, I have been in favor of having as many 
 settlers in the national forests as possible. 
 
 Mr. Raker. There was, until.it was prevented by act of Congress, 
 a great deal of exchange going on. Areas in the national forests 
 were turned over to the Government and parties permitted to take 
 other land. Was not that for the purpose of giving the Govern- 
 ment more general control and to avoid conflicts ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. No, sir ; it was done for a totally different reason. 
 
 Mr. Raker. What was. the reason? 
 
190 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. In order that certain men could be included in the 
 national forests these exchanges were permitted. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Within the last two months hasn't privately owned 
 land in the forest been exchanged for land outside for the purpose 
 of consolidating the land in the forest ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. That was done almost entirely for the sake of sat- 
 isfying claims of States and not for the purpose of consolidating. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Referring again to the question of the rights of the 
 man who goes into the fenced area that has been leased by the stock- 
 man. Your understanding is that for the first year he can have 
 grazing privileges for his domestic stock? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Until the end of the grazing period, whenever that 
 may come. 
 
 Mr. Raker. At the beginning of the grazing year, the next grazing 
 year, suppose he wanted to add 100 head of stock to what he had in 
 that pasture?. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. He will have a preference right. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Tha* would apply if he wanted to put sheep in there — 
 500 head of sheep ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. The bill doesn't specify. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Of course; but is it your view that the homesteader 
 who goes in and files on 160 acres the first year can only use domestic 
 animals, but the next year he can put in, say, 100 head of cattle along 
 with the cattle already on that range? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. The answer, of course, is perfectly plain in the bill- 
 that he would have a preference right to a permit under the terms as 
 stated ; and as to the kind of stock, it is provided that these advisory 
 boards shall decide what kind of stock and the way it shall be dis- 
 tributed. 
 
 Mr. Kent. He couldn't put elephants in if it was a cattle lease? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Certainly not. I think all those points would be 
 taken care of by practical methods of administration. 
 
 Mr. Raker. As a matter of fact, the homesteader would have, un- 
 der the bill, this preference right, without any rules or regulations, 
 to put in 50 head of cattle if he saw fit ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. He would be under exactly the same conditions as 
 to all the other uses of the land. 
 
 Mr. Raker. It would all depend upon the rules established by the 
 Secretary of Agriculture. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Under the terms of the bill these matters are put in 
 charge of a local committee called the executive board. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And if any difference of opinion arose as to the home- 
 steader's preference rights, the local board would have to decide. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Exactly as anybody else leasing land in that region; 
 he would have to conform to the regulations. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Suppose there was a lease of 50,000 acres, and a home- 
 steader went in and filed on 160 acres, and the second year would he 
 be permitted to put in that inclosure what he, in his judgment, 
 thought was right? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. My answer is exactly as I have stated before; he 
 would be compelled to conform to the regulations for the district, 
 whether he wanted to or not. 
 
 Mr. Raker. It would depend on the rules and regulations, then? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. The local rules and regulations of the district. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 191 
 
 Mr. Raker. Have you given the subject any- study which would 
 enable you to send to the committee a table showing the number of 
 cattle per year, within the last eight years, that have come off of 
 each of these 16 public-land States ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. No doubt you could get them from the Department 
 of Agriculture. 
 
 Mr. Raker. What I asked was if you had given the subject any 
 study ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. I have not the figures ; no, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Have you given any thought to the increase in size of 
 cattle and of horses and sheep within the last eight years in these 
 16 States, or to the question of breeding of horses and cattle and 
 sheep ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. I am not a stockman, Judge, and while I have a 
 general idea regarding these matters I have not the detailed in- 
 formation you want. They should be easily available at the Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture. I know about them only in a general way. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Under the second provision of the bill, as I under- 
 stand it, it is provided that a man who obtains a lease, say for 10,000 
 acres, would be permitted, in his judgment, to fence it if he desired? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. The type of fence, as I understand it, is a very 
 important item. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I want your opinion on this point, Mr. Pinchot, be- 
 cause it seems to me to be a very important point. On line 10, page 
 2, it says, " which shall include the right to fence the same." Would 
 you not understand that to mean that he would have the right to 
 put a fence entirely around it if he wanted to ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. The language of the bill would have to be inter- 
 preted by regulations, Judge. 
 
 Mr. Raker. What is your view of it ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. I should say it would be different in certain locali- 
 ties ; in some drift fences might be allowed, and in others some other 
 form of inclosure. 
 
 Mr. Raker. As a matter of general policy, do you believe it would 
 be a good thing to adopt to permit lessees, scattered all over the main 
 area, to inclose their land ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. The type of fence would have to be determined 
 locally. I don't believe that question could be answered in a general 
 way. 
 
 Mr. Raker. It would have to be determined in each case? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Yes, sir; as a matter of administration. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Still I don't get your point of view. If the law per- 
 mitted a man to inclose his land would the Secretary of Agriculture 
 or anybody else have anything to say about it ? Would he not have 
 the right to inclose it ? . 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Yes, sir ; if inclosures were permitted in that region. 
 I do not understand that fenced land necessarily means an inclosure. 
 As I said there are two classes of fences. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I have been taking the view that to fence a piece of 
 land meant a complete inclosure. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. In my judgment, in a great many cases it does not 
 mean a complete inclosure. 
 
 Mr, Raker. If this language does mean that, that a man should be 
 permitted to completely inclose his land, it ought to be plainly 
 
192 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 stated ; if it doesn't mean that, it should be changed so it would be in 
 the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture to say what the fence 
 should consist of. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. At the present time there is nothing in this bill 
 that would give the Secretary of Agriculture a right to determine 
 that first. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. The word " fence " might be interpreted to mean a 
 complete inclosure, or a drift fence. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Well, it might be, although I never in my life 
 have known a drift fence to be included in the ordinary meaning of 
 a fence as a complete inclosure, as it is simply a check — the simple 
 fact that it is called a " drift " fence shows it is not a fence intended 
 as an inclosure. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. The bill doesn't mention the fence as an inclosure. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. No, it doesn't ; and if the language of this bill were 
 not changed, I believe the Supreme Court of the United States would 
 decide that a man could fence every acre of his land if he wanted to, 
 and that he could do that in spite of the Secretary of Agriculture, 
 because this bill does not specify that the Secretary of Agriculture 
 shall make any regulation as to the kind of fence. Looking at it 
 from the view of a practical man I believe that would be the case. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. If I were administering the bill I would interpret 
 the language the other way, but that is simply a difference of opinion. 
 There are many places where I think large inclosures would be bad. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I am simply questioning the legal right of the 
 Secretary of Agriculture to say anything about it under the present 
 language of the bill. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. I think this language is wide enough to include both 
 kinds of fences. 
 
 *Mr. La Follette. I beg leave to differ with you. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. Well, if you think it ought to be changed, that 
 should be done. 
 
 The Chairman. Is there anything else you wish to add, Mr. 
 Pinchot? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot. I think not, Mr. Chairman, 
 
 The Chairman. All right; we thank you very much, Mr. Pinchot. 
 
 Mr. Mullin, the committee will now resume your examination. 
 Gentlemen will remember that Mr. Mullin gave way for Mr. Pinchot. 
 Judge Raker, will you please examine Mr. Mullin? 
 
 Mr. Raker. There were a few questions I wished to ask Mr. 
 Mullin. Have you given any study or made any investigation, Mr. 
 Mullin, regarding the number of cattle per State, in the 16 western 
 public-land States, for the last eight years? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. I have not, particularly; no, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Have you given any like study as to the number of 
 horses for the same time and for the same States? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. I have not; no, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And your answer would be the same with reference 
 (o sheep? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Is it not a fact, Mr. Mullin, that within the last eight 
 years there has been a general improvement of cattle as to breeds? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. Limited to some particular kinds, there has been a 
 decided improvement, but in others it has not been so. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 193 
 
 Mr. Raker. As a general proposition? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. Counting the reserves with the public domain, I 
 would say yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Your answer would be affirmative also, as to horses, 
 would it not? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. Not so much so. 
 
 Mr. Raker. But some? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. I would not say there had been in our State, except 
 on the farms. It is range horses you speak of, I presume. 
 
 Mr. Raker. No ; I am speaking generally, of every horse raised. 
 
 Mr. Mullin. Sure there has been. 
 
 Mr. Raker. There has been a general improvement in the horses of 
 the 16 western public-land States for the last eight years in regard 
 to breeding? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And the same would be true relative to sheep ? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. I think so. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Is it not a fact that the breeding of better cattle has 
 raised the size and weight of the cattle, as a general proposition, to 
 the extent of from 1 to 10 per cent? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. I think that is a fact. 
 
 Mr. Raker. From what per cent? From 5 to 10 per cent? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. Well, I know they have tried to raise heavier and 
 better cattle, but as to what percentage they have made a success of 
 it, I would not be able to state. 
 
 Mr. Raker. The breeding up of the cattle has brought a larger 
 cattle, generally speaking, has it not? 
 
 Mr. Mullin." I think so. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And the same would be true as to horses ? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. I think so. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And as to sheep? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. I think so. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That is all. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. You stated, Mr. Mullin, that you thought this 
 leasing bill would restore the productiveness of these regions to their 
 former capacity for producing beef and mutton. You stated that, 
 did you not? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. I did; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Is it your idea that the homesteader locating in 
 one of these grazing reserves, the man who wanted to try and do a 
 little farming, should have the right to graze along with others, but 
 should be restricted to so many? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. I don't think I understand your question. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. We will say a homesteader goes in on one of these 
 pastures; you would contemplate that he would have his own right 
 to raise what he wanted to within his own fence, and that under this 
 system he would also have the right to graze his stock outside his 
 farm along with the other fellow ? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. I would answer that in this way: When you talk 
 
 about people going into a pasture to take up a homestead it sounds 
 
 so ridiculous to me, from my viewpoint, because nobody would have 
 
 ' a pasture where a man would want a homestead. I don't think 
 
 35074— pt 1—14 13 
 
194 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 that any practical cowman will do that, for he knows it, and I think, 
 besides that, the administration is going to be very careful about 
 leasing land applicable to even your 640-acre homesteads you are 
 talking about. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. There might be a difference of opinion about that. 
 
 Mr. Mullin. There is. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. Well, a homesteader might want to go into one 
 of these pastures and file on 640 acres and fence it and graze his 
 stock there on his own land and try to do a little farming. Might 
 there not be a difference of opinion between him and the advisory 
 board that controls such things as to whether he should do that? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. There might be circumstances like that where there 
 would be no difference of opinion. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. But if there was a difference of opinion it would 
 have to be settled between the homesteader and the advisory board? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. I had supposed the Secretary of Agriculture would 
 have the final say about that. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. But the advisory board would have the say in the 
 first instance ? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. I think so. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. And it is provided in the bill that four of the 
 local stockmen, who have the whole grazing district under their con- 
 trol, and one representative of the Department of Agriculture shall 
 compose the executive board. 
 
 Mr. Mullin. We are perfectly willing that should be settled that 
 way, as provided in the bill. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. That is the provision in the bill now, is it not? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. Well, I hardly understand the bill just as you stated it. 
 
 Mr. Fegeusson. How do you understand it, then? What does it 
 mean on that point ? If the advisory board should go over a certain 
 grazing district, under this leasing bill, and conclude that no land 
 in there was fit for homesteading, and some poor fellow should come 
 along there without wealth, but who wanted 640 acres in that area 
 for the purpose of making a home for himself and his family, would 
 he have the right to go in there and fence his 640 acres where he 
 wanted to, or would he be compelled to locate his homestead some- 
 where else because the advisory board said that particular area was 
 not fit for homesteading? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. It would have to be decided whether he was going 
 in there for legitimate purposes 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. Who is to decide whether he is going in there for 
 legitimate purposes? The advisory board or the homesteader him- 
 self? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. In general answer to your question 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. You have a rightto do that. 
 
 Mr. Mullin. I would think you'could pay too dear a price for 
 settlers; if we can have the real, legitimate farmer who wants to 
 come into our community, that is what we want. We want him to 
 come and stay and to find it profitable. We don't want men to come 
 out there and spend a few years and starve to death ; we want him 
 to come and make money. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Now, that is right to my question — who is to 
 decide whether he is such a legitimate farmer, who is after locating » 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 195 
 
 64P-acre homestead, who wants to fence it and use it for himself? 
 Who decides that? The man himself or the advisory board? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. We are willing to leave it to the advisory board. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. And the homesteader himself, are you willing to 
 leave it to him ? B 
 
 Mr. Mullin. That would depend on the homesteader. 
 - Mr.. Fergusson. And who decides what the homesteader is? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. I would want to leave that 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. To the advisory board? 
 
 Mr Mullin. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. That is what I wanted answered. 
 
 You say this lease law would be beneficial to all interests— stock 
 raisers, the homesteader, farming interests— for the general welfare. 
 It would be acceptable to all, you think? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Well, now, let me ask you about that. I will give 
 you the same illustration I gave to. Mr. Pinchot. We will take 
 64,000 acres, assuming it is suitable for farming purposes, and for 
 grazing. My idea contemplates ? to promote the grazing and stock- 
 raising interests in general, letting a man have enough land — some 
 have said here that 640 acres would not be enough — but let him have 
 enough land to raise from 30 to 40 head of cattle a year and two, or 
 three hundred sheep, and sell certain of his cattle and sheep each year, 
 and at the same time have it under fence so he can experiment with 
 grass seed and restore the grazing capacity in "every possible way. 
 Don't you think it would be better to have 64,000 acres populated by 
 100 prosperous farmers, each raising from 10 to 15 beeves for sale 
 and fattening his cattle in winter from his own silos ; don't you think 
 it would be better for the general welfare, that it would do much 
 more toward building up those Western States, and would tend to 
 inducing railroads to come into that country, and improve the com- 
 munity with schools and churches, and even with high schools where 
 the children could finish up their education; don't, you think that 
 sort of policy would be much, better, for the. general welfare than ito 
 have the whole area of 64,000 acres controlled by a few stockmen, we 
 will say ? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. I don't think so. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Well, I will leave that point with that answer. 
 That is satisfactory to me. 
 
 Mr. Mullin, you said you thought it would bring more revenue, 
 this leasing system, than the enlarged homestead made with the ob- 
 ject of promoting and restoring the producing capacity of the graz- 
 ing country for producing beef and mutton. You have stated it 
 would bring more revenue to the State of Arizona. Now, look -at 
 the other side of the picture. If you had a hundred farms in that 
 given area that I have mentioned, each man to be taxed — with his 
 cattle under inclosure they are assessed for taxation. Don't you 
 think that Arizona would perhaps get as much out of that 64,000 
 acres if it was inhabited as I have just outlined as it would if the 
 whole .area was controlled by one set of men ? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. I think that under the administration of these lands 
 under the policy as laid down in this bill that the taxes to the coun- 
 try — that the revenue to the State of Arizona — would be a great deal 
 
196 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 more than under your system for a series of years, because you could 
 not get money out of these homesteaders who filed under your system. 
 You would find that in a short time it would all be in the hands of 
 large private ownership. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. How would that be? The small fellow would pay 
 his full taxes. They generally do it, don't they ? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. Yes, sir ; when they have it to pay. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. You said another thing, that you thought it would 
 be better for the little sheepman, this leasing system. If a sheepman 
 wanted to go inside one of these pastures and locate his 640 acres 
 and fence it, I believe I heard it said by somebody discussing this 
 bill that he would have to have a fence horse high, pig tight, and 
 bull strong to keep the herd from ranging through his homestead. 
 But suppose the sheepman got in there, and I have attempted to show 
 that on 640 acres a man could run 300 sheep very well and probably 
 have a good deal of mutton to sell and some wool, too; don't you 
 think that the little sheepman would be better off if protected by 
 his own fence than he would be by getting the consent of the advisory 
 board to have his sheep running around everywhere ? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. I think it would be helping the little man, and I 
 know they want this leasing bill in preference to anything else. I 
 am not able to say that the little sheepmen are not agreeable to 
 the homestead bill, but I have heard them discuss it enough to know 
 they kre all in favor of this leasing bill. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I would like to ask this gentleman about that 
 hundred-dollar clause, which I told Mr. Pinchot I thought was the 
 joker in this bill. It says that whenever improvements to the amount 
 of $100 have been placed on any 40-acre tract it shall not be subject 
 to settlement or appropriation during the period of the lease with- 
 out the consent of the owner of such improvements. Wherever a 
 man has such improvements on a 40-acre tract, that would prevent 
 any homesteader from taking that piece during the life of the lease. 
 Now, you have lived down there and are probably a good judge of 
 human nature, and don't you think that the average stockman would 
 be smart enough to see that he had the $100 worth of improvements 
 on all the best 40-acre tracts, and so preclude the homesteader from 
 coming on it? 
 
 Mr.- Mullin. I think you are right about that, and we are per- 
 fectly willing that that clause shall be excluded from the bill. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Mr. McClure said he thought it ought to be in 
 there. 
 
 Mr. Mullin. I don't think he wanted it in just that way. We are 
 willing to leave that to the people who are administering the law. 
 We believe they will deal fairly and justly about that. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I said this provision in the bill was a joker, and 
 I believe it was a joker put there to make Congress and the people 
 believe that every year these leases would be open to the home- 
 steader, so he could get in there. 
 
 Mr. Mullin. We don't think it was put in there for a joker, but 
 since we have been here we have had a meeting and discussed that' 
 provision and we now ask that it be stricken out. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. There are gentlemen here to-day who remember, 
 and I remember, that this joker has been in this bill every time it 
 has come up, for many years back. I say that with all due respect to 
 
DISPOSITION OP GKAZING LANDS. 197 
 
 Mr. Pinchot and to you gentlemen. I have had 37 years' experience 
 as a cattleman and stockman. I have bred nearly every kind of 
 stock that I know of, and I have heard sheep bleat so long till I was 
 bleating like one; I have h#,d a lot of experience with horses and 
 cattle, and you know I could have no feeling against any of you fel- 
 lows; my sympathies are with you; but, at the same time, I have got 
 to express my honest views on a bill like this. 
 
 Mr. Mullin. We understand that, sir. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. And my opinion is that this was the joker of 
 the whole thing, even 20 years ago. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Mr. Mullin, you are undoubtedly familiar with the 
 controlling features of this bill, where it provides for the local board 
 of control ? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Is that feature of it satisfactory to the stockmen 
 generally ? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. It is ; but we have agreed on an additional clause. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Not in this bill ? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. No, sir; it is not in the bill. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. What was that? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. And additional clause whereby the board of control, 
 would be subject to the control of the Secretary of Agriculture. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. As I remember it, the board of control shall consist 
 of a number of local residents and a supervisor — a representative of. 
 the Department of Agriculture — and that any disagreements should 
 be referred to the Secretary of Agriculture. Is that feature satis- 
 factory to the stockmen? 
 , Mr. Mullin. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. That means, does it not, that you local people 
 haven't very much to say about it? If the local supervisor doesn't 
 agree with you^with the four men of your community who are on 
 the board — then the matter has to be decided by the Secretary of 
 Agriculture. 
 
 .-Mr. Mullin. We are perfectly willing to intrust it to the Secre- 
 tary of Agriculture; he has the interests of all the people at heart.; 
 We might be a little prejudiced in one community, but we are per-, 
 fectly willing to leave it to that department. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. So that the clause which requires a number of local 
 men on the board is practically useless? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. I think not; they will naturally take care of most 
 of the matters that come up. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. But they would" have to do as the supervisor di- 
 rected or the whole thing would go to the department ? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. As a matter of fact, hasn't this same identical plan 
 been working satisfactorily with the forest reserves ? 
 
 Mr. "Mullin. It has; with great success. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. And appeals have been rare ? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. Very rare. I never heard of but one. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. The matter of an appeal upon these minor disputes 
 would be one that these small farmers — the ordinary homesteaders — 
 could not afford to take, wouldn't it? 
 '. Mr. Mullin. How is that ? 
 
198 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 1 
 
 Mr. Johnson. The expense of sending an appeal would be so 
 large that the ordinary farmer couldn't afford to make one on a 
 minor matter? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. I wouldn't anticipate that it would be any expense. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. There would be no expense connected with it? 
 
 Mr. Mullin. No, sir ; I don't think there would be any expense. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I think that is all, Mr. Chairman. 
 
 The Chairman. All right, Mr. Mullin; we thank you very much 
 for the information you have given us. 
 
 The next witness is Mr. Levi Young. It has been arranged that you 
 should proceed for 15 minutes, Mr. Young, and at the end of that 
 time the committee will examine you. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. LEVI YOUNG. 
 
 Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
 come now as a homesteader; first and absolutely as a homesteader. 
 I have lived up in that country where the elevation is 7,721 feet. 
 I have no neighbors at all. I want to take you back to the place 
 shown in the map yesterday, where 8,000 sheep came down out of 
 the forest reserve right onto these homesteaders. Now, I am inter- 
 ested in homesteaders; before I left Lonesome Valley to come up 
 here I talked with a lot of those fellows, and I got an expression of 
 opinion from them, and they feel that they have absolutely no pro- 
 tection at all, no security whatever. As it is now the sheepmen in 
 the north are fully protected ; they have ranges in the forest reserves, 
 and run their sheep up there. 
 
 Those homesteaders have their homes up there; they have 160 
 acres of land usually ; they prefer that to 320 acres. I will tell you 
 why later on. They are making a living all right, but it is very ex- 
 pensive to fence out there, and that is why they are satisfied with a 
 small area. It costs $200 a mile to build a fence out there, and in 
 some places $400. I have had actual experience of seven years out 
 there, and know that with the protection thrown around them which 
 is provided for in this bill you will have many more homesteaders, 
 come in there; without that they are discouraged. They can not 
 come up to the sheepmen, for they are not able to buiid a good 
 fence; they use the ties from the railroad, the old ties, because they 
 can get them for a nickel apiece. All they ask is a certain amount 
 of protection from these big sheepmen. I am also one of the men 
 who tried to keep the Forestry Service from eliminating certain sec- 
 tions from the reserves, for that did a great deal of damage to the 
 homesteaders ; there is a proposition to eliminate more of .this range, 
 which will be a calamity to many of the actual homesteaders. With 
 this protection, just as we have it in the forest reserves, the condi- 
 tion of the homesteader in our section would be very much improved. 
 Lack of this protection is the one problem that is bothering the 
 homesteader to-day. 
 
 As Mr. Mullin told you, you can not be in the forest reserve unless 
 you have son.ething to show that you are entitled to be there; if there 
 is any place there large enough for you to get a home, you can get 
 that. That has been my experience in the forest reserve. 
 
 To my mind the smaller the acreage the better for the homesteader, 
 unless he produces a great deal, because it costs too much to fence. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 199 
 
 These men at the meeting before I left Lonesome Valley, the highest 
 any one of them owned was 125 head of cattle, and there was not one 
 of them who hadn't been eaten out twice a year as the sheep came 
 down. There are 80,000 of them come down and then go back— 160,000 
 traveling that way twice a year, and in all justice the small home- 
 steader should have some sort of protection. 
 
 Another thing, the homesteader, as a general thing, has just a 
 very little bit of money, and he comes out there and is clear away 
 from society ; a great many people come out there for their health, 
 and they get them a little home, and if things could be so regulated 
 that after he got it and fenced in a little inclosure and have a few 
 cows that they would be properly protected these people could make 
 a living; otherwise they can not. You can not run less than 5,000 
 sheep and pay expenses, so that is the reason I am in favor of this 
 bill or something like it as a protection from the standpoint of the 
 actual homesteader. I have not got my patent yet, though I have 
 been living on the place for seven years. 
 
 Some of these fellows — I can give you their names — in the last 
 two years have suffered a great deal from these conditions, and I can 
 refer you to the Secretary of the Interior to bear me out in my state- 
 ment. All these people prefer the smaller homestead on account of 
 the expense. They often talk to me, and all of them say they are 
 absolutely prohibited from the 320-acre proposition on account of the 
 expense. We are in a mineral country out there, and nobody is going 
 to take up a homestead without first seeing what they are going to be 
 able to do with the land. In the first place, you can hot take up a 
 homestead on mineral land, and there is little of our country that 
 will not show at least 2| per cent right on the surface. 
 
 Three of the men I talked to before I left out there, who are home- 
 steaders, didn't have a hundred dollars when they went into the 
 business, and they are all paying their interest now ; but I don't pay 
 any interest, for having this protection of the Government up in the 
 forest reserve, you can go up there as soon as you get your perma- 
 nent permit and can borrow well up to the value of your cattle, pay 
 up your interest, and buy more or improve your stock by buying new 
 bulls and better cows, etc. 
 
 Now, I am a sheep man, and I am sometimes called a freak down 
 there for the stand I take, but I think we will get five times as many 
 homesteaders in our country as we would have without this protec- 
 tion. Without it there is absolutely no encouragement for people to 
 go in there. Since the law was passed entitling men to 320 acres we 
 have had more people apply in Lonesome Valley for 160-acre tracts 
 on account of the expense. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. You say a man is better off with a small area of land 
 if he has a permit to range his stock on the forest reserve than if he 
 owned an area sufficiently large on which to graze all of his stock ? 
 
 Mr. Young. Oh, much better. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. He hasn't the capital invested in the land. Is that 
 the idea % 
 
 Mr. Young. Yes. sir. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. You spoke of living over 7,000 feet above the sea? 
 
 Mr. Young. Close to 8,000; all that country around there is from 
 four to eight thousand feet. 
 
200 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. You are also in the forest reserve. 
 
 Mr. Young. Part in the forest reserve and part outside. 
 
 The Chairman. In the f oresf reserve, did you say ? 
 
 Mr. Young. We have a permit for the cattle to go in on the forest 
 reserve, but the sheep are out in the open. 
 
 The Chairman. How big is that area ? 
 
 Mr. Young. I don't know that, gentlemen ; it is unsurveyed, even. 
 
 The Chairman. You say they find 160 acres enough. What is the 
 rainfall? 
 
 Mr. Young. It is not very big. 
 
 The Chairman. Up to 7,000 feet it is generally pretty good. 
 
 Mr. Young. In certain areas in the high mountains it is better than 
 down in the valleys. 
 
 The Chairman. You also said that they had their 160 acres fenced? 
 
 Mr. Young. Yes, sir ; they have to fence. 
 
 The Chairman. In the forest reserves, where they have their farms 
 of 160 acres, is there a pretty good rainfall ? 
 
 Mr. Young. In the mountains. 
 
 The Chairman. What do they raise in the fenced areas? 
 
 Mr. Young. There is no fenced area in the forest reserve. 
 
 The Chairman. You can have 160 acres; but no fence? 
 
 Mr. Young. Yes, sir. I am the only settler up iii that country now. 
 
 The Chairman. What do the men down in the valley raise? 
 
 Mr. Young. The only thing they can raise is a little corn. Along 
 about July there is some pretty heavy rainfall in the mountains and 
 they can get their land ready to raise a little corn. 
 
 The Chairman. Do these farmers have sheep or cattle ? 
 
 Mr. Young. They have cattle ; they can not run sheep. A man can 
 not run sheep unless he has a lot of money. 
 
 The Chairman. Do they raise their cattle on the forest reserve? 
 
 Mr. Young. No, sir ; they are not on the forest reserve. 
 
 The Chairman. How do they graze them? 
 
 Mr. Young. Just turn them out in the country. 
 
 The Chairman. How do they protect their crops if they have no 
 fences ? 
 
 Mr. Young. They do have fences, though it is sometimes a very 
 poor fence. 
 
 The Chairman. I asked you a while ago if their areas were fenced, 
 and I thought you said no. 
 
 Mr. Young. I said they didn't have any fenced areas in the forest 
 reserve. 
 
 The Chairman. How do they graze their cattle, then? 
 
 Mr. Young. They just turn them out and let them go. 
 
 The Chairman. Under that system of grazing they don't have 
 much protection. 
 
 Mr. Young. That is what we want this bill for. 
 
 The Chairman. You are speaking about this bill being applicable 
 to this section ? 
 
 Mr. Young. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. You seem to be about the first homesteader who 
 has appeared so far, and I would like to find out how much of a 
 homesteader you are. How large is your entire area? 
 
 Mr. Young. 118 acres. 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 201 
 
 The Chairman. How much of it is cultivated ? 
 Mr. Young. 35 acres. 
 
 The Chairman. How many sheep have you ? 
 
 Mr. Young. I have no sheep in that section. 
 
 The Chairman. How many cattle ? 
 
 Mr. Young. Our company runs about 12,000. There are five of us 
 in the company. 
 
 The Chairman. You don't run your sheep up in that section ? 
 
 Mr. Young. No, sir; not in the reserve, but on the outside, on our 
 own homesteads and land we have acquired on open places. We 
 have acquired, by the customs of the country, some railroad land 
 leases; also some homesteads, and we have some mining claims, and 
 we also have some school sections leased, and our homes are on the 
 school sections. 
 
 The Chairman. In that section you have little irrigated land, 
 do you not? 
 
 Mr. Young. Not much ; it is from four to seven thousand feet above 
 sea level. 
 
 The Chairman. Are you or the company on the forest reserve? 
 
 Mr. Young. My home is in the forest reserve, but the rest of our 
 company have their homes down in the valley. 
 
 The Chairman. Your main business is sheep, isn't it? 
 
 Mr. Young. No, sir ; I have more in cattle. 
 
 The Chairman. How many cattle have you ? 
 
 Mr. Young. I haven't any myself. 
 
 The Chairman. I mean the company? 
 
 Mr. Young. I am in three. Young & Day have a permit for 500; 
 Young, Day & Meadows for 800 ; that makes about 300 head of cat- 
 tle apiece. 
 
 The Chairman. You have a permit for about 300. Do you share 
 in the company equally ? 
 
 Mr. Young. Yes, sir ; everyone has an equal share. 
 
 The Chairman. So you have about 1,300 head of cattle in all? 
 
 Mr. Young. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. I think that is all. 
 
 Mr. Eaker. Are you a married man, Mr. Young? 
 
 Mr. Young. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You have your family up there with you? 
 
 Mr. Young. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. How far is your nearest neighbor? 
 
 Mr. Young. Six miles, the nearest neighbor. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Are you using this place up there as a home? 
 
 Mr. Young. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I wanted to show from Mr. Young's testimony that 
 if you have a good location in the forest reserve you could make a 
 living there attending to cattle. Do you handle the cattle yourself? 
 
 Mr. Young. I have a son in the business and a couple of boys, 
 voung fellows. 
 " Mr. Raker. You don't run this 1,300 head of cattle around in one 
 
 ranch ? 
 
 Mr. Young. No, sir; in two places. 
 
 Mr. Raker. The cattle you keep on the range in the reserve part 
 of the time, just in the summer? 
 
 Mr. Young. No ; thev are there all the time. 
 
202 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. - 
 
 Mr. Raker. In the forest reserve? 
 
 Mr. Young. All the time. I will explain to you how it is, the 
 shape of the elevation. The mountain covers an area of about 5 
 miles, and two sides of it are perpendicular walls, about 3,000 feet 
 high ; it is second only to the Grand Canyon, and I am the only per- 
 son whoever ventured up there to make a home and get clear out of 
 society and away from everything. Of course it is very expensive to 
 get water, but the State of" Arizona has been very liberal in regard 
 to offering inducements for developing water. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. You wouldn't have felt justified in going to the ex- 
 pense of developing water if you had not been under some regu- 
 lated system of grazing ? 
 
 Mr. Young. I would not have thought of it; it would have been 
 suicide. On the other side we have developed more water, where 
 we have title to the land. If this bill goes through and this protec- 
 tion is given all over the country, we think it will be the salvation 
 of the homesteader to have the Government assume some kind of 
 control. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Have you ever thought about the question of having 
 just a little place up there and renting the balance of your land for 
 the purpose of paying the taxes on your land ? 
 
 Mr. Young. I have never thought about that; no, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You believe that the homesteaders there are making a 
 mistake by homesteading the land over 160 acres ? 
 
 Mr. Young. I don't say they are making a mistake, but for this 
 reason: The requirements of a 320-acre proposition are more than 
 they can handle. You have too much ground to protect. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Do you know of any place on the public domain where 
 it would be better for the homesteader 1 1 have a larger tract than a 
 smaller one? 
 
 Mr. Young. No, sir; I don't think it would be better for him. 
 The money it would cost to fence it up is too big a proposition. The 
 size don't amount to much, if you have the capital. Of course, it 
 would be different in some localities. My home out there is on a 
 great volcano, right at the crater. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That is all. 
 
 The Chairman. Inasmuch as you and I are both homesteaders, 
 Mr. Young, I wanted to ask a further question. You have lived out ■ 
 there a great many years? 
 
 Mr. Young. No, sir; only seven years. I went out there from 
 Ohio. 
 
 The Chairman. You have only lived there seven years. What is 
 your population down there? 
 
 Mr. Young. Of Arizona, as a State ? 
 
 The Chairman. Of Arizona ; yes. 
 
 Mr. Young. About 214,000. 
 
 The Chairman. What was your last vote ? 
 
 Mr. Young. About 34,000. 
 
 The Chairman. Did you see that map that was hung up here 
 dividing the State into 34 districts ? 
 
 Mr. Young. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Supposing the initiative and referendum was put 
 lip to those 34,000 people for a vote on the proposition of cutting the 
 State up into 34 grazing districts, and transfer the present method 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 203 
 
 of handling that land to one similar to the present method of 
 handling forest reserves under the Agricultural Department, just as 
 a matter of opinion and not binding anybody at all, what would you 
 say the vote would be ? 
 
 Mr. Young. I don't know what the vote would be. 
 
 The Chairman. I am speaking now of your aggregate population. 
 It doesn't bind you in any way ; I just wanted to get your opinion. 
 
 Mr. Young. Well, I think if it was actually put to the people of 
 Arizona for a vote that they would be in favor of it, because Ari- 
 zona is a unit on a thing of this kind. We are all boosting Arizona, 
 and I think you would find out they would do that. 
 
 The Chairman. I don't believe I could agree with you about that ; 
 maybe you have the right verdict, and I would like to be on your side 
 of the matter, but my guess would be — it is not worth anything, of 
 course — but my guess would be that in every county in your State 
 you would lose it by 4 to 1. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. You would find this condition to be true, Mr. Chair- 
 man. The people in the irrigated valleys of Arizona are very much 
 interested in the proper regulation of grazing in the mountains above 
 the irrigated areas in order to prevent undue erosion and to conserve 
 the waters of the streams. This was the reason why the people in the 
 irrigated sections of Arizona exerted every effort, in the first instance,, 
 to have the forest reserves established. If it came to a vote, I believe 
 you would find most all of the people in the irrigated districts in 
 favor of some form of regulation of grazing. 
 
 The Chairman. And what do you think the vote would be? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. I agree with Mr. Young, that a majority would vote 
 in favor of it. 
 
 Mr. Bullard. We of the irrigated counties, which pay one-third of 
 the taxes of the State, believe it would carry 4 to 1. 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. A bill involving these principles would carry 
 Maricopa County by a large majority. 
 
 The Chairman. I am very much obliged to you, gentlemen. I 
 think you have given us the best testimony that has been given since 
 you began, that we have just heard. 
 
 Mr. Young. I believe if you would put it up to the home owners 
 of the State that it would carry with a very large majority. 
 
 The Chairman. I thank you very much, Mr. Young. It has been 
 a revelation to me. I see you are a State that won't hang singly, but 
 collectively. 
 
 Mr. Young. You have no Government land in your State now? 
 
 The Chairman. No: and the fight of 20 years has been to get rid 
 of it ; and we have increased in population in the last 10 years from 
 less than 500,000 to 1,686,000, and in lieu of one Delegate of a one- 
 horse Territory, we have a State with two Senators and eight Con- 
 gressmen. 
 
 Mr. Kent. I was just going to suggest that your State was un- 
 doubtedly held back by the fact that it was an Indian reservation 
 and was not open like the public domain until recent years; and 
 everybody knew, when it was opened, what a magnificent country 
 it was and what agricultural opportunities they would find there, and 
 the rush that went there was enormous. 
 
204 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 The Chairman. Yes; I know. My State is not a parallel case 
 with this at all; the character of the soil in Oklahoma and all the 
 conditions are different. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. I understood this gentleman had a home in the 
 forest reserve. 
 
 Mr. Young. I have. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. I thought the forest-reserve regulations made it 
 pretty difficult to go in there and get a homestead. 
 
 Mr. Young. No, sir; I have two boys with me who have taken 
 homesteads right recently; they are just poor boys; I don't hook up 
 with anybody who has anything, as a rule. There is not any trouble 
 about it at all. The only thing is you have to know what you are 
 doing; you can not locate on mineral land. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Do they take a homestead in the forest reserve 
 rather than outside — they consider that to their advantage? 
 
 Mr. Young. Yes, sir; they have three apply where there is one 
 outside. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. In other words, they rather take a homestead in 
 regulated territory than one not in regulated territory ? 
 
 Mr. Young. Absolutely; it gives you credit at the bank to have 
 your homestead in the forest reserve. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. And if such a law as this were passed it would be 
 more desirable to take a homestead in regulated territory? 
 
 Mr. Young. There is no question about it in my mind at all, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. How many homesteads have been taken in the forest 
 reserves in Arizona? 
 
 Mr. Young. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Have you some idea? 
 
 Mr. Thomson. He just said he didn't have any idea. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. He said he didn't know. 
 
 Mr. Raker. If you gentlemen will just wait just a minute and let 
 me ask my questions, maybe I will find out that he does know. What 
 reserve are you in. Mr. Young? 
 
 Mr. Young. In the Prescott National Forest. 
 
 Mr. Raker. To your knowledge, how many homesteaders have 
 filed on that within the last six years? 
 
 Mr. Young. There has been — I don't know that I could say. But 
 I was asking one of the surveyors who made the last survey out. 
 there a short time ago, and he said that in one section there had been 
 about 60 applicants; but in this neighborhood I can not remember 
 that there has been more than a dozen or fifteen in the last year. We 
 find it quite an advantage to have them close by. Some of you gen- 
 tlemen might know what it means to go 42 miles on horseback, and 
 it would undoubtedly be beneficial and a great help if a man was able 1 
 to ride out and see a man and get back the same day ; besides, you can. 
 have a forest guard to go with you, and you can get better and more 
 efficient service in every way by filing on a forest reserve instead of 
 outside. 
 
 The Chairman. All right, Mr. Young. We thank you very much. 
 
 The next witness is Mr: Green. Please give your name and ad-' 
 dress to the reporter, Mr. Green. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 205 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM GREEN, TRINIDAD, COLO. 
 
 Mr. Green. I am a homesteader, Mr. Chairman, but it is a long 
 time ago since I became one. I have lived in Colorado on this home- 
 stead for 28 years, and my family is living there. Some of the home- 
 steaders out in our section are not doing well, and when the mines 
 were opened out there they went to work in the mines in order to 
 make a living, and their wives and children, many of them, had to 
 be left to take care of the farms. I have had a long experience with 
 these people, and I am here to-day representing the small man. I 
 am president of the Southeastern Colorado Stock Growers' Associa- 
 tion, which is composed of small men. We took a vote on this propo- 
 sition, and, with four exceptions, everybody voted for it. Those four 
 were big men who voted against it, not small stockmen like the rest 
 of them. 
 
 I came here at the instigation of small stockmen. There has 
 been a great deal said about the quarrels between the little stockman 
 and the big man, but those things are getting very rare now. We had 
 a little fuss in Colorado with a man who brought in some Mexican 
 bulls with the pure-bred bulls, and there was complaint about it. I 
 happened to be on the executive board at Denver at the time, and I 
 told them if they would let the Mexican bulls go I would furnish 
 them bulls, and I have been doing that ever since — -am furnishing 
 them now. 
 
 I am heartily in favor of this act, and I know the small stockmen 
 of Colorado are, too. I am familiar with the needs of .these men ; 
 I brand their calves for them; and they will do everything they 
 can for me, often round up my cattle and bring them home, with- 
 out any expense at all; and when they need help I help them out, 
 and don't charge them for anything of any description — furnish the 
 grub and everything else. 
 
 It is the same way in horses ; I furnished them with three stallions 
 for use out on the range equally by these men. We have had no 
 conflict at all. All my arrangements with the small stockmen work 
 out satisfactorily, but I Can see that they would be benefited if 
 allowed to fence up some more of their land. There were some fellows 
 from Denver brought a lot of cattle down our way — 14,000 of them — 
 and they had no right there ; they turned them loose, and cattle 
 have a natural tendency to stray south in the wintertime. I could 
 never go down to my water that I didn't find two or three hundred 
 head of Mexican cattle (,5 there. Well, when we refused to gather 
 them in, that was just what they wanted; but when rounding up 
 your own bunch you would get some of their cattle, and they would 
 come along behind us and cut them out, so we really gathered them 
 for them. That is really my strongest objection to drift fences, 
 for if we. could run drift fences and find them of any value I would 
 do it gladly. 
 
 That is all, gentlemen, that I believe I have to say, but I will be 
 very glad to answer any .questions I can for you. I have had long 
 experience with these homesteaders up in my section, but as to the 
 forest reserves I know nothing about them. 
 
 The Chairman. Getting back to the practical side of this ques- 
 tion, Mr. Green, feeling as you do about it and as the gentlemen who 
 preceded you, what would you think of enacting legislation that 
 
206 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 would make the homestead proposition sufficiently attractive to the 
 homesteader so as to cause an influx of people in those States, with a 
 proviso which would allow the rest of the land to be leased under 
 some plan to be decided upon ? 
 
 Mr. Green. In this district I am speaking of it is all sand rock, 
 with very little earth on it, and no water has ever been found in 
 there ; they are all owned by the sheepmen. 
 
 The Chairman. Of course that wouldn't apply to your section; 
 but there are other areas in New Mexico, Montana, and in other sec- 
 tions where there is good agricultural land. 
 
 Mr. Green. Yes, sir ; and I think those lands will support a family 
 all right. 
 
 The Chairman. What I meant to ask you, Mr. Green, was if you 
 thought, under some such bill as this, the lands having agricultural 
 possibilities could be separated from the grazing lands and not hurt 
 you people? 
 
 Mr. Green. It would not hurt me at all, because in my district all 
 the water that can be gotten is held by the Mexicans and the small 
 men. There is not any water for you to get under 200 or 300 miles. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Do you raise any hay, Mr. Green ? 
 
 Mr. Green. No, sir ; I buy. 
 
 Mr. Kent. You don't intend to start in the range business ? 
 
 Mr. Green. I tried to raise some feed when I first went in there, 
 but none of it was successful. We tried two kinds of hay. 
 
 Mr. Kent. You carry your cows that have had calves on hay dur- 
 ing the winter? 
 
 Mr. Green. No, sir ; not as a rule ; we don't require it. This winter 
 we had a very big snow, and these men — those homestead farmers— on 
 account, I suppose, of my treating them the way I do, they gathered 
 up our cattle that came in and put them to their hay stacks, and then 
 called my son up on the telephone ; and at one place they had 50 head. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Then you are voluntarily doing for these small men 
 what this bill provides for doing? 
 
 Mr. Green. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. How many acres of grass land do you have now ? 
 
 Mr. Green. We bought 14 claims. I think there was about 40 
 acres in some of them. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Were they homestead claims ? 
 
 Mr. Green. They had been homesteaders in the early days — Mexi- 
 cans who went broke in sheep or politics. 
 
 The Chairman. That is the fate of all oflus. 
 
 Mr. Raker. What is the average amount of cattle you would run 
 per year ? 
 
 Mr. Green. I ought to have about 1,000, but I guess 750 would be 
 about the number. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Why? 
 
 Mr. Green. On account of stealing and drifting back to where they 
 were before, and some are lost in the storms. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Who does the stealing? 
 
 Mr. Green. It is hard to tell, but we believe it was some fellows 
 who came in there from Texas. 
 
 The Chairman. I see Mr. Green has developed into a good politi- 
 cian, for we haven't a single man from Texas on this committee. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 207 
 
 Mr. Green. One of these men that did came from your State, Mr. 
 Chairman. 
 
 Mr. Raker. If a man wanted to steal and drive your cattle away, 
 would it be easier to do if there were no fences ? 
 
 Mr, Gkeen. Oh, we could get on his trail. When he gets away 
 with the cattle he takes them up into the rocky hills where they leave 
 no tracks. But we have fences — four-wire fences. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Isn't it a fact that the farther a man's cattle get away 
 from his own ranch the more apt they are to be lost ? 
 
 Mr. Green. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Kent. And, therefore, any measure that will restrict a man's 
 cattle to his own area — to a reasonable distance from his own ranch — • 
 acts against cattle stealing, wouldn't it ? 
 
 Mr. Green. It would ; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Eaker. I understand you are in favor of the right to fence 
 the public domain. 
 
 Mr. Green. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You would be opposed to any bill that didn't give 
 that privilege. 
 
 Mr. Green. No ; I would be opposed to any kind of bill that would 
 put a fence that would control the whole range, when I could put up 
 drift fences at little expense. 
 
 Mr. Raker. A drift fence put across canyons and ravines is prac- 
 tically an inclosure, because the rim rock is such that cattle can not 
 get over it. 
 
 Mr. Green. I am in favor of drift fences in my neighborhood; it 
 is a poor sort of fence, but it answers the purpose. 
 
 Mr. Raker. To get a little concrete matter from you: Is it your 
 belief that if they are permitted to lease land they should be per- 
 mitted to fence it ? 
 
 Mr. Green. Yes ; I think they should, because it would not do me 
 any good without it. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Each man to inclose what he thought would be suf- 
 ficient for his cattle and horses, as the case might be, but a fence, 
 put up so that anyone that came along desiring to go in there for 
 mining or to file a homestead, would not be very desirable ? 
 ~ Mr. Green. I haven't the slightest objection to that; but I can 
 not answer for other people; but, personally, I have no objection. I 
 don't care how strong you make it, and if that is the law and a man 
 refuses to let a homesteader in there he ought to be put in the 
 penitentiary, because I believe every man who refuses to obey the 
 law ought to be there. 
 
 1 Mr. Raker. No ; I didn't mean to go in just to see, but actually to 
 go in and file on the land. 
 
 Mr. -Green. Yes, sir; he has a right to do that if he thinks it is 
 worth filing on. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And you think a provision should be put in the law 
 making it a penal offense if he should refuse ? 
 
 Mr. Green. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. That is all, Mr. Green. 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. You are familiar with the so-called dry-land 
 section in southern Colorado, aren't you, Mr. Green? 
 
 Mr. Green. Yes, sir. 
 
208 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. How are those homesteaders going in there get- 
 ting along? 
 
 Mr. Green. Just as I said awhile ago, Mr. Tomlinson. None of 
 them have made a success of it ; they nave had to go in the mines 
 to work in order to make a living, ana their wives and children have 
 the farms to look after. They are principally Italians, not the 
 Mexicans. 
 
 The Chairman. He has gone off into politics. 
 
 Mr. Green. Yes, sir; that is the height of his ambition. 
 
 (Thereupon, at 6 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until 10 
 o'clock a. m. to-morrow.) 
 
 Committee on Public Lands, 
 
 House of Representatives, 
 Washington, D. C, March 6, 1914. 
 The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m. 
 
 Present: Representatives Ferris (chairman), Graham, Raker, Fer- 
 gusson, Hayden, Stout, La Follette, Kent, Sinnott, Johnson, and 
 Thomson. 
 
 STATEMENT OF E. H. CRABB, PRESIDENT OF THE COCONINO 
 CATTLE GROWERS' ASSOCIATION AND GENERAL MANAGER 
 OF THE COCONINO CATTLE CO., FLAGSTAFF, ARIZ. 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, after all the discussion 
 of the proposed bill, it seems to me that the general merits of the 
 bill have been very well gone over, and it is my intention to try 
 and convince this committee of the practical application of the 
 bill — I might say, the physical application — in my State. I may 
 say that I can not speak for any other State except my own — Ari- 
 zona; I am not familiar with any other. 
 
 Much has been said in regard to homesteaders, and I have taken 
 the statistics from records in the office of the Forest Service relative 
 to the number of homestead applications that have been made on the 
 Coconino and the Tusayan forests in Arizona, both of which lie in 
 Coconino County. I find that on the Coconino National Forest in 
 1911 there were 97 applications made; in 1912, 95; in 1913, 58; mak- 
 ing a total of 250 homestead applications on the Coconino National 
 Forest alone. On the Tusayan National Forest, which immediately 
 adjoins the Coconino, I could not get the information in detail, but 
 there have been 150 separate tracts listed in these last three years, 
 covering an aggregate area of 25,000 acres, of an average listing 
 area of 120 acres approximately. Those figures are only approxi- 
 mate except as to the number of actual tracts listed. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. What is the difference between the number of appli- 
 cations and the number listed ? I did not catch that. 
 
 Mr. Crabb. The applications made by filing a supplemental entry, 
 as I understand the land laws. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. How many applications were made and how many 
 listings were there? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I am not in a position to give you the exact figures, 
 but I think probably very few applications were turned down except 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 209 
 
 for some reason on the part of the applicant. That is, if he applied 
 for 160 acres and it was found upon examination that there were only 
 30 acres of this land most valuable for agricultural purposes, he was 
 given the privilege to file on that if he so desired; and if not, he 
 might not consider filing at all. But as to the actual number, I do 
 not know. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. I wanted to know that. We have a great many 
 criticisms in Oregon against the treatment that the applicant receives. 
 
 The Chairman. We agreed yesterday that we would let the wit- 
 nesses finish without interruption. We do not want to break our 
 rule too quickly. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Very well. 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I brought out this point with respect to the national 
 forest simply because I believe it has a general bearing on the condi- 
 tions in the public domain. I want to say to the committee that the 
 position of a homesteader in the national forest is infinitely better 
 to-day than it was five or six years ago, and we hope and believe it 
 will be the same on the public domain if it is similarly regulated. 
 
 We have in our State — particularly the porthern part of the State, 
 I mean because there are others here who will represent the southern 
 part — thousands of acres of arid land that is not now being used for 
 any purpose. These lands lie in small bodies, in small tracts, but in 
 the aggregate they amount to a great many thousands of acres, and 
 they are not being used for grazing purposes because water develop- 
 ment could not be encouraged. There is no incentive for anybody to 
 go in there and make water development, to make it a grazing propo- 
 sition, understanding that if he did he would be protected in his 
 rights after the water was developed. 
 
 In regard to fencing on the public domain, speaking only for the 
 northern part of Arizona, it seems to me, and it is the general belief, 
 that the fencing system would be impracticable, because it takes a 
 great number o? acres of land to support a cow, and the expense of 
 fencing would make it impracticable. On the national forest the 
 service has found in the past four years that more pastures and 
 larger pastiires were necessary to handle properly the stock grazed 
 on those areas, and in the past four years they have made regulations 
 permitting the erection of more pastures and larger pastures and 
 drift fences. I think Mr. Barnes will bear me out in that statement. 
 
 In New Mexico — I might say by way of explanation that I was 
 connected with the Forest Service in New Mexico, in the Datil Na- 
 tional Forest, with headquarters at Magdalena, for some time, and I 
 know from personal knowledge that in that forest alone there are 
 approximately 40 miles, and perhaps more, of drift fence been 
 erected there by the consent, and in some instances, with the partial 
 support cf the service in helping to purchase wire and in the main- 
 tenance of the fence after it was erected. And in every instance 
 these fences have proved so beneficial to. the stock raisers that the 
 proposition to drift fence is very much encouraged to-day by the 
 Forest Service. On the Coconino National Forest to-day there is 
 under consideration one drift fence 44 miles long. It has the aetive 
 support of the Forest Service, and its erection is only a question of 
 getting at the details. 
 
 35074— pt 1—14 14 
 
210 DISPOSITION OF GKAZING LANDS. 
 
 In building this fence, I may say, it is proposed wherever big gates 
 seem necessary that automatic gates be put in so it will not be neces- 
 sary for anybody to get off his horse to either open or shut the gate. 
 That will do away with any question of interference with public 
 travel or the moving of stock. I merely cite this drift fence on the 
 Coconino Forest as an instance. There are several others there to 
 which the same remarks would apply. 
 
 The question of fenced areas has been quite largely discussed, and 
 I happen to have on my range one area controlled by a private fence 
 which controls or partially controls approximately 25,000 acres. I 
 have not experienced any trouble whatsoever in that way. Every 
 one comes and goes as he chooses, and the drift fence has been a 
 very great success, and even in the short time that it has been under 
 operation there has been a marked increase in the grazing production 
 area, simply because, I believe, cattle are kept off the range until the 
 grass reaches a certain stage of maturity. 
 
 Last year there was spent on the area controlled by this drift fence 
 about $2,000 in water- development work, which would not have been 
 spent if it had not been controlled by this drift fence. I think it 
 probably would not have been done at all if it had not been in aplace 
 where it could be controlled. 
 
 Now, I shall confine my remarks largely to the national forest. 
 I do not want you to think I am advocating the national forest, but I 
 make these statements simply trying to impress upon your minds that 
 regulation or legislation similar to that which applies to the national 
 forest to-day would probably bring about the same results that it has 
 produced there. The water development of the national forest is 
 probably the same all over. We realize that the permanency and the 
 full utilization of our range is our only chance to get the best results, 
 and plenty of water and the proper distribution of it means perma- 
 nency. That is one of the vital points in a grazing proposition, I 
 believe. 
 
 Another point that I should like to make is that in our national 
 forest in Arizona to-day there are thousands of acres of land which 
 are subject to elimination ; in other words, it is contemplated that the 
 elimination of these lands from the public domain is absolutely neces- 
 sary. I believe the only reason that these lands are in the forest 
 to-day is because of the obligation which the Agricultural Depart- 
 ment feels in protecting the men they have encouraged to go in there 
 on these areas and develop the water, and if they should throw this 
 into the public domain it will be absolutely unprotected. I think you 
 will find, if the matter is looked up, that these areas are being held 
 in the forest reserve simply for that reason, and if we do not get a 
 bill through we may get those lands into the public domain, to the 
 great detriment to a lot of men who have spent thousands of dollars 
 in its development. . 
 
 Right here I wish to say that I have, from the Coconino Cattle 
 Growers' Association, a resolution adopted against the elimination of 
 these areas until such time as legislation can be passed to cover those 
 areas, and I should like to make it a part of the record. 
 
 The Chairman. Unless there is objection, it will be incorporated 
 in the gentleman's remarks. 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 211 
 
 (The resolution referred to is as follows :) 
 
 Be it resolved, That this association is vigorously opposed to the contemplated 
 elimination of certain lands now lying within the boundaries of the Coconino 
 and Tusayan National Forests, situated in Coconino County, Ariz., as the 
 present boundary lines of each of those reserves having been definitely estab- 
 lished by the Department of Agriculture, for many years standing and the 
 grazing on which having been supervised over by the Forest Department, 
 thereby giving not only protection, but encouragement to the stockmen in 
 expending large sums of money in some instances for the preservation and 
 future welfare of his interests. 
 
 By such eliminations being made and no arrangements made to give stockmen 
 the desired and necessary protection over their property, which in a certain 
 measure the Government has encouraged them in developing, means certain 
 ruin and destruction for the stockmen who will be affected by such elimina- 
 tions of lands now within the forest reserve, and it is the wish and earnest 
 desire of the members of this association that such steps as seem to be de- 
 sirable and just be immediately taken to have such eliminations on the part 
 of the Forestry Department, if they are actually contemplated, be deferred 
 to such a time as there might be other means provided for the protection of 
 the stockmen who would necessarily be ruined by such elimination. It is also 
 desired by this association to state that they are heartily in favor of some form 
 of lease that might be applicable to the uses and conditions of this section of 
 the ranges, and if it is found advisable for the proposed elimination to be made, 
 then apply, a form of lease law to be supervised over by the Forestry Depart- 
 ment, insuring protection to all permittees of the national forest. 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I think another important point in regard to this bill 
 is that in my State — and T think the same thing is general through- 
 out the grazing West — the tendency of the stockman at present is 
 to better protect his stock, to make it better in every way, to be pro- 
 gressive in his business and build it up. I can remember that years 
 ago, when I was a youngster, we never thought of going out on the 
 round-up without lassoing about two-thirds of the cattle and tying 
 them up to trees. To-day we do not do that. Once in a while we find 
 a wild one we have to do that with, but very seldom. 
 
 In my particular part of the country to-day the permittees and 
 the range men are feeding their bulls, something they never did 
 before. They are feeding them cottonseed cake, molasses cake, and 
 similar foods, not because they are in a state of starvation, but be- 
 cause they know they will get 'benefits from the condition the bull is 
 in when he goes to work in the spring. That is something, gentle- 
 men, that has not been done before in the history of the industry in 
 my particular part of the country. 
 
 Now, we find, with what little experience we have had in this way 
 of trying to build up our cattle and herds, to keep our bulls in good 
 condition, to take the yearling steers away from the cows when they 
 should be taken away, to have pastures to hold our steers in— that it 
 is absolutely impossible to do it on the public domain. We must 
 have pastures ; we must have places where we can do that work. 
 You can not wean cows from their calves on the open range in that 
 part of the country. I am paying to-day 1 cent a pound on the ranch 
 for hay, and haul it myself for 20 miles. That is a lot of money. 
 You know, you can not afford to keep cattle and wean them in that 
 way. You have to have pastures. We pay on an average $100 a 
 head for bulls, where 25 years ago we used to pay $25 or $30 a head. 
 We did not think it was necessary to have that better class of bulls. 
 
 The fact that that is impossible, and that fact alone, seems to me 
 conclusive evidence that we absolutely need some regulation of our 
 
212 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 public domain whereby we can have these pastures for weaning pur- 
 poses, for holding pastures, for bull pastures, and for reserve pastures, 
 It was necessary on portions of the public domain in Arizona last 
 year to sell thousands of head of cattle that would not have been 
 sold if the range had been in the condition it should have been. I 
 think these gentlemen from the northern part of Arizona will bear 
 me out on that. If we had had reserve pasturage where we could 
 have put our poor stock we would not have had to sell it. 
 
 Another point in regard to this matter I was just speaking of, and 
 a conclusive one, is the relative value of a cow and a yearling steer. 
 Last fall I myself sold my yearling steers for $28. I sold prime cows, 
 4 or 5 years old, the mothers of these steers, for $35, and considered 
 it a big price. There is no reason in the world, gentlemen, why a 
 cow should be worth only $35 and a steer $28. Practically 95 per 
 cent of the cows under inclosure in these big dairies have a calf 
 every year. The same condition could exist and will exist on the 
 public domain if we can get regulation. 
 
 I think I have taken up most of my time, and have said about as 
 much as I ought to. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Has the actual number of stock — cattle and sheep — 
 increased on the national forest in which you are located since it was 
 first established? 
 
 Mr. Ckabb. Mr. Hayden, I should like to answer that question 
 yes or no, but I am not in a position to do so, simply because I do 
 not know. I am under the impression that we do. I am under the 
 impression that the records show that there is more stock on the 
 Coconino and Tusayan National Forest to-day than there was five 
 years ago. I think that is true, Mr. Barnes 
 
 Mr. Barnes. Xo, sir; that is not true. Of course, there, is a very 
 good reason for that. 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I was under the impression that it was; but of course 
 Mr. Barnes is in a position to tell better than I am. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjssox. When I came in you were talking about home- 
 steads on the Coconino forest reserves up in the northern part of 
 Arizona. What is the method of operation of a -homesteader living 
 in a forest reserve with reference to his stock, if he has any? Is he 
 allowed to fence a homestead in a forest reserve, and then is he com- 
 pelled under the rules and regulations made by this advisory board 
 that you contemplate to graze his stock out on the public domain 
 along with the rest — so' many of them? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. In our forests it is the general policy to fence his 
 homestead ; yes. 
 
 Mr. FERorssox. Do the regulations permit him to fence his home- 
 stead, and only that, without any right to graze along with the rest 
 of the big cattlemen or sheepmen ; or have they privileges that he has 
 not? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Oh, he has grazing privileges on the forest; yes. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Does lie have this privilege of going on the forest 
 reserve and fencing his 640 acres and keeping his stock within that, 
 and not necessarily going into this general grazing business? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Do you apply that to a national forest ? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Yes ; what is the rule now ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. As I understand the regulations, he is allowed a 
 reasonable amount of pasturage; but the conditions in my State — ■ 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 213 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. Can he fence what is allowed to him ? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. Oh, yes. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. How much is he allowed? He is allowed by law 
 now to take no more than 320 acres, is he not ? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. The 320 acres, I think, do not apply to a national 
 forest. 
 
 Mr. Febgusson. 1(50 acres then? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. Suppose a homesteader goes in there on a national- 
 forest reserve and locates 160 acres. He can fence that, can he? Do 
 the regulations now permit him to fence it, or is the matter of fencing 
 regulated by the department? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. Oh, no; not much. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. He is allowed to fence his 160 acres ? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. If he desires; yes. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. -Can he, in addition to that, get a permit to graze 
 so many cattle on the general reserve? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. Oh, yes. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. Now, what is he permitted to do with his 160 
 acres? Is he allowed to farm that inside? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. He certainly is, so far as I understand it. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. In his own fence ? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. With reference to the grazing reserve which this 
 bill contemplates and which you are advocating, what is the duty of 
 this advisory board, which is to be composed of four cattlemen, 
 interested in the particular reserve, and of a representative of the 
 Agricultural Department, making an advisory board of five ? As you 
 understand this bill, are they to regulate the matter of fencing — 
 whether there shall be drift fences or fences inclosing a given tract of 
 land? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. I think that is the supposition ; yes. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. What do you think is the supposition ? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. The bill provides, I think, that it shall be in the dis- 
 cretion of this advisory board and the Government adviser whether 
 the land shall be fenced or not. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. Yes. And if a homesteader should go in on this 
 under the present law — 320 acres, giving him the most the law per- 
 mits now — the question whether he should fence his 320 acres is a 
 matter which the advisory board in control of that grazing section 
 determines? That is up to the advisory board, whether they will 
 allow this man to fence or not ? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. Absolutely not, as I understand it. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. What is the advisory board for, then? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. To regulate the grazing — purely the grazing on these 
 areas, as I understand it. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. Isn't it also going to regulate whether there shall 
 be drift fences or inclosure fences ? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. That would be naturally a grazing matter ; yes. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. I am not talking about rules and regulations but 
 the proposed grazing reserves. Now, you are proposing to create 
 in all the balance of the semiarid West grazing reserves, and it is 
 proposed that as to any given district in a grazing reserve there 
 
214 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 shall be an advisory board to regulate the management of that graz- 
 ing business, that advisory board to be composed of four men inter- 
 ested in the grazing business — cattle or sheep men — and one repre- 
 sentative of the department. Now, does your bill contemplate that 
 this advisory board shall regulate the matter of fencing — first, we 
 will say, the drift fences ; where and how long they shall be ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I think it is so provided in the bill: 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Now, what I am getting at is this: The 320-acre 
 homesteader goes into that grazing district under the control of this 
 advisory board of five. How will he proceed to get his homestead, 
 as you understand it is going to be arranged in this bill ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Just as he does to-day, as far as I can see. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. Is he to have the independent privilege of fencing 
 his 320 acres if he wants to, separate from the balance, to be con- 
 trolled by himself and not by this advisory board that has control 
 over the whole grazing proposition? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Absolutely. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. His own separate property? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Absolutely. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. The advisory board has absolutely nothing to do 
 with him? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I do not think so, under the provisions of this bill. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Does your bill, as you understand it, contemplate 
 that the advisory board shall have nothing to do with anybody ex- 
 cept those that voluntarily want to app'ortion how many head of 
 stock each shall have to graze over a given number of acres ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. The advisory board, as I understand, is to regulate 
 grazing matters generally as local conditions seem to warrant. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. They are to have absolute control in connection 
 with this department officer? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. As the bill has been amended, I do not think they have 
 any control at all. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. What are they for, then? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Why, simply to advise with the Government officer in 
 his decisions. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. He is to be sent out from Washington? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I do not think so. I think it would be natural to 
 suppose that they would get a practical man. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. These fences that the advisory board is to have 
 put up 
 
 Mr. Bullock. Mr. Fergusson, the advisory board can not pos- 
 sibly have anything to do with it. Mr. La Follette was right and 
 Mr. Pinchot wrong in their construction of this law. If a man goes 
 into this grazing district he has a right to fence anyway he pleases. 
 If you do not want him to have that right you will have to change 
 the law. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. You spoke of the Datil Forest Eeserve in New 
 Mexico. I understand that before you went into this cattle business 
 you were a forest-reserve officer? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I was; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. How long were you in that business ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I think somewhere between four and five years. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. You have ceased your connection with that? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I have; yes, sir. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 215 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. And have gone into the cattle business? 
 
 Mr. Ckabb. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. On the forest reserve? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. Partially on and partially off ; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Do you know how many sheep have been run in 
 the last years on that Datil Forest Eeserve, and by whom? 
 
 Mr. Ckabb. No ; I could not say I do. 
 
 Mr. Feegtjsson. Do you know any New Mexicans that had big 
 sheep herds there? 
 
 Mr. Ckabb. I knew of- some by name, some of them personally. 
 
 Mr. Fekgusson. Whom do you know? 
 
 Mr. Ckabb. Mr. Hubbell. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. How many sheep has he got there? Take Mr. 
 Hubbell first. ■ 
 
 Mr. Ckabb. I do not remember just how many he does have. It 
 seems to me it is quite a large number. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Well, approximately? 
 
 Mr. Ckabb. My guess in the matter I do not think would be of any 
 value. I do not care to commit myself. 
 
 Mr. Fekgusson. 100,000? 
 
 Mr. Ckabb. On the forest? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I do not think so ; not by any means. 
 
 Mr. Fekgusson. You do not know 
 
 Mr. Ckabb. No; I do not remember. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. 500,000? 
 
 Mr. Ckabb. I must refuse to answer that question in detail, because 
 I do not know. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Who else of the big sheepmen of New Mexico had 
 privileges on that reserve ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Mr. Luna, for one. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. How many did he have? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I do not know how many he had a permit for. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. How nearly did those two sheepmen come to con- 
 trolling the grazing privileges on the Datil Forest Reserve? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I do not think they controlled it at all, any more than 
 their apportionment. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Didn't you work there ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I did. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. As a forest officer ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I did. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Well, give me some idea in answer to my question. 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I told you I did not think they controlled it at all, ex- 
 cept as to the allotted area. They have their allotments there. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. That is what I mean. How near did they come to 
 controlling all of it ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. A very small part of it. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. You won't undertake to state how many sheep 
 Luna had during his lifetime, or how many his estate has now ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. No. As I understand the proposition, he did not by 
 any means have all the sheep that he owned on the Datil National 
 Forest. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. What other forest did he have them on? 
 
216 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANBS. 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. I do not know, but there was plenty of public domain 
 also in and around the Datil forest where he grazed his herds. 
 
 Mr. McCiajre. Mr. Fergusson, in the whole United States we have 
 not a single man owning 100,000 sheep. We have only five men who 
 own as many as 50,000. The Luna estate to-day has about 32,000 
 sheep. A few years ago they had 60,000. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Have you posted yourself since yesterday about 
 New Mexico? 
 
 Mr. McClure. No ; I have not thought about it. 
 
 Mr. Fergttsson. Didn't you state that you did not know anything, 
 about New Mexico yesterday in reply to my question ? 
 
 Mr. McClure. I know just the number of sheep that most of our 
 men have down there that belong to our organization. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. You say that the land that is about to be released 
 from forest reserve will be left unprotected ? You mean it will be 
 turned loose to general use when you say it will be " unprotected " ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. No; I did not mean that. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. What do you mean? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. That the land is fully utilized to-day — protected — and 
 by its protection it has been built up to a better range than it other- 
 wise would be. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I mean after it is turned loose. Then somebody 
 else besides these privileged lessees can get in, can't they ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. There is a possibility and a probability that nomadic 
 bands of sheep, whose owners may not even be citizens of the United 
 States, would come in and eat up the feed. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I just wanted to get at the facts. You mentioned 
 that fact, you know, and you gave that as a reason why this grazing 
 bill which you are advocating should be passed in order that they 
 might still hold it as they do now. 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I think that is one reason 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. So as to get rich while it is in the forest reserve, 
 and still control it by the big cattle and sheep men ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I do not think that is true at all. It is not occupied 
 by the big cattlemen or sheepmen, either. It is occupied by a great ■ 
 many small permittees. 
 
 Mr: Fergusson. But after so many cattle and sheep are appor- 
 tioned to this, who gets the first privileges or permits under this man- 
 agement? After it is apportioned in the judgment of this advisory 
 board, then what is the chance of the new man getting a show ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. The chances, I think, are infinitely better than they 
 would be 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. In what respect? Won't, the advisory board say 
 to the new man, ''No; it is already occupied"? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Not if it is regulated similarly to the way the national 
 forest is regulated to-day. , 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Does a man have a right to go onto the national 
 forest, as it is regulated to-day, and say, " I want to put 500 sheep 
 in there " ? Can he do that as a matter of right, or can they say 
 "No" to him? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. The regulations provide that they shall consider the 
 matter in an equitable light. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. In whose judgment is that decided? Does the 
 man that wants to come in have anything to say about it ? 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 217 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I think so. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. What does he have to say about it ? 
 Mr. Ckabb. Well, if he was dissatisfied with any decisions laid 
 down by the local forester, he would take the matter up direct to our 
 district officers at Albuquerque, N. Mex., and if he was still dissatis- 
 fied, he could bring the matter to Mr. Graves here at Washington. 
 If he was not satisfied with that decision, he could take it still on up 
 to the Secretary of Agriculture. And we believe that in taking that 
 ground he would get absolute justice. I might add that it is not 
 necessary for that man to go in person. A great many of those cases 
 are handled through the mails, and very satisfactorily. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. You think a poor man could follow this thing 
 around and have a good chance to fight it up to the Secretary of 
 Agriculture ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Absolutely. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Mr. Crabb, you are familiar with this bill, are you 
 not, I believe ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I believe I am ; yes, sir. 
 Mr. Johnson. It is denominated a leasing bill ? 
 Mr. Crabb. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Is it your understanding that the purpose of this 
 bill is to lease to individuals any specific tract of land, or is it in- 
 tended to simply operate as a permit to turn stock onto the range at 
 large ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. My understanding is that the bill provides that the 
 matter of whether the leasing shall be by acreage or on a per capita 
 basis is left to the discretion of the Government official in charge, 
 who is advised by the advisory board. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. So that the applicant for a lease, whether it be a 
 per capita or an acreage lease, would not have anything to say about 
 that, would he ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Oh, yes. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. But his wishes in the matter would not be final ? 
 Mr. Crabb. Well. I can not say that in all instances they would be. 
 Mr. Johnson. What is your opinion with reference to the method 
 of making these leases? Would you prefer a lease of a definite area 
 to an individual or a per capita lease ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. In my section of the country I would infinitely prefer 
 a per capita lease. 
 Mr. Johnson. For what reasons ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. For reasons which I have stated, I think, before— that 
 it takes so many acres there to run a cow that the cost of fencing 
 would make it impracticable. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. But would it be necessary to fence in an acreage 
 lease ? 
 Mr. Crabb. Not necessarily; no. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. So that reason would not fully apply. Do you be- 
 lieve that this bill can be made to meet the purposes and to subserve 
 the wants of the people there if it provided that individual leases 
 should be had on a definite acreage ? . 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I think the inauguration of such a law would be im- 
 practicable in my State. 
 Mr. Johnson. For what reasons? 
 
218 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. For reasons that I have already stated — that on ac- 
 count of community interests, if the privilege was granted to fence, 
 it would be impracticable to fence on account of the unproductive- 
 ness. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. That would be a matter for the applicant to con- 
 sider, would it not? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. Probably; yes. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Wouldn't it? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. I presume it would ; yes ; if it was leased on an acreage 
 
 basis. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Assuming that I had 20 or 30 or 50 head of cattle, 
 would it be impracticable for me to make application for, say. 100 
 acres of land upon which to pasture that stock — I mean a definite 
 section or portion; I will confine it to the legal subdivisions, either 
 120 or 160 acres? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. I do not believe I got your question, Mr. Johnson. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Assuming that I had stock enough to-day — the 
 number that should, in my judgment, be kept on 160 acres — would 
 it be impracticable to obtain a lease to operate it under this system 
 for 160 acres to have the exclusive use of that land ? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. If your- 160 acres would support the cattle you have, 
 I would be unable to say whether it would be impracticable or not. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. That would depend upon the judgment of the appli- 
 cant for a lease, would it not, as to how much land he needed for 
 his stock? 
 
 Mr. Ckabb. As I understand the bill, the bill provides that all 
 these matters of individual allotment and other matters pertaining 
 to the features of the bill would be decided locally. Conditions are 
 different in different localities. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. By the advisory board? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. So that an applicant could not, as a matter of right, 
 make application for and obtain a lease to a definite area of land, 
 according to your understanding of this bill ? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. I think yes. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Do you mean to say that the advisory board would 
 have the right to veto the application? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. I think they would have a right to rule on it. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Then he could not demand it as a definite right? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. Oh, yes; he could demand it as a definite right. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Yes; he could demand it; but your understanding 
 of this bill is that he could not enforce that right? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. I do not just catch your question. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. You understand, Mr. Crabb, that we have land 
 laws whereby a citizen may go upon the public domain and locate 
 upon 160 acres of land as a homestead ; and, by compliance with the 
 law in force, he can, as an independent right, secure arid demand 
 that homestead. You understand that to be a fact? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. Oh, yes. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Now, do you believe that this bill, if it does not 
 already so provide, could be amended so as to provide that a citizen 
 could go on this public domain and demand, as a right, a lease for 
 160 acres or such quantity of land as he, in his judgment, thinks is 
 necessary to support his stock? And would that law be workable? 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 219 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I think it would, entirely. But I think it should be 
 left to the discretion of the officer in charge as to whether he had a 
 right in there or not, whether he was justified in demanding the 
 right. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. If the law were made so as to guarantee this right, 
 where would your officer in charge have anything to say about it? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. As I understand it, you ask whether, if this bill pro- 
 vided that a man should have the' absolute right, if any man have 
 the absolute right 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I mean any qualified person; I do not mean, of 
 course, any man. 
 
 Mr. Crabb. But that changes the situation entirely. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. No ; that would not change it at all. 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I mean, in the way I see it. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Whether he was a citizen or not would not make 
 any difference except as the law makes a difference. I mean, if any 
 person otherwise qualified shall have the right to go and take such 
 an area as, in his judgment, would support his stock — would such 
 a bill as that be workable, in your opinion? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I do not believe it would be workable; if he could go 
 in and demand, on his own judgment, what land was necessary to 
 support his stock — because his judgment might be sound, and it 
 might not. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Assuming, then, that the bill was so amended as to 
 provide a limit, maximum and minimum, what would be your judg- 
 ment then as to the workableness of the bill ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Do you mean a maximum and minimum area limit ? 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Well, I could not say in a general way, because condi- 
 tions in Oregon and conditions in Arizona are entirely different, and 
 we could not make any set rules or bill to cover all conditions, as 
 have been proved absolutely in regulations covering such matters 
 already. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Of course, you are aware that we have such regula- 
 tions as to the acquisition of a homestead ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Oh, yes ; in a homestead way, but in a grazing way we 
 do not. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Could it be based upon the number of stock owned 
 by each man ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. In that way I do not think there should be any mini- 
 mum number, and I think by all means there should be a maximum 
 number; yes. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Do you believe the law should be so amended as to 
 permit a citizen to go and make application for a lease of 40, 80, or 
 160 acres, as in his judgment might be needed? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I wiil answer that this way, Mr. Johnson: If he can 
 qualify as a bona fide grazer in that particular district, I believe he 
 ought to be allowed to state his views in the matter and the matter 
 be taken into careful consideration, but I do not think that any out- 
 sider from New Mexico or Washington or any other place ought to 
 come into my State and demand a right on a range that is fully occu- 
 pied already. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I am assuming, Mr. Crabb, that the person making 
 the application is qualified so far as citizenship is concerned and so 
 
220 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 far as may be necessary for the acquisition of the public lands. That 
 is the only qualification that I have assumed. Now, if a man is so 
 qualified, why should he not be permitted to exercise his right under 
 wie law, whether he be a farmer, a homesteader, or exclusively a 
 stockman ? 
 
 Mr. Ckabb. I think he should. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Then, would it be your view that this law would be 
 workable if it was so changed as to permit a farmer or rancher or 
 stockman to make application for and receive a lease for a definite 
 quantity of land — of course, confined to legal subdivisions of the 
 public domain ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I will answer that this way: This bill provides that 
 anyone qualified can have such land as it seems fair and right- that he 
 should have. 
 
 Mr. Fergttsson. As seemed fair and right to the advisory board? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Yes ; and also as to the rest of them. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. You understand, Mr. Crabb, that in passing a law 
 of Congress, we do not pass it subject to the approval of an advisory 
 board, as a rule. When a right is fixed by law, it is fixed, and the 
 officers of the Government are not superior to the law ; they are only 
 intended to enforce the law. The right, whatever it may be, must be 
 established by law, in the first place, I take it. Now, would you be- 
 lieve that a bill would be workable which provided that a citizen 
 otherwise qualified should have the right to go upon the public 
 domain and select a definite quantity of the public domain for graz- 
 ing purposes, and that he should have such a right without interfer- 
 ence of anybody, except as to enforcement of that right? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Is it your question that the man should come in and 
 lease land to be fenced ? 
 
 Mr. Johnson. To fence it or not, as he might see fit. 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I think that the bill covers that point; yes. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Will you kindly invite my attention to that part of 
 the bill which covers that ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I can not tell you just where it is in the bill, but the 
 matter as to whether a man would have a grazing privilege on any 
 grazing district would be a matter to be determined by the Secretary 
 of Agriculture. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Yes ; but this bill seeks to confer an absolute right 
 upon a citizen; and the advisory board, and all other officers con- 
 nected with it, I take it, are only intended to regulate such a right, 
 to see that the individual obtains the right that the law guarantees 
 him, and not to determine whether he shall exercise the right or not. 
 You understand my meaning? Do you think the citizen ought to 
 have the right to go upon the public domain and make application 
 for and receive a lease for a certain definite quantity of the public 
 lands? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Why, I think so. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. You think he should? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I think so ; supposing, of course, that the man is quali- 
 fied in every way. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. What do you mean by "qualified in every way"? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. You said you were speaking of a man that was quali- 
 fied as a citizen and as having equities in the use of the land. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 221 
 
 Mr. Johnson. That qualification has not been exercised by the 
 Forestry Service, has it ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I think so. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Has the Forest Service made any distinction in 
 granting permits whether a man was a citizen of the United States 
 or not? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I could not answer that definitely. Mr. Barnes can 
 tell you. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. You have been a forest officer? What position did 
 you hold in the Forest Service ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I have confined myself to grazing — yes; I was in the 
 Forestry Service. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. What position did you hold ? Supervisor ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I was first a forest guard. I started in as a forest 
 guard and quit as supervisor. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Now, in receiving an application as supervisor, did 
 you make inquiry of the applicant as to whether he was a citizen of 
 the United States or not ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I do not remember whether that is in the application 
 blank or not, to tell you the truth. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Of course, my question presupposes that the man 
 is qualified by being a citizen. 
 
 Mr. Crabb. By the way, I might state that we do have some grazers 
 on the public domain in my State who are not citizens of the United 
 States. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Do you in the Forest Service? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Not to my knowledge ; no. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. You do not know whether you have or not ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. No. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Now, the purpose of this bill is to fix a definite price 
 per acre for a period of 10 years, is it not ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. That is the bill as I understand it ; yes. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. That is a necessity, is it not, for the successful opera- 
 tion of the bill ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I think so. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Your purpose is to create stability, so that the stock- 
 man may know exactly the period of his lease and the amount that he 
 is to pay ? Is that right ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. But at the same time this bill reserves the right to 
 the citizen to go upon the public land and initiate a homestead entry ? 
 That is right, is it not ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Yes ; I understand your question — if you would waive 
 any objections to a citizen going on and taking up a homestead. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Assuming that you have a lease of 10,000 acres, that 
 lease would be subject to the entryman to enter upon this area and 
 take up a homestead entry or any number of homestead entries, would 
 it not? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Would not that destroy the permanency of your 
 lease? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I do not think so. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Now, you have a contract with the Government for 
 10,000 acres at 1 cent per acre, we will say, and homestead entrymen 
 
222 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 come in there to the extent of consuming one-half of that 10,000 acres. 
 Then what becomes of the permanency of your lease? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Speaking just for Arizona — I am not familiar with 
 other States — I can not conceive of any such condition. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. But if there are such conditions in the other States, 
 that would be a bad thing, would it not, in this bill ? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. Well, it seems to me that it would. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. For instance, you would not make application for 
 more land than you actually needed for grazing purposes; and you 
 would make application for what you thought you would need, under 
 this bill? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. Exactly. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. And you would expect to have the price fixed, and 
 expect that price to endure for 10 years ? That is right ? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. Exactly. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Now, if the homesteader could come in and deprive 
 you of one-half of all the area, under this bill what would become of 
 your lease? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. Well, we would simply have just the other half of it. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. You have not any provision in here for any abate- 
 ment of the lease price. Would you then figure you would have to 
 deduct the price per acre for the amount taken by the homesteader? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. Yes; that would naturally come about at the end of 
 every year. You see, the bill provides that payments shall be annual ; 
 I presume they would be. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. You would have to have a readjustment at the end 
 of each year? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. Yes ; which is the case on all areas that are governed in 
 that way. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Now, Mr. Crabb, you spoke of the Forest Service in 
 administering that subject — that a homestead entryman had come in 
 and homesteaded in one case 130 acres— — 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. I do not remember of making a statement of thp.u kind. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Well, in making a homestead entry they make it 
 according to the legal subdivisions, do they not? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. Yes ; they are bound to be by legal subdivisions. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. So it would not be less than 40 acres ? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. Oh, yes. A legal subdivision, as they use ■ it on the 
 national forest, is a 5-acre tract. It used to be a 2^-acre tract. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Do you mean to say that the forest area is subdi- 
 vided into 2^ and 5 acre tracts? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. They make special surveys for these homestead entry- 
 men. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. According to the rules of the Forest Service, who 
 determines the amount that a homestead entryman may acquire? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I believe they have what they call a claims examiner. 
 I do not know just what his official title is, but he is a man who makes 
 that a special business. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. That is, he determines the amount of land that the 
 homestead entryman may take? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Not unless it conflicts with the forest resources, such 
 as timber, power sites, or something of that sort. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Can he reduce the entryman's entry to less than 40 
 acres if he feels so disposed? 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 223 
 
 Mr. Ckabb. Oh, yes. That is, he can recommend that only 30 acres 
 be listed. He has nothing more than a recommendation. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. He has nothing to do but recommend ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. That is all. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Whom does he recommend to ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. To the General Land Office, as I understand the pro- 
 cedure. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Would you have any objection to this bill being so 
 amended — if it is not already so arranged — as to provide for a spe- 
 cific lease of a specific area to the lessee? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. No; I would not where local conditions seem to war- 
 rant any such lease. Speaking for northern Arizona, I would not 
 want it to be compulsory that a man have an individual lease and 
 have to fence it, because it would not be practicable. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I am not saying anything about fencing it; I am 
 speaking now of the right of the applicant to make application for 
 and receive an individual lease for a specific quantity of this land. 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I would have no objection whatever. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. And you would have no objection to the minimum 
 limit of that amount ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. None whatever. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. He might take as small an area as he desired ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Not less than 40 acres. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. You are aware that the public domain is surveyed 
 into 40-acre subdivisions? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Oh, yes. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I think that is all. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. What was the maximum allowance of cattle to any 
 one person in your section of the country to graze on the forest 
 reserve ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I believe the maximum limit on the Cocoino National 
 Forest is 2,000 head. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. What would you say as to the advisability or in- 
 advisability of cutting the maximum allowance to each person or 
 corporation down to from 250 to 500 head ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. You mean cut the permittees down to that number ? 
 
 Mr. Sinnott.- Yes. I should like to get your views. 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I think it would be an absolute injustice. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. It would be an injustice? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Yes ; most certainly. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. It would permit more people to use the range, would 
 it not? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. It might do that; yes. But when I say that I think 
 it would be an injustice I am speaking generally of the permittees, 
 who have gone to a great deal of expense to improve the range, and 
 if the permits were cut down to 250 or 500 head we would lose the 
 use of that. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Lose the use of the range improvements ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Not only that, but with cattle on the open range on 
 timbered country — you are without fences. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. You spoke of proposed eliminations from the forest 
 reserve. Who proposed those limitations that you protested against? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I can not tell you what the source of that was, but it 
 was in nowise any of the users. 
 
224 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Did the Forest Service propose certain eliminations? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. Oh, I think not. I think it must have come from some 
 other source, because I believe the Forest Service rules would pro- 
 tect us in our rights. They have encouraged us to go in there and 
 make these range developments. If they eliminate that on the public 
 domain to-day it would be to the detriment of many people. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. What was the character of that proposed elimina- 
 tion? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. It is what they call " cedar " land in my country — 
 cedar and juniper trees. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. How tall are the cedars? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. Oh, trees about the average size of apple trees and 
 larger in height. They are good for wood only. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Was the land agricultural land ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Taking it as a whole I do not think it is ; no. There 
 may be a few agricultural tracts in it. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. You do not know the reason why it was asked to be 
 eliminated ? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. I do not know definitely ; no. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. What is your idea ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I think it is on account of the cost of administration. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Then, the request must have come from the Forestry 
 Service for the elimination, if it is on account of the cost of admin- 
 istration ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I hardly think it came from the Forestry Service. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Or was it on account of its poor forestry value that 
 the elimination was desired by the Forestry Department ? 
 
 Mr. Ceabb. Now, just to get at the bottom of that matter, I would 
 like to ask Mr. Barnes, if he cares to, to explain that to you. He can 
 do that much better than I can. It would save some time. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. I just wanted to know briefly. 
 
 Mr. Baenes. Those things were all initiated by the Forestry Serv- 
 ice. It started four years ago in the agreement between the Secretary 
 of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior. When these 
 forests were first made, we were forced to take into them large areas 
 because there was not time to survey the lands. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. It was on account of the low forestry value? 
 
 Mr. Baenes. On account of the low forestry value ; yes. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. It was not on account of the agricultural value? 
 
 Mr. Barnes. Not at all ; no. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I should like to ask this gentleman a question 
 or two. He is a practical stockman, and I should like to get his 
 ideas on one or two things in this bill that, it seems to me, would 
 be a little bit hard of administration. Of course, you understand, 
 as I do, that this provides for 10-year leasing permits. Now, on 
 page 5, in reference to this advisory board, together with an officer 
 appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture, it says that they " shall 
 constitute an executive board, which shall determine whether the 
 permits for such grazing districts shall be issued upon acreage or. 
 upon a per capita basis, shall make such division of the range between 
 the different kinds of stock as is necessary," etc. 
 
 Do you think that 10-year permits and a mixed authority as to 
 acreage and per capita basis would be practicable? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I think so, in my State, speaking for the State. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 225 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I can not conceive how you could be charged per 
 capita on a 10-year period. You might have a band of 5,000 cattle 
 to-day, and 60 days from now you might dispose of a third of them, 
 and they would be taken off that range. Would you be expected to 
 pay for the 10 years? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. We would fix that each year, as I understand the bill. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. And it would be apportioned so as to make the 
 acreage — it is all on an acreage rental, as I understand it. You have 
 to proportion, then, each the amount of stock that you think a man 
 is going to keep for the year, in order to make an equitable charge 
 per capita, in order to cover the acreage rent. It looks to me like it 
 would be a Chinese puzzle, and some one would be paying more than 
 he should pay a great deal of the time, and some other fellow would 
 be paying less. I do not see how you can make those 10-year leases 
 and have a per capita and an acreage basis unless you are going to 
 make the man keep a certain amount of stock all the time, which I 
 presume you do not intend. 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I take it, the matter would be handled in the same way 
 that it is handled on the national forests. He would be given his 
 grazing equities in the way of a permit, and these permits would be a 
 matter of record, and also his sales and increases. And at the end 
 of the annual grazing period he would know just how many cattle he 
 had, and the department would know just what he was entitled to. 
 If he had more cattle than he was entitled to under his equities, they 
 would ask him to sell, as they do on the forests. If he had less, he 
 could either fill up or pay on those and let it go. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. He would only have to pay on what he had ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. That is rather an intricate question. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. It may be, but I think it is very pertinent to a 
 10-year leasing bill. 
 
 Mr. Crabb. As I understand the bill, the 10-year tenure is in re- 
 gard to the fee only, that there will be no changes in the fee for 10 
 years. 
 
 Mr. 'La Follette. Yes ; but you are going to pay per acre. Do 1 
 understand you that this " per capita " means that they can pay either 
 by the acre or by the head? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. By the head, I think. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. There is nothing in this bill, I think, to show 
 that there is going to be any payment by the^head. It says they can 
 rent a district on a per capita or acreage basis, but there is nothing in 
 it with reference to payment hy the head. 
 
 Mr. Crabb. But it is equivalent to a per capita basis. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. That is what I am saying, that it will be utterly 
 impossible to fix the equivalent per capita, because a man to-day will 
 have so many head of stock, and before the end of the year he will 
 have only half that number. Is he only going to be charged for a full 
 year, or is he going to be allowed at the end of that time to say, " I 
 have now disposed of half of my stock, and I want to be relieved of 
 that burden '*? And, if so, who would pay the acreage rental? 
 
 Mr. Kent. I think it is well understood. If I go to the forest 
 reserve- 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I beg your pardon. This bill and the forest- 
 reserve bill are entirely different propositions. This is a 10-year 
 35074— pt 1—14 15 
 
226 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 grazing permit. What I want to get at is how are you going to fix 
 it so that each man is going to pay his proper proportion under a 
 bill which is to be part per capita and part per acre? 
 
 Mr. Bullock. Does not this bill say " not to exceed 10 years " ? 
 
 Mr. La Follette. It may, but do I understand they are going to 
 let some have five years and some have three years, and ]ust suit 
 themselves ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I presume 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I did not get that idea, that that was going to 
 be left altogether to the department as to whether they would let you 
 have a permit for 10 years and some other man for one year.* If 
 that is a part of the bill, you are putting a lot of power in one man's 
 hands. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Don't you think, Mr. La Follette, that the 10 years 
 ought to bear some relation to what the man does in the way of im- 
 provement ? . 
 
 Mr. La Follette. If you say that, you immediately come to the 
 question whether or not it would not help the rich man to get a long 
 lease and the poor fellow would have to take a short one. All those 
 questions would come up, and it is well to have them thrashed out 
 right now. 
 
 Mr. Eakeh. There are a couple of questions I should like to ask. 
 I understand you have been interested in stock raising, Mr. Crabb? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. In one way and another; yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And you are familiar with conditions generally 
 throughout Arizona ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Through the northern part of Arizona more particu- 
 larly. 
 
 Mr. Raker. The Coconino Reservation is where you are from ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And any other reserve? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. The Tusayan. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Have you any personal knowledge of the Tusayan 
 Reserve ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Has there been an increase or decrease in the number 
 of cattle per man on these various reserves in the last eight years? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Per permittee, you mean? 
 
 Mr. Raker. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I could not answer that question yes or no, because in 
 a great many instances their permits have been increased and in 
 some instances they have been decreased. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Have the cattlemen in your State increased or de- 
 creased their herds within the last eight years per man ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Speaking of the national forest 
 
 Mr. Raker. I am speaking generally now. You said you did not 
 know about the national forest. 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I would answer the same way. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You do not know ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. That would be a hard question to answer. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Would your answer be the same in regard to horses, 
 both on the reserve and off the reserve, per man, as to the increase of 
 herds in the last eight years? 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 227 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Why, I think that in horses the tendency has been to 
 decrease. ' 
 
 Mr. Raker. Generally over the State? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. No ; I can not speak for southern Arizona. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Has there been an increase or decrease per permittee 
 upon the reserves in Arizona, so far as you know, as to sheep per 
 band that each permittee runs? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Well, that is a hard question. 
 
 Mr. Raker. If you do not know, we will go right on. I do not 
 want to confuse you. 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I could not answer yes or no. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Has there been an increase in the State of Arizona 
 generally of cattle within the last eight years ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Has there been any increase in horses in Arizona ■ 
 within the last eight years ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I do not know that, either. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And your answer would be the same relative to sheep? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Yes; it would. 
 
 Mr. Raker. There is another matter — I will put just a couple of 
 questions. Then, taking that view, it would mean, I take it, that 
 from your personal knowledge you would be unable to state as to 
 whether or not there has been an increase or decrease in the size and 
 weight of cattle per head in Arizona within the last 10 years ? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I think there has been an increase in the grade, which 
 would mean size and weight. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That is due, is it not, to the character of the breed? 
 In other words, you have better and larger bulls, and better and 
 larger stallions, and better and larger bucks? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Largely; yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That is being carried out by all men — the rancher, the 
 farmer, the stockman — in and out of the forest? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I think so. 
 
 Mr. Raker. The general tendency is to improve the breed by virtue 
 of increasing its size? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. I think so. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I have here a telegram and a letter from some of 
 my people down there that I should like to put in the record. 
 
 "The Chairman. On this matter? 
 
 Mr. Crabb. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. Unless there is objection, the telegram and the 
 letter will be incorporated at this point. 
 
 (The matter submitted by Mr. Crabb is as follows:) 
 
 Flagstaff, Abiz., March 1, 1914. 
 E. H. Cbabb, 
 
 Care New Willard Hotel, Washington, D. C: 
 
 Including original to supplementary applications, records show 97 in 1911, 
 95 in 1912, and 58 in 1913. 
 
 Fat. 
 
228 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Williams, Abiz., February 27, 191k. 
 Mr. E. H. Cbabb, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sir : I note in the paper that you are one of the representatives from 
 Arizona sent to assist in the passage of the public land lease law. 
 
 Thinking probably you would like to know more about how the stock raisers of 
 this section of northern Arizona feel about the passage of the lease law, I have 
 to advise that I have interviewed the principal stockmen of this locality and 
 find them to be heartily in favor of the passage of the measure. 
 
 I also find those who opposed the measure a year ago are now in favor of its 
 passage. 
 
 Mr. E. H. Duffield and several others have advised me that they also will 
 write urging you to exert your best offices to secure the passage of this bene- 
 ficial measure. 
 
 Yours, cordially, 
 
 Geo. H. Barney. 
 
 Flagstaff, Abiz., February 11, 191J t . 
 
 T. W. TOMLINSON, 
 
 Secretary, 909 Seventeenth Street, Denver, Colo.: 
 After thorough canvass among all stockmen in this section of Arizona, the 
 great majority of whom are small owners, we have unanimously decided in 
 favor of the Kent bill covering lease of public lands. The passage of this bill 
 means just as much to the small owner of cattle as it does to the large owners. 
 We have all seen and realized the immense benefits accruing to the live-stock 
 Industry from the establishment of forest reserves, tending toward making 
 better cattle, increasing the production in this semiarid country where grazing 
 is regulated, and preserving the ranges. We fully believe that under the Kent 
 bill we would be protected to the same extent. Please present this telegram t6 
 Hon. Scott Ferris, Washington. 
 
 T. C. Fries. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. E. 0. SELWAY, PRESIDENT AND MANAGER 
 OF THE SELWAY SHEEP CO., DILLON, MONT. 
 
 Mr. Selway. Mr. Chairman, I am in the sheep business, and am 
 managing 15,000 head of sheep for the Selway Sheep Co., of which 
 I am one of the stockholders and president and manager. I want to 
 say to the committee right at the start that I am not going to make 
 any address to you, because while I have made a great many notes in 
 the last two or three days of things that I should like to speak of 
 if called upon by the committee, most of those things have been 
 brought up by other witnesses, and I have no disposition to occupy 
 your time. The information has been brought out in almost every 
 instance through questions. I merely want to make such statements 
 as will let the committee know just exactly where I stand, in order 
 that they may question me intelligently. 
 
 I came here at the request of the National Wool Growers' Associa- 
 tion, and I feel as if I were directly the representative of the 
 National Wool Growers. However, it seems to me that the testimony 
 of all the witnesses that have preceded me has related to local propo- 
 sitions — I would not say every witness, but the majority of the wit- 
 nesses. They tell you what they know about it in their States and 
 what they want in their States. Of course, this is a great big ques- 
 tion, and I am going to make an effort to tell you just what I think 
 of it in a general way. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 229 
 
 Now, with reference to Mr. Fergusson's 640-acre homestead bill, I 
 will say that in Montana I do not think it would work at all. I can 
 tell him why if he wants to know 
 
 Mr. Feegtjsson. Oh, I think I should like to know. 
 
 Mr. Selway. I am satisfied that Mr. Fergusson will ask the ques- 
 tions that will bring this out ; and there is no use making statements 
 and then answering questions. 
 
 Now, with reference to the lease law, the National Woolgrowers 
 have always protested against the lease law until this year. This 
 year they decided they would not offer any resolutions indorsing or 
 condemning the system; that whenever Congress decided it would 
 be practicable to pass a leasing law the National Woolgrowers wanted 
 to maintain a position whereby they could come down here and talk 
 it over with you and try to frame up something that would be as 
 nearly right as it is possible to make legislation at the first effort. 
 
 Now, there was one thing that was not brought out until the hear- 
 ing this morning. The gentleman who preceded me on the stand 
 was questioned to some extent regarding this board of control. Now, 
 I had been of the opinion that the big majority of the sheepmen 
 were not in favor of a board of control, because I believe that this 
 bill — and I think I have studied it pretty thoroughly for the last 30 
 days — states that if the district supervisor, or whatever his official 
 title may be, does not agree with the majority of the board of con- 
 trol he can take the matter to the Department of Agriculture. On 
 the other hand, if the applicant for the permit or the man that is 
 already using a permit does not agree with the supervisor and this 
 board of control, he also goes over their heads and goes to the De- 
 partment of Agriculture. So why not just put it up to the depart- 
 ment to handle the thing ? I, for one, would not want to have any 
 official titles hung onto my name unless I could say something that 
 would be definite. 
 
 Now, I do not believe I want to say anything else except, perhaps, 
 this : That I have been a user of the national forest for eight years. 
 However, I think the national forest has been thrashed out pretty 
 thoroughly here, and I am not going into the details of this matter; 
 but we believe that the national forests have been handled very, 
 very successfully. On the start I was opposed to them, just the 
 same as a whole lot of people, but I think that where people have 
 cooperated with the forest management everything has ordinarily 
 worked out very satisfactorily in the course of a little time. Per- 
 haps not the first year, but in the course of a little time it has worked 
 out very satisfactorily. Therefore I am perfectly willing to put my 
 case in the hands of the department, and whatever they see fit, if 
 there is segregation made, if this lease law passes, I would be per- 
 fectly willing to abide by their decisions in all matters, and without 
 going to my neighbors. 
 
 I want to qualify that statement in this way: In our forests we 
 have what we call boards of control, in some instances. Those boards 
 apparently have no legal authority ; on the other hand, they advise 
 with the district supervisor or the Forestry Service. Now, those 
 boards of control are organized at the instance of the users of the 
 forest; that is, if the majority of them do not want the board of 
 control, my understanding is that they do not have to have one. If 
 the majority of them do want a board of control, they vote that 
 
230 DISPOSITION" OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 way and they get their board of control. And I believe that same 
 thing should be the case in this bill, rather than to have a mandatory 
 board of control. 
 
 Now, I believe I have said enough about that. I have spoken about 
 Mr. Fergusson's homestead bill. I have spoken about the lease law. 
 We are not satisfied with the lease law as it is proposed, and I believe 
 that Secretary McClure stated our position very fully yesterday, and 
 a great deal more eloquently than I could. I want to back every word 
 that Mr. McClure said regarding the whole thing. I was born in 
 Montana and grew up there. I could not do anything else but run 
 live stock. I would starve to death if you put me down in any city of 
 5,000 people, and I expect to stay in the business. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, I am ready to answer any questions. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Briefly, from your standpoint, what is the objection 
 of the sheepmen to the stock- leasing bill? 
 
 Mr. Selway. We have always heretofore maintained the position 
 that there were too many selfish motives connected with the leasing 
 bill, and we have also had in our national organizations a great many 
 men who were what we call the " nomads." They have always pro- 
 tested, and while the day of the nomad is pretty nearly over, the 
 national woolgrowers feel they are not stepping on people's toes by 
 standing for the lease law; whereas in the past there has been a sort 
 of sentiment that if we did that we were trying to step on some 
 fellow's toes who was right in the industry, without having any per- 
 manent place of living, and who was still a member of our national 
 organization, and sometimes very prominent. That, I think, is the 
 foundation for the change of sentiment in the National Wool Grow- 
 ers' Association. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. The man that has a home is satisfied ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. I believe so, absolutely, while the fellow who travels 
 around does not want to do that. He wants to go wherever the grass 
 is, regardless of whom he is interfering with. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Are not the so-called nomads the big men, with the 
 bigger herds? 
 
 Mr. Selway. No, sir; I believe, on the contrary, they are not. I 
 believe they were men who worked for wages for some fellow and 
 got a herd of sheep and did not want to invest in the real estate. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Some were running them on shares ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. No; I do not think they did, because the ordinary 
 man who is going to turn over to another man a band of sheep wants 
 to know that there is something there outside of a sheep camp wagon 
 and a team. 
 
 Mr. Eaker. Has not the sheep business in southern Oregon been 
 developed practically by virtue of the lease system from the owners, 
 the young men taking hold and going out and running it ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. I do not know about Oregon. Oregon is a very old 
 State as compared with the balance of the Western States. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Why would not the 640-acre homestead law work in 
 Montana ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. The idea is this, in my estimation, in my locality. I 
 do not know very much about the range country outside, as it applies 
 to the country that is in the mountains. My home is right near the 
 main divide of the Eocky Mountains, and it is all valleys and sloping 
 hills and mountains. Now, we have in vogue the 320-acre homestead 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 231 
 
 act in part of our locality— in fact, just out from my town. First it 
 was 160. It is what they call " dry farming," but, as Secretary Mc- 
 Clure told you yesterday, you can not ship wheat to Duluth from 
 that country. Now, those people, after farming there for years, have 
 realized that it is absolutely necessary for them to go into the live- 
 stock business if they are ever going to make it. They have to go 
 into the live-stock business in a way that is adequate to their means. 
 There is absolutely no stock range on the outside in the public domain 
 in the most of that country — that is, winter and all— except for the 
 man that has got feed that he knows he can go to. 
 
 Now, the 640-acre homestead act, applied in that locality, would 
 take up every acre of public domain from the edge of those dry farms 
 to the forest reserve. Every acre of it, I think, would be taken up 
 right away. The 640-acre homestead act in my country, or in the 
 most of that country except in isolated cases, of course, would abso- 
 lutely starve any man on earth to death unless he could raise a hay- 
 stack. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Why would it be taken up right away? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Well, because they would take it up. I did not want 
 to get into that, but they will take it up. The majority of people 
 think they can make a living on it. On the other hand," every rail- 
 road station in the western country is infested with people that are 
 in the habit of buying up relinquishments, or possibly they will locate 
 the prospective settler for a certain amount of money. They go out 
 and locate on relinquishments, and people come from the East and 
 from the cities and do not know what the conditions are. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Then, I understand, if this should be opened up 
 under the plan outlined by Mr. Fergusson in his bill, they would be 
 induced to take the 640-acre homestead proposition in earnest, think- 
 ing they could succeed ; but, in your judgment, they would fail, be- 
 cause the 640 acres would not support the proposition ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes. The only thing they would have to put in the 
 silos that the chairman was talking about yesterday is this rabbit 
 brush. That is a fact. You can not cut hay. Talk about getting 
 your seeds from the outside. I want to tell you right now it is up to 
 the Department of Agriculture to get those seeds growing before 
 they can make me believe it is any better than the bunch grass they 
 had there originally. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Six hundred and forty acres would not be enough 
 to make a living on by combining the growing of something 
 
 Mr. Selway. They can not grow it, you know. These dry farmers 
 are not going to be able to do anything in that way outside of grow- 
 ing just a little stuff ; whereas perhaps if they had, say, a half dozen 
 of these sections of Government land they would break them in, and 
 perhaps they could produce some rye. The idea is this: I do not 
 want to make the assertion that a man can not grow anything on that 
 640 acres right alongside of where those dry farmers are, but he has 
 got to have a lot more land than that in order to have any pasturage, 
 and these 640-acre homesteads will take up the pastures. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. I would like to know the elevation and the rainfall 
 of the section you are speaking of. 
 
 Mr. Selway. The average amount of rainfall in my part of Mon- 
 tana is about between 13 and 14 inches. 
 
232 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 The Chairman. What part of the State is that ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Southwestern Montana — Beaverhead County. That 
 will apply pretty nearly all the way along in Montana ; but in the last 
 two or three years they have been getting about 16 inches. I heard 
 some evidence along that line yesterday, and I want to say to the 
 committee that it makes a lot of difference what kind of soil that 
 rain is falling on. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. What is the altitude of these regions ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. About 5,000 to 6,000 feet above sea level. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. To what proportion of the public domain in your 
 State would you apply this answer of yours, to the effect that the 
 640-acre homestead would not work? Practically all of it? 
 
 Mr. Selway. I would say to the Government range. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. To the public domain outside of the forest? 
 
 Mr. Selway. I would say practically all of it, unless it is in Repre- 
 sentative Stout's locality, where there might be some fellow that has 
 640 acres hid that somebody else might go in on. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. How long has the 320-acre proposition been in 
 vogue out there? 
 
 Mr. Selway. About three years, I think. When was it that bill 
 passed? About four years ago? 
 
 The Chairman. That law was passed, I think, about three or four 
 years ago. 
 
 Mr. Selway. But the land was not classified right away. 
 
 The Chairman. No; the Interior Department has to classify it. 
 I don't know just what time it was. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. That 320-acre homestead law when it was first 
 passed — I think it was either the Sixtieth of Sixty -first Congress — 
 only referred to certain States, and in the Sixty-second Congress they 
 extended that to the States of Washington, Idaho, and Montana, I 
 believe. Anyhow, they extended it to Montana two years ago. 
 
 The Chairman. And only to certain areas within those States; in 
 other words, it must be nomrrigable. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Since the 320-acre homestead proposition has been 
 in effect you still could get a 160-acre homestead if you wanted to ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Since the 320-acre homestead law has been in effect 
 in your State, how generally have people availed themselves of it? 
 
 Mr. Selway. They have taken up practically every acre that is 
 inside of those tracts. You understand that they go along and make 
 available a certain tract, perhaps. Now, in my immediate locality 
 that is a long, narrow strip just outside of the irrigated farming land. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. And the tracts that were available have been gen- 
 erally taken up ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes, sir; very generally. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Now, since the 320-acre homestead law has been in 
 effect, have some homesteads been taken up under the 160-acre plan? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes; out in some little canyon or along some little 
 stream. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. These 320-acre homesteads that have been taken up, 
 what proportion of them have succeeded? 
 
 Mr. Selway. They have not been there long enough yet to starve 
 to death and they have not been there long enough to demonstrate 
 what they can do. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 233 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. In that connection, Mr. Thomson, I want to ex- 
 plain that there are two systems of taking up the 320-acre home- 
 steads. The Secretary designates a certain area. They may take 
 that as a matter of right. Then in addition to that any homesteader 
 has a right to put in an application for a particular adjoining tract, 
 or any tract, and that is acted upon as a special matter. 
 
 Mr. Selway. Now, the only fellows that have 320-acre homesteads 
 in my locality are men who took 160 acres before that and before the 
 period of patent this law went into effect, and they were permitted, 
 through the peculiar location of their 160 acres, to get 160 acres 
 adjoining them. That is not very usual, because there are very few 
 of those people. They took up their 160 acres originally in this 
 same tract before it was segregated, and they took them up in 
 bunches, so it was only the fellows around the outer edge who could 
 take up the additional 160. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. I should like to ask one or two more questions. 
 Under this proposed lease law, if a lease of a considerable area was 
 taken by a sheep man, let us say, and some little time after that a 
 man came along and took out a homestead somewere in that area, 
 what would you say as to the possibility of the homesteader being 
 able to go ahead and effect his homestead and get along without 
 trouble with the man that had the lease ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Oh, there would be no trouble; the gunmen all died 
 about 30 or 40 years ago. But I tell you, as Mr. McClure said yester- 
 day, we want this land classified : we do not want to lease the farming 
 land. 
 
 Now, as far as the expense of classification is concerned, I want 
 to say to you that the great big part of that land can be classified 
 out of an automobile, and you can classify a big part of it in a day. 
 There might be some peculiar location where it would be advisable 
 to hold up a certain strip of land until the classification could ex- 
 tend a little bit further, but the most of it can be classified by a 
 casual observation. Now, you can get the best soil in the world 
 right at the top of these mountains, and the scientists will tell you 
 that you can grow anything on it, but they probably do not appre- 
 ciate the fact that the warmest night in the year that soil will freeze 
 an inch deep, and the levation has everything in the world to do with 
 the availability of that land. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. As far as classification goes, I understand it to be 
 your position that all of the available public domain that is remain- 
 ing in Montana would be fit for nothing except to be classed as 
 grazing land ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. I would not go that far: no, sir. We have 21,000,000 
 acres of public domain. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Some of it might be agricultural land ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Some might be agricultural land, and I wculd not 
 go that far. I do not think there would be to exceed 5 or 10 per 
 cent of the 21,000,000 acres that ever will be agricultural land with- 
 out some artificial irrigation or something of that kind. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. In that 5 or 10 per cent would the 640-acre home- 
 stead work? 
 
 Mr. Selway. In that 5 or 10 per cent the other system will apply. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. What do you mean by the "other system "■? 
 
 Mr. Selway. The 160-acre proposition. The idea is this: We 
 
234 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 have a world of water going down the Mississippi River every spring 
 that can be conserved, and it is only a matter of time until it will 
 be conserved. There are new projects going on all the time, and 
 while the propositions are not considered very valuable on ac- 
 count of some failures, on the other hand some people are going 
 ahead and digging out their own little private enterprises, and that 
 is the land that I think is going to be agricultural land. I have 
 never seen a man in Montana that got very far to the front unless he 
 had an irrigating ditch above his ranch. 
 
 Mr. Raker. This leasinge bill would retard that development, 
 would it not? 
 
 Mr. Selway. No, sir ; not necessarily. 
 
 Mr. Raker. There is no provision in this bill anywhere that if a 
 10,000-acre tract of land were leased I would be permitted to go 
 into that area and obtain a reservoir site which might cover one, 
 two, three, or four thousand acres of it, is there? 
 
 Mr. Selway. I believe, if I am not mistaken, the water and min- 
 eral are absolutely held intact for the Government. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I know, but I would be covering up, say, 3,000 acres 
 of that leased land by my reservoir. 
 
 Mr. Selway. I think you would have a pretty hard job doing it. 
 Three thousand acre reservoirs are very scarce, or even 1,000-acre 
 reservoirs. And the Government holds up all these reservoir sites, 
 and has been holding them up for years and years. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Why? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Why, because they say they are reservoir sites. They 
 do not permit a man to go in there, they do not permit a man to 
 homestead on them right now. They will be held up under the lease. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Will not a private individual be permitted to go and 
 file his location on the reservoir site ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. They will not be leased. Don't ever think the Gov- 
 ernment is turning loose any of its prerogatives on reservoir sites* 
 They even go so far up in these little streams, where perhaps only a 
 few acres could be covered with water by an inexpensive dam, that 
 they do not permit a man to file a homestead on them. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I do not refer to homesteads at all. You are emi- 
 nently familiar with that condition, unquestionably. Ought not 
 these reservoir sites wherever you can find them be permitted to be 
 filed on and used by private individuals, if they can build the dam 
 and hold the water back and utilize this water for irrigation ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Amend your bill, then. As I said before, the Na- 
 tional Wool Growers' Association are not down here advocating 
 it , 
 
 Mr. Raker. I am asking you your opinion whether such ought not 
 to be done. It ought to be permitted on every piece of land that can 
 be used to store water on, just as properly as for a man to file a 
 homestead ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes ; every bit. 
 
 Mr. Raker. It would add very much to the building up of the 
 country, would it not ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Now, if the land was taken in homesteads between 
 the present owned land or occupied land and the reserve, it would 
 remove the possibility of any leasing of that land, would it not? 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 235 
 
 Mr. Selway. I do not believe I understand. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Here is a valley, and the land is occupied, farmed, 
 filed on, and owned. Between that and the mountains there is 
 always a strip of land 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Then comes the forest reserves. Now, the land be- 
 tween the forest reserves and the now owned and occupied land is 
 what you call the unreserved land? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Now, if that was all taken by homesteaders, there 
 would not be anything in your State for the lease law to apply to, 
 would there ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. No. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You think that homesteaders would file on this land ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. No ; the great big portion of it they never will file on. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Six hundred and forty acres, you think? 
 
 Mr. Selway. They would with the 640 acres, yes; and practically 
 every acre of it would revert into the hands of the big landowners. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I have heard that two or three times 
 
 Mr. Selway. The 640-acre homestead act is not workable in my 
 section, unless a fellow has a hay stack and an irrigated f arm. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Your objection to the 640-acre tract, then, for further 
 enlarging the homestead law, so far as area is concerned, would be 
 that this would eventually get into private ownership? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes, sir; it would come into the ownership of the 
 large live-stock interests, and perhaps to their detriment, I think. 
 I know as far as I am concerned I could not afford to buy an acre 
 of that land. I have got every acre of land that I can afford to own. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. Because of taxes? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Taxes and expense of operation, and expense in main- 
 taining it. Not especially taxes; no. Taxes are a small portion of 
 a man's annual expense. I do not care how high they are, they are a 
 small portion of his annual expense. I tell you right now you go 
 out there and buy a section of grazing land and pay $2,000 for 160 
 acres of grazing land, and in a little while it is not worth $10 an acre 
 from a grazing point of view. I would not buy it at all if it were 
 not for the peculiar location of it, whereby it is going to be the 
 means of getting a chance on some of the public domain. That is 
 all there is to it. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You are so eminently fair on those matters that I 
 like to talk to you about them. Don't you believe it would be to the 
 advantage of each community and each State if this land were in 
 private ownership? 
 
 Mr. Selway. No ; I do not. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You think that it ought to remain in the public domain 
 to be leased and disposed of so there would be no private ownership? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Make it part and parcel of the patented land in the 
 communities in which it is located. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Now, I understand your view to be something like 
 this: Take the present amount of land that is owned 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Take the present amount of land that is in the forest 
 reserves. There ought to be the remaining public domain as it prac- 
 tically exists now left in the Government, so that it could be leased 
 
236 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 for grazing purposes to supply those that now have the farms and 
 those that might, go into the stock business. 
 
 Mr. Selway. Those that now have the farms — not the ones that 
 have the farms, but the ones who will eternally own the country. 
 
 Mr. Kakee. I was unhappy in that expression; I will change it. 
 I see now. 
 
 Mr. Selway. Let me go a little further. That country out there 
 would never have been taken up had it not been for the fact that it 
 was public domain. Absolutely the best hay ranch in Montana, or 
 the best wheat ranch, or any other ranch, will not pay from a farm- 
 ing point of view. You live out there close to the Pacific Ocean 
 where you can get your stuff onto the market, but they have to send 
 it in the shape of fat ; that is the only way they can make anything. 
 . Mr. Raker. Let me put this question again. Take the presently 
 owned land, either in present ownership or ownership that may 
 follow by descent or devise. Then take the strips of unreserved, un- 
 occupied public domain. You believe that that present unoccupied, 
 undisposed of public domain ought to remain with the Government 
 so that it can be leased to these various occupants or their successors 
 in interest? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes, sir; all of it, except public agricultural lands 
 which, as I said, I believe in segregating right on the start. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Then, to carry that right on logically means, as a con- 
 clusion, that the remaining land ought not to be disposed of, because 
 it Would be a detriment to the present occupants or their successors? 
 
 Mr. Selway. A detriment to the fellow that gets it. That is the 
 truth. The fellow that gets it right now. 
 
 Mr. Raker. It would be a detriment to both? 
 
 Mr. Selway. It would be a detriment to the fellow that gets it, 
 and the other fellow will manage to make a living, I think. 
 
 Now, we have a wrong impression of this proposition of the home- 
 steader not getting eqaul rights or not getting fair rights on the 
 public domain under this bill, because, do you suppose for a minute 
 that the Department of Agriculture is going to come out there east 
 of that little town of mine — Dillon — where these homesteaders are 
 located all along the edge of the public domain, and lease me that 
 piece of land that lies between that and the top of the mountains? 
 No, sir. They will come out there and say, " Now, we will just make 
 a blanket lease for these people and permit every fellow that has 
 160 acres of land here to run so many head of stock on that domain.'' 
 I do not anticipate getting hold of any of that land ; not an acre of it. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Under a lease law? 
 
 Mr. Selway. No, sir; not an acre of it. The leases will all revert 
 to the fellows who are in the neighborhood and who have been using 
 it before. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Under the feature of the bill it srives them a prior 
 right? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes ; it is an equity anyhow. I have never seen the 
 Department of Agriculture or any of these fellows go very far be- 
 yond what they could go before a congressional committee and 
 maintain. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You would not like to keep this land that we are 
 speaking of in private ownership if a man could go in there, and, by 
 homesteading it, make a living on it, would you ? 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 237 
 
 Mr. Selway. No ; I think that is all right. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Then, as a matter of fact, your deduction is that there 
 ought to be a classification some time before there is a general lease, 
 if it should occur ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. I will go this far — I will say this — that that classifi- 
 cation of all the available land that the department has in the west- 
 ern country right now — that that classification could be made abso- 
 lutely by the 1st of July. That is an absolute fact. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. You would not say there would be no applications 
 for farms in it as classified now ? You still concede that there might 
 be a classification made now, and there would be plenty of applica- 
 tions for 640-acre farms? 
 
 Mr. Selway. No ; not after they get through. Whenever they get 
 above an elevation of 2,500 feet they have gone clear out of the 
 country that needs classification. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. I understood you to say awhile ago that there 
 probably would be 12 per cent of the land remaining in Montana 
 that could be classified as agricultural lands, or that there would be 
 some agricultural land as the result of such a classification ? 
 
 Mr. Sleway. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. This classification that you have in mind would be 
 a rough classification, giving the benefit of the doubt to lands that 
 might possibly be used for agriculture ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. I would suggest, in a case of that kind, to give the 
 benefit of the doubt to the agriculturist in all instances. Go further. 
 There is a lot of that land that might be agricultural land in 10 
 years from now that is not going to be settled in a hurry. They are 
 waiting for railroads, better transportation facilities, etc., and they 
 are not going to tackle it. It would be all right, I would say, on 
 strips of land of that kind to issue, say, annual permits to the peo- 
 ple who are living in that country in the live-stock business — I 
 mean the farmer and anybody that has any live stock — to issue an- 
 nutl permits on this agricultural land, so that any time they saw fit 
 they could revoke the permit. That would be my honest opinion 
 about that — and go ahead and give your 10-year permits, if you 
 want to, on the land that is absolutely grazing land. 
 
 The Chairman. There are about 21,000,000 acres of unappro- 
 priated land in Montana ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes, sir ; about that. 
 
 The Chairman. I think it was your statement that a 640-acre law 
 would be sufficiently attractive to prospective home seekers that they 
 would take it practically up ? 
 
 Mr. Selway". They would take it up through the advertisements 
 
 and photographs- 
 
 The Chairman. I understand — real estate boomers? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Real estate boomers and railroad companies. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, if those 21,000,000 acres were taken up un- 
 der a section homestead law, or two sections, say, what part of them 
 would ever proceed to patent, do you think? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Oh, almost all. They would relinquish, you know. 
 There is a system of that going on in every new country. ' 
 
 The Chairman. Then, from that you think that most of the land 
 would find its way into the hands of the larger holders ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Oh, absolutely. 
 
238 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 The Chairman. To be held by them in fee as distinguished from a 
 leasing proposition ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. If they did all proceed to patent, of course, it 
 would all take its place on the tax roll ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes ; at about a dollar and a quarter an acre. 
 
 The Chairman. That would not be much revenue? 
 
 Mr. Selway. It would be a little revenue. 
 
 The Chairman. Is the question of taxable areas an intense question 
 in your State? 
 
 Mr. Selwat. No, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Are the taxes high there? 
 
 Mr. Selwat. No, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. How high are they? 
 
 Mr. Selwat. We pay in my country from 17 to 19 mills. The valu- 
 ations on real estate are approximately 40 per cent. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you value real estate at only about 40 per 
 cent? How do they value the personal estate? 
 
 Mr. Selwat. Well, personal property is valued, I would say, or- 
 dinarily at about 30 per cent. 
 
 The Chadjman. They come a little nearer the true value on that? 
 
 Mr. Selwat. Well, it is a State- wide custom. The assessors met, 
 and they agreed upon valuations of sheep, cattle, etc. They put 
 valuations on agricultural land at certain elevations, and got at it 
 so as to make it eminently fair for the State. 
 
 The Chairman. You are a State senator out there, are you not, 
 Mr. Selway? 
 
 Mr. Selwat. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. How long have you been State senator? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Oh, I have been in the legislature about 10 years. 
 I was twice in the house, and have served one full term in the 
 senate, and now I am serving my second term. 
 
 The Chairman. How many counties are in your senatorial dis- 
 trict? 
 
 Mr. Selwat. One. 
 
 The Chairman. I take it the sentiment of your county would 
 probably be favorable to some sort of regulation for the range? 
 
 Mr. Selway. It has never been agitated very fully. I want to say 
 this to you now. The fellow that has got a little farm and a bunch of 
 1,500 breeding ewes or so wants some supervision, and that is all there 
 is to that. And the fellow that has a haystack and who puts his ewes 
 in in the winter and lambs them in March wants some Federal super- 
 vision. 
 
 The Chairman. From the standpoint of topography, you are in 
 the rough and unsettled section of the State, are you not ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. No ; this is the largest county in the State. 
 
 The Chairman. I know, but the per cent of land that is taken up 
 in your section is much less than out in the northeast ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes, very much less; but just as much or more per- 
 haps than in that strip of counties that are inside the mountain 
 district, clear through to the Canadian boundary. 
 
 The Chairman. And then the southeast part of the country is not 
 settled. There is an Indian reservation in there, is there not ? 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 239 
 
 Mr. Selway. There has been — the Crow Reservation — but that is 
 pretty well opened up. That is really the central part of the southern 
 part "of the State. 
 
 The Chairman. You were born and raised out there, were vou 
 not. Senator? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Haven't you seen a good deal of change of opin- 
 ion in the last 20 years with reference to what lands can be farmed ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. No. sir: it has got to have an irrigating ditch 
 above it. 
 
 The Chairman. Dry farming does not pan out then ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. No, sir : it does pan out to this extent. Where a fel- 
 low has a dry farm and raises a little bit of hay and grain and can 
 have access to this big public doma : n it will pan out a little. But the 
 640-acre homestead is not going to pasture mne months in the year a 
 sufficient number of live stock for the farmer to make a living 
 off of it. S 
 
 The Chairman. Do you think if the 640-acre homestead bill were 
 passed they would take up land that had no agricultural land on it 
 at all? 
 
 Mr. Selway. They will take up the whole business, yes; every 
 acre of land in the public domain above the timber line. 
 
 The Chairman. Don't you think it is advisable to get that land 
 into private ownership and get a patent for it at the earliest mo- 
 ment? 
 
 Mr. Selway. No, sir; I do not. I tell you the man who takes it 
 up is not going to make very much of a citizen. 
 
 The Chairman. You mean the landowner is not the best citizen? 
 
 Mr. Selway. The fellow that takes it up and lives there all his 
 lifetime is not going to be much of a fellow or do much toward 
 developing the country, because he is never going to be able to sup- 
 port a family. 
 
 The Chairman. You have heard the old adage that men often go 
 to war for homes, but never for boarding houses ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. I think I know the conditions so thoroughly that I 
 am absolutely right in saying that no man can make a respectable 
 living for himself and family on a 640-acre homestead. He could 
 never do it on a 640-acre homestead without water, and a lot of 
 public domain around it. but I am assuming that they are going to 
 take every acre of it. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you think he could make it go on two sections ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. No. sir ; I do not think he could make it go on any 
 reasonable number of sections unless he has the farm to farm on. 
 I think I have got that thing figured out about right. I will make 
 the assertion that the best grazing land in the mountain regions of 
 Montana — and Montana has been recognized as one of the grazing 
 States — that it will take anywhere from 7 to 10 acres of land to feed 
 one sheep, and it will take seven times that many to feed one cow. 
 
 The Chairman. That is, the wild grasses ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes: and it is the best grass on God's earth, too. 
 Right there in that dry farming district they are trying to get al- 
 falfa to grow under the Campbell system of farming, and they can 
 not raise a ton to the acre. Some fellow that has got just a little 
 bit of a tract may have an acre or two some place. 
 
240 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 The Chairman. What is your population out there ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. The last census gave Beaverhead County 
 
 The Chairman (interposing). I mean the whole State- 
 Mr. Selway. Oh, about 373,000 or 376,000 at the last census. 
 
 The Chairman. What is your total vote out there? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Let me see. I believe the registration is 112,000 and 
 the vote was eighty some thousand. Mr. Stout is here, and he knows 
 all about it. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you have woman suffrage out there? 
 
 Mr. Selway. No, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. That is very high, if there are only 270,000. 
 
 Mr. Selway. Three hundred and seventy-six thousand. 
 
 The Chairman. Even then you would not have 100,000 votes. 
 
 Mr. Selway. Well, that was three years ago. There is an increaso 
 of population in three years. 
 
 The Chairman. Of course: that may be. 
 
 Mr. Selway. I thing that figure is correct. 
 
 Mr. Raker. The figures are 376,063. 
 
 Mr. Selway. 1 think so. Now, I want to go on a little further. 
 
 The Chairman. On that matter? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Regarding the population and votes. 
 
 The Chairman. All right. 
 
 Mr. Selway. We have a world of single men in Montana. The 
 town of Butte has about 60,000 population, and it is fair to say three- 
 quarters — I think I am safe in saying — well, I will not say three- 
 quarters, I will say half of Butte lives in boarding houses. 
 
 The Chairman. That would be a good place for old maids. 
 
 Mr. Selway. Well, they do not take to the old maids very well. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, let us pass on from that. What I want is to 
 ask you about a matter of information, and I want to get your judg- 
 ment. What per cent, if a vote was taken, if the issue was one of the 
 laws for an enlarged homestead, say one or two sections which would 
 proceed to patent, would it be in favor of sueh a law? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Nobody would vote for the enlarged homesteadi ex- 
 cept some man who has an irrigated farm — a little irrigated farml- 
 and had never used his homestead right. These dry farmers would 
 not support anything of that kind, because they would appreciate 
 that they were going to lose the use of the. public domain. I talked 
 to Mr. Stout about that yesterday, or the other day. I do not know 
 whether I could interest him or not. lie is liable to want to know 
 about that, though. 
 
 The Chairman. We all want to have information on that line. 
 What would you say the vote would be, in your judgment? 
 
 Mr. Sioi.way. I would say that there would be such a light vote in 
 favor of (UO-aere, homesteads that it would not amount to anything. 
 The only vote that you could get of that kind would be from* 
 few people who are looking to getting hold of a large, tract of grac- 
 ing land, so that if they could not make a living on it perhaps they 
 could get a little money out of their homestead rights. They think 
 more of the value of the homestead right than of the acreage. 
 
 The Chairman. Of course I am asking for matters of information 
 that would not be admissible in court, but which will be helpful 
 to the committee, because I have lived in a Territory long enough 
 to have respect for what these people want. If the leasing law 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 241 
 
 was submitted to the electorate of your State as to whether you 
 would have or would not have a leasing law, what would be the 
 result? 
 
 Mr. Selway. There would be about 10 per cent of the people hav- 
 ing enough interest in it to vote. 
 
 The Chairman. That would be the stockmen? 
 
 Mr. Selway. That would be the stockmen and the farmers who 
 anticipate using the public domain. I think it is fair to say that 
 9 per cent of them would vote for a leasing law. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. You mean 9 out of that 10 per cent? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes. All these little farmers. I do not think it 
 would be over 10 per cent. You see, all of Montana is taken up, 
 and they do not care. From Mr. Stout's county clear on through to 
 the North Dakota and British boundaries all that strip of country 
 is practically taken up, except a few parts along the Mississippi 
 Eiver. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Now, you have been in one branch or the other of 
 the legislature for 10 years. Has anybody ever brought a protest 
 or any sort of resolution with reference to this leasing law before 
 your legislature? 
 
 Mr. Selway. No ; not that I know of. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. There has not been enough interest in the subject 
 for any representative to bring the matter up ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Well, I would not like to say that, because some- 
 times a resolution gets by without being noticed; but I think I am 
 safe in saying that at the time the 250-acre homestead was being 
 considered at that time 
 
 Mr. Thomson (interposing). Was there any considered for pas- 
 sage ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. There was no agitation for it at all ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. No; there was no agitation for it, because we have 
 such a small per cent of men who are interested in it, and it has 
 always been the case that when the cattlemen introduced a resolu- 
 tion in the legislature along that line every sheepman would ob- 
 ject to it. 
 
 The Chairman. In that way you would be working cooperatively? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. Do the nesters ever get into the legislature? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Oh, yes. The house last year was practically com- 
 posed — almost half of it — of men who had been in the Territory a; 
 short time; some of them six months. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. You said that this 640-acre homestead proposition 
 would not work unless the homestead were so situated as to give the 
 men who took it up some use of the public domain. 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. If something in the way of a leasing law, such as 
 <f is suggested by Mr. Kent in his bill, were worked out together with 
 ! some such idea as Mr. Fergusson has in his bill, so that it may be 
 possible for a man to get a lease on a given area under the leasing 
 law for cattle and sheep purposes, and at the same time a home- 
 steader who might desire it, if there was land he thought would 
 . support such a proposition, could go in that leased area and take up 
 
 35074— pt 1—14 36 
 
242 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 a 640-acre homestead, with such rights as these bills might give him 
 to put out some few cattle, what have you to say to that ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. I do not know whether that would be possible, Mr. 
 Thomson. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Why? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Because it resolves itself into a question of just how 
 big that homestead would be, because he would have to have a definite 
 number of acres in connection with the homestead rights, and this 
 640-acre homestead right would really take up and put on the tax 
 roll such a very small proportion of the State that I do not see how 
 it could be of any benefit. I do not see how it is going to increase 
 the amount of live stock in that country, because every one of the 
 fellows who goes out and takes up a 640-acre homestead gets a big 
 tract around it, and the public domain would be absorbed all the 
 same, with Mr. Fergusson's homestead, to the exclusion of the farm- 
 ers down in the valley, who we all hope to see go into the live stock 
 business. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. You believe that if such a double-barreled propo- 
 sition was worked out practically all the land would be taken up 
 under the 640-acre proposition? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes, sir: all that the Government would let them 
 take up. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. And they would naturally come into possession of 
 a portion of the public domain, because the man who has the 160- 
 acre homestead at the present time has no definite rights regarding 
 the public domain, which this man would have with his 640 acres, 
 if he ever made a stick of it. 
 
 The Chairman. It has been the statement of yourself and it has 
 also been the statement of Mr. McClure — I understand you are in 
 pretty good accord? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Why, we are both of us members of the same asso- 
 ciation. 
 
 The Chairman. You are both of the opinion that the land would 
 get into the hands of large owners. Has the legislature ever had the 
 proposition of a graduated land tax out there? 
 
 Mr. Selway. No, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. I will say to the gentleman that we have that in 
 our State to prevent that sort of thing. Now, if a man has a large 
 area, his tax becomes cumulative. 
 
 Mr. Graham. In your judgment, how much land could a man 
 profitably own out there before it would get top heavy and detri- 
 mental ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. It depends on the amount of live stock he has. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Well, if he had all the live stock he could handle?' 
 
 Mr. Selway. I do not understand why the right kind of a head 
 could not take all the ranges in Montana and lease them to the 
 people that are there now. 
 
 The Chairman. But that would require so much attention and 
 interest that it would be practically impossible. 
 
 Mr. Selway. Your question is very hard 
 
 The Chairman (interposing). I will include the question of the 
 amount of management or mismanagement, interest, if he was in 
 debt, or the increment of money, if lie was not in debt. In farming or 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 243 
 
 agricultural land it has been clearly demonstrated that there is a 
 limit beyond which it is not practicable to go. We have had some of 
 the best lands in Illinois owned by the townships, but it failed be- 
 cause it can not be done. I do not know whether it was that way out 
 in your district ? 
 
 Mr. Selwat. I do not believe I can give you an intelligent an- 
 swer on that. Now, the ability of people has a whole lot to do with 
 the prosperity of the undertaking, and my impression of what I 
 have seen of the lands of Illinois — and while I have never lived in 
 Illinois, I have sometimes gone down to Galesburg to buy sheep^ 
 and my impression is that it is up to the fellow who owns the land 
 to be a pretty good worker on it, and if he has too large a tract of 
 land his hired help absorbs the benefit of it. The small man, by hav- 
 ing a small amount of land, anything he makes is profit to him. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Now, applying that to your country, the chairman's 
 thought was that you should have a graduated land tax to prevent 
 top heaviness, but my thought is, would not natural conditions pre- 
 vent that ? For instance, your very able executive might do the right 
 thing for a while, but if he died his successor might not do as well. 
 
 Mr. Selway. Those things are coming every year. I will say this : 
 We get into the country around the towns and the big lands are being 
 distributed. A great many men of means live in towns and they own 
 these big farms and they are being cut up. On the other hand, when 
 you get back in the hills on the cheap land in the sparsely settled 
 country, the tendency is toward centralizing up to the present time. 
 If we get a railroad there, it will be a different thing. I want to say 
 to you that I have been going 30 miles for my mail for the past 25 
 years. 
 
 Mr. Graham. That is very good exercise. 
 
 Mr. Selwat. There is no post office whatever. 
 
 Mr. Graham. I want to lead up to this other statement you made, 
 that if 640-acre homesteads were offered, they would be taken, and if 
 they were abandoned or relinquished, somebody else would follow up, 
 and, finally, you think they would all go to patent. 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Graham. And later they would all drift to a common owner- 
 ship? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Now, would not natural conditions operate so as to 
 make it unprofitable and unwise for any one man to buy and own 
 one large section of the country ? Would it not be a bad investment? 
 
 Mr. Selway. He has already got an investment in the way of real 
 estate that brings him in a definite amount of winter feed, but in 
 order to make what he has already got feasible for him to hold in 
 any manner, he has got to have sufficient cheap grazing— that is, out- 
 side grazing— land that is not good for anything else to absorb what 
 he does not use on his farm products. 
 
 Mr. Graham. But can he afford to pay $10 for such land ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. He can not think about it, and he can not afford to 
 pay it, but he must have sufficient land 
 
 Mr. Graham (interposing). But your first statement is that those 
 tracts would run about $1,600 to a section. 
 
244 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Selway. Well, that is for 160 acres. Now, a value is very 
 often put on the homestead right that is not on the acreage, and the 
 amount of the improvement on them. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Those improvements would not amount to much on 
 some of them. 
 
 Mr ; Selway. No, sir ; but you have to pay for them. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Would it not be a bad investment to buy at a high 
 price improvements that he did not want and land that would not 
 pay interest on the purchase price ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes; but you know when a man gets established 
 there never seems to be a place to stop. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Circumstances force him into making a bad bargain? 
 
 Mr. Selway. There is never a stopping place. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Until he reaches the precipice? 
 
 Mr. Selway. No, sir; I have tried to stop 20 times, but I have 
 kept going right on. 
 
 Mr. GrAham. You spoke about elevation as an element that can 
 not be overlooked, and you said that in your State an elevation of 
 5,000 or 5,500 feet practically precludes a farm. 
 
 Mr. Selway. No ; I think anything above 5,500 or 6,000 feet. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Well, I accept the correction. 
 
 Mr. Selway. We have some very good farms that have an alti- 
 tude of about 5,000 or 5,500 feet. In the big-farm locality that I 
 know of it is 5,500 feet, and the oats weigh 55 pounds to a bag against 
 18 pounds lower down. 
 
 Mr. Graham. That is due to the night freezing. 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Graham. My thought was that that applied chiefly to Montana 
 and States in that latitude. Do you mean to apply that also to 
 New Mexico and Arizona? 
 
 Mr. Selway. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. 'Graham. So that all the answers you make as to crop seasons 
 have no relation to the States farther south ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. No, sir. I do pretend to know a great deal of the 
 States right in my neighborhood, in the Rocky Mountain section. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Wyoming, a good deal of Idaho, all of Utah and 
 New Mexico are so far south of you that the conclusions you reach 
 about elevation in your State would not apply to them ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. No; when you go south the elevation for successful 
 farming is raised. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. Yes; that is certainly true. I know of one mesa 
 7,000 feet high. 
 
 Mr. Raker. On that water proposition, land 4,500 and 5,000 feet 
 fyigh, which from three to six years ago was considered practically 
 worthless as desert land and sagebrush land, to-day is netting the 
 owners from $40 to $90 an acre for alfalfa seed. Do you know 
 anything about that ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Alfalfa seed? 
 
 Mr. Raker. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Selway. Without irrigation? 
 
 Mr. Raker. No; without irrigation. 
 
 Mr. Selway. They do not raise alfalfa in Montana without irri- 
 gation. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I am asking about down South. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 245 
 
 Mr. Selway (continuing). Or in that lower western Wyoming 
 country. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. You have ' studied this bill for some 30 days 
 now? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Well, I have carried it around with me and written 
 a few things on the edge of it. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I would like to ask what you think of the pro- 
 vision, as a practical proposition, of fixing the acreage basis and 
 then leaving it to the discretion of three or four men and the Secre^ 
 tary of Agriculture to try to get an equivalent of that acreage price 
 per capita, bearing in mind that the man has got to return the acre-! 
 age rent or to work under a per capita regulation, at the will of the 
 Secretary of Agriculture, which means that he has nothing to do 
 with it himself, but that subordinates do it — three or four men and 
 one agricultural official to fix an equivalent to the acreage on a per 
 capita basis, with a fluctuation that is bound to take place in bands, 
 of stock all the time. 
 
 Mr. Selway. Why, in the Forest Service 
 
 Mr. La Follette (interposing). Well, answer my question. I 
 understand about the Forestry Service, but I want to talk about this 
 bill. I understand that the general understanding is that that land 
 would be leased for 10-year periods, but now it is a question whether 
 the Secretary of Agriculture shall be compelled to lease it or whether 
 he can allow it to be leased at his own sweet will. That is a question 
 in my mind that is not thoroughly settled by the language of this 
 bill. But, anyhow, that does not make any difference. The basis 
 is a 10-year period, and we will say that 4 cents an acre has to be 
 paid and you have 2,000 head of mutton sheep and you are only going 
 to run them six months on the range and then turn them off ; how are 
 you going to prorate them so that you will know whether one man 
 has ewes and beef cattle mixed and another man has sheep and ewes 
 mixed? On a forest reserve it is a different proposition, because 
 you know how long you are going to be up there and how many you 
 are going to take in. All I want is a practically working bill, if 
 you are going to pass anything at all, and I want to get your idea 
 as to the practicability of mixing, the acreage proposition and the 
 per capita proposition all up, so that some man may have a per 
 capita tax and another man may pay by the acre, and all that. 
 
 Mr. Selway. Now, if I go to the supervisor and say, "I want a 
 lease to run stock on this public domain," he will say, " How long 
 do,you want it for? " I will say, " Ten years." He will say, " How 
 many stock are you going to run for that 10 years?" I tell him 
 how many, and he will give me my permit for that 10 years for that 
 many stock. If next year I come back and buy a bunch of these 
 wethers or something of that kind and there is public domain avail- 
 able, why, I will take out an annual lease for that for as long as I 
 want to. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Why, bless your soul, that is for a big tract of 
 land, and if you do not have a fence your stock is going to run all 
 together. If the stock is allowed to vary you might overstock it one 
 year and understock it the next year. I am asking this question, in 
 view of the definition Mr. Pinchot put on this, that probably it would 
 mean drift fences, and I want to know where the practical proposi- 
 tion is going to come in, if we are to enact such a law as this, and I 
 
246 DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 think it is a kind of what you would call a Chinese puzzle, and I 
 would like to get you to work that out, whether your herds will be 
 larger this year and six months from now will be smaller, and some 
 man will have a 10-year permit and another man will have another 
 permit for less time, and you are all going to run into one pasture. 
 
 Mr. Selway. I do not know whether I understand your question. 
 I think I have got an idea, but I do not know whether I can give it 
 to you clearly. 
 
 Mr. Bullard. Might I be allowed to answer that question? If 
 your bill should read that they should have permission to fence the 
 land under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the 
 Secretary of Agriculture, would not that cover it ? 
 
 Mr. La Follette. But Mr. Pinchot says the drift fence would be 
 applicable. 
 
 Mr. Bullard. Well, Pinchot is wrong. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Mr. Pinchot said enough yesterday to make me 
 understand that when this bill was drawn he had a hand in it. 
 
 Mr. Bullard. He was wrong. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Well, I say he was wrong; but I want to get 
 this gentleman's idea. 
 
 Mr. Selway. Well, I am a sheepman ; and I do not want to go into 
 that fence proposition. The proposition is just exactly this, as I 
 see it : It is going to create a uniformity on the part of every man 
 in the live-stock business to run so many live stock during the period 
 of his lease. A man who has wintering facilities to run so many 
 live stock will endeavor to get permission to range so many live stock 
 during the grazing season on this range, and he will make it a point 
 to have it all the time and it will be permanent. The only thing that 
 is tending toward a lack of permanency in this live-stock business is 
 that the reed on the public domain will vanish and the fellow who 
 had wintering facilities for any given amount of stock would realize 
 that he would not be able to realize on it. But I believe that this 
 thing would mean an absolute tendency toward permanency in the* 
 live-stock business. I want to say in this connection that I am not 
 here booming a leasing law, but I want to tell you what I think 
 about it. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. That is what I want. I want you to say whether 
 you think it should be on an acreage basis and then changed to a per 
 capita basis, because I think you might increase your herd very often 
 and somebody would be paying more than he ought to pay. For in- 
 stance, if you had 2,000 head of cattle on one place half of the year 
 and 1,000 on a place the other half of the year — in other words, if 
 you fixed a per capita basis it has got to be fixed for a certain number 
 of stock, and if you sell off half of this stock you are paying more 
 money for the balance of the stock than you ought to pay. 
 
 Mr. Selway. A stock raiser will see to it that the stock is increas- 
 ing all the time. I think if I had a permit to run 1,000 head of stock 
 on this public domain and the supervisor finds out after I have been 
 on there a year or so that I have not been running the amount that 
 I am really paying for — perhaps I have a selfish motive, especially 
 if I had a pasture — I think, as a matter of fact, he would say to me, 
 " Now, here, you are not running the stock that this range will sup- 
 port, whereas you are paying for a given number of stock. We are 
 running this thing for the benefit of the live-stock investors, and I 
 
DISPOSITION OF GBAZING LANDS. 247 
 
 will revoke your lease to the extent that it is in excess of the live stock 
 you are entitled to and give it to somebody else." Well, that thing 
 might prevail. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. "Well, that answers my question pretty well. Let 
 us get along. I would like to ask you one further question : What do 
 you consider the advantage of having it so that one man will pay for 
 100 square miles of land on a per capita basis and another man will 
 pay on another 100 miles of land on an acreage basis? What is the 
 use of having those two bases ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. There is a vast amount of desert in the United States 
 where you can not allow a man a particular range, because it is only 
 fed when there is snow on it for water. When the snow is there the 
 cattle drift down to these deserts and when the snow goes away they 
 drift back. If the cattle are in a certain section where there is no 
 snow and it begins to snow, they simply flock back together. On the 
 other hand, a man who is allotted a given number of acres of land 
 and pays an acreage on it and presumes that he can run a given 
 amount of live stock on that given number of acres, notwithstanding 
 the fact that he is paying for a given number of acres, will be regu- 
 lated by the department in the provision of the bill, which says, " to 
 conserve natural resources." If he goes to increase his stock, I as- 
 sume they will not allow him to denude the place, so that at the end 
 of 10 years nobody will want it. On the other hand, they will see 
 that he is using it about right. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. On the other hand, if he does not use enough of 
 the grass, so that the grass will grow too high, they will make him 
 take more? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes ; I think so. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. That has all got to be regulated by the Agricul- 
 tural Department instead of by the judgment of the stock raisers. 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes; and if this bill does not provide for this, I be- 
 lieve that these cattlemen could frame an amendment to that bill 
 which would cover that point. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I confess that, while your answer is very inter- 
 esting, I am not sure that I have got an answer to what I asked you 
 about per capita and acreage bases, because if you pay per capita, 
 you may be paying more than the man who is paying acreage. 
 
 Mr. Selway. No ; they would say, " Here is a piece of country 50 
 by 100 miles, and it will pasture so many sheep for a certain number 
 of months. We will permit you, and you, and you to winter your 
 sheep there at so much a head." That is about the only range that 
 the per capita arrangement would work on. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I can see the reason why there should be a per 
 capita arrangement, but I do not see why that per capita basis should 
 be voked up with the acreage basis. 
 
 Mr. Selway. Well, that is to make the cost of the different leases 
 uniform. If a man is wintering his cattle on the desert for a certain 
 number of dollars or cents per head and some other man is wintering 
 his cattle and is paying by the acre for his feed, he would be allotted 
 that land by the acre in accordance with his grazing ability, so that 
 he would winter his stock under about the same price as the man who 
 was wintering under a per capita price. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. But you are both paying on the acreage basis, 
 because you have got to pay the equivalent. 
 
248 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Selway. Well, I confess I do not see the point there, but I 
 might not understand your question. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Well, I think you understand me now; but I 
 am like you, I do not understand what it means. 
 
 Mr. Selway. There might be a lot of things that I do not know 
 about it; but, on the other hand, I believe that I understand the gen- 
 eral conditions of running all kinds of live stock. I have always 
 been in the sheep business. I have handled all kinds of stuff, and I 
 do not understand what your question means, to be frank. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. The only thing I am trying to arrive at is, How 
 are you going to equitably fix the acreage price of 4 cents or 2 cents 
 on a per capita stock where it can fluctuate, and I can not see but how 
 some men are going to pay more and some men are going to pay less. 
 
 Mr. Selway. Oh, I think I see your point now. You say 4 cents 
 an acre? 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Selway. Well, assume that it will take 3 acres of the range to 
 run sheep a certain length of time. There is a cost of 12 cents 
 attached to the running of those sheep. A neighbor over here gets 
 an acre for 2 cents and it costs him 12 cents to run his sheep for 
 the same length of time. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. You think it is to try to fix them on an equality? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes ; so that both men will reap the same benefits. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. It is to try to fix the benefits equally for all 
 men? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes ; to fix the price per pound of the feed they get. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. There is something in that idea; if a man was 
 to have the same amount of stock all the time, that would work out 
 all right. 
 
 Mr. Selway. If you pass this bill they will have all the stock 
 that their leases will permit them to run. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Well, I can understand that if you had 5,000 
 mutton sheep and sold them off you might have difficulty in getting 
 5,000 more. 
 
 Mr. Selway. Well, I can arrange to get 5,000 more from some man 
 who has 5,0.00 more than he needs. 
 
 Mr. Church. Now, if this 640-acre proposition were put to a 
 vote in your State, practically all of the stockmen would vote against 
 it? Is that right? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes; I believe so. 
 
 Mr. Church. Is it not a fact that practically all of the homeless 
 people seeking homesteads would vote for it ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Yes ; but we have not any homeless people though. 
 
 Mr. Church. Nobody seeking homesteads? 
 
 Mr. Selway. No ; they have all taken the 320 and 160 acre home- 
 steads. 
 
 Mr. Church. Do I understand that there are no homesteads being 
 taken up now ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Oh, yes ; there are lots of them. 
 
 Mr. Church. Well, those people who have been seeking homesteads 
 in that way would all vote in favor of the 640-acre homestead. 
 
 Mr. Selway. In order to give them an opportunity to vote you 
 would have to bring the voting precincts down to the edge of the 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 249 
 
 Mississippi Valley, because they come down there, otherwise they 
 would never get the privilege of voting. 
 
 Mr. Church. Now, the people in the State of Montana who do 
 want homesteads — we will assume that there is one. "Would not he 
 vote for this 640-acre proposition if it was put to a vote, in your 
 judgment? 
 Mr. Selway. Yes, sir ; he would vote for it. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Mr. Selway, how many head of sheep does it take in 
 your section to support the ordinary family ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. Oh, I can tell you of a little instance that came to 
 my personal knowledge lately, just before I left home. I had a 
 young man who used to work for me, and he used to be in the horse 
 business. I staked him in the sheep business five years ago. When 
 he started he had a little range and his outfit would not run over 
 1,800 ewes. We finally increased that number to 2,700. I think the 
 largest number of ewes that he ever sheared was 2,750 head. I re- 
 gard him as one of the best business men in that section of the county. 
 Within the last 30 days I have sold out to him my interest at a sacri- 
 fice, because the business was not paying me a legitimate interest on 
 the investment. We had to increase the real estate holdings, and the 
 first thing we knew it was the same as it was with everybody else. 
 We improved our ranch to make hay and we had from $12 to $15 in- 
 vested in every ewe, and I figured that a man has got to be a dandy, 
 unless he goes out as a nomad and never provides for anything except 
 to provide hay on some ranch, and then goes out and feeds adjacent 
 to other peoples' ranches and homes. Anything less than 3,000 sheep 
 would not give him a good living. 
 
 Mr. Church. Now, take an average man with 3,000 head. How 
 many acres would he need for the winter ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. That would depend upon whether it was hay land 
 or average land. 
 
 Mr. Church. Well, the average land of your section. 
 
 Mr. Selway. Well, they just have to put their hay on them to keep 
 them in the spring. Every sheep will eat 4 pounds of hay a winter. 
 On the public range we figured that would be 5 tons of hay. And 
 for 1,000 sheep that would mean 75 or 80 tons of alfalfa hay to 1,000 
 sheep to feel that a man is secure going into winter range. We do 
 not go into partnership with anybody unless there is some sort of 
 arrangement of that kind. 
 
 Mr. Church. How large would his home range have to be ? 
 
 Mr. Selway. He would have to put up at least 150 tons of hay in 
 order to be safe. The best hay land does not average more than three- 
 quarters of a ton to the acre. 
 
 (Thereupon, at 1.10 p. m., the committee took a recess to 2.30 p. m.) 
 
 AFTER RECESS. 
 
 The committee reconvened at 3 o'clock p. m. 
 
 The Chairman. Gentlemen, Senator Thomas of Colorado sent 
 
 over by a page a resolution passed by some organization in his 
 
 State that he asked to be incorporated in the record. Unless there 
 
 is objection it will go in the record at this point. 
 
 ! Mr. Dawson. Mr. Chairman, may T say just a word in explana- 
 
 ' tion?' I just handed it to Mr. Thomas, not expecting him to get 
 
250 DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 over here. It was passed- unanimously by the Denver Chamber of 
 Commerce. 
 
 Said resolution follows: 
 
 RESOLUTION. 
 
 Whereas there is now pending in Congress an important bill affecting the 
 disposition of the public lands known as the Kent bill providing for the 
 leasing of public lands for grazing purposes; and 
 Whereas this measure will come up before the House Committee on the Public 
 Lands for hearing commencing March 3, and it is important that our rep- 
 resentatives in Congress and others should know the position of the Denver 
 Chamber of Commerce in regard to this legislation : Therefore 
 Resolved, That the Denver Chamber of Commerce is unalterably opposed to 
 any legislation that will withhold the unappropriated public lands from bona 
 fide settlement and improvement and withhold such lands from taxation. 
 
 In the opinion of this body, any proposition providing for the leasing of 
 the public domain is against the best interests of this State and public wel- 
 fare. 
 Adopted by the Denver Chamber of Commerce Friday, February 27, 1914. 
 
 Thoendike Deland, 
 
 Secretary. 
 
 The Chairman. Under the ruling of the committee you are recog- 
 nized, Mr. Eeid, for 10 minutes. State your full name, post-office 
 address, number of sheep and cattle owned, and the other interests 
 you have in this legislation. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. FRANK A. REID, SELIGMAN, ARIZ. 
 
 Mr. Eeid. My name is F. A. Eeid, Seligman, Ariz. I am interested 
 personally in this bill from the standpoint of a cattleman in Arizona. 
 Mr. Chairman, I have no direct statement to make on this proposi- 
 tion except this : I have a few notes that I have been taking in regard 
 to this measure, and if there is any information that I can give on this 
 point I would be glad to do so. Otherwise I have no general state- 
 ment to make. 1 think there have been enough statements made 
 here to cover the ground thoroughly. I have some data here that I 
 will read over, and if there is any of the committee that cares to go 
 into detail on these points I will discuss them. The points I have 
 in mind are the following : The application of this grazing bill to 
 the public domain. I am on the public domain in this country where 
 they are talking about taking it in and making a great big leasing 
 district out of it. Our interest is rather larger than that or some of 
 the boys that have been before this committee. It is my view and 
 the view of the rest of the boys that I have talked ,to about it, that 
 the $100 improvement clause in the bill is immaterial from our 
 viewpoint. There is an absolute need of control of grazing on the 
 public domain by some sort of regulation. Now the owners and 
 settlers, residents of the district in which I am, the majority of-them, 
 want some kind of protection, not from the homesteaders or the 
 future settler, but from these nomad bands of sheep that you have 
 heard of. In our country there is a great need of such protection. 
 I will be glad to tell you what we hope for in the future under a 
 measure of this kind. If there is any information I can give you 
 along this line I would be glad to answer any questions. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Kent will examine you for 10 minutes. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 251 
 
 Mr. Kent. In connection with your business you own a certain 
 amount of land? 
 
 Mr. Keid. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Kent. You have it in fee? 
 
 Mr. Reid. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Kent. I suppose that land is largely controlled by the water 
 supply and water sources? 
 
 Mr. Keid. Well, not all of it 
 
 Mr. Kent (interposing). Have you any hay land? 
 
 Mr. Reid. We own no hay land. We own land that ought to pro- 
 duce hay but it does not. 
 
 Mr. Kent. What do you do with your cattle in winter? 
 
 Mr. Reid. We winter them on the range. There has been a great 
 deal of talk about this 640-acre homestead law here. We have one 
 pasture out there of 25 sections, and we have never been able to get 
 any hay out of that pasture. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Now, is that 25-section tract in the forest reserve or 
 outside ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. It is outside. 
 
 Mr. Kent. It is in the public domain? 
 
 Mr. Reid. No ; we own that in fee simple. It is practically rail- 
 road ground and land that has been scripped. 
 
 Mr. Kent. So you take care of your stock there, and they are win- 
 tered in that pasture? 
 
 Mr. Reid. No, sir ; we do not, because we have not enough grass in 
 the pasture to take care of them all. We depend upon the cattle run- 
 ning on the range without provision for winter. 
 
 Mr. Kent. What do you do with your steers ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. We use that pasture for a beef pasture and for saddle 
 horses. 
 
 Mr. Kent. How many head of stock could you run on this 25 sec- 
 tion tract the year around ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. In my judgment, about 12 to the section. 
 
 Mr. Kent. That would be over 60 acres a head ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. Yes sir ; for the year round. 
 
 Mr. Kent. How much of the year do you run your cattle in that 
 pasture? Do you keep them all the year or only a certain time? 
 
 Mr. Reid. Just as long as we are gathering steers in the fall, prob- 
 ably 30 or 40 days. The only time we have the cattle in the pasture, 
 except for a catching pasture, where we put cattle that have been lost 
 temporarily, is that time. 
 
 Mr. Kent. You bought the alternate sections from the railroad, 
 and the other sections were taken up largely by scrip ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. Yes, sir ; that is the way the title was acquired. 
 
 Mr. Kent. At the time you bought it, I suppose the scrip cost 
 about $5 an acre. 
 
 Mr. Ried. It cost about $3 or $4 an acre. 
 
 Mr. Kent. And now it is worth about $20 ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Kent. I mean the scrip ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. Well, that is what I mean. It has been selling out in our 
 ■country, until it was all exhausted, for $3. 
 
 Mr. Kent. What kind of scrip was it ? 
 
252 DISPOSITION OF GBAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Reid. Railroad scrip, Santa Fe scrip, from lands from Navajo 
 and Moqui Indian reservations. That applies in New Mexico, too, I 
 think. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Scrip issued on land surrendered in an Indian reser- 
 vation must be located in the same State. There is a Navajo reserva- 
 tion in New Mexico, and the scrip issued must be used in New 
 Mexico. The same is true of Arizona. 
 
 Mr. Kent. That represents a present valuation of about $3 to $6 
 an acre for the whole piece? 
 
 Mr. Reed. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Kent. And that supports how many cattle for your purposes? 
 
 Mr. Reid. Well, they do not use that pasture. We do not figure 
 on getting any benefit from that pasture except in the gathering 
 seasons. 
 
 Mr. Kent. It is a charge on your business ? 
 
 Mr. Reid. But, if you put cattle there all the year round, it would 
 not support over 12 or 15 head the year round, possibly 15 per seo- 
 tion. We have some of the best grazing cattle in the State. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Where do you carry your cattle during the rest of the 
 time? ' 
 
 Mr. Reid. In the public domain. That is, we run 95 per cent of 
 our cattle on the public domain. 
 
 Mr. Kent. How many cattle are you running and paying taxes on! 
 
 Mr. Reid. 10,500 cattle. I think that is too much, but then we 
 have to pay it. 
 
 Mr. BtrLiiAHD. You meed a little more taxes? 
 
 Mr. Reid. No; we. think that is too much. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Tomlinson, you are recognized, under our 
 order of business, for 30 minutes. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. T. W. TOMLINSON, SECRETARY, AMERICAN 
 NATIONAL LIVE STOCK ASSOCIATION, DENVER, COLO. 
 
 The Chairman. State your name and residence. 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. T. W. Tomlinson, secretary of the American Na- 
 tional Live Stock Association, Denver, Colo. I was requested b; 
 Mr. A. E. de Ricqles, a member of our executive committee am 
 general manager of the American Livestock and Loan Co., df Den 
 ver, to read to the committee his statement. He intended to come 
 here, tout, by reason of unforseen circumstances, he was unable 1 to do 
 so. I will read his sworn statement and take it out of my time. 
 
 Statement of Mr. A. B3. de Eipqles, General Manager of she American Live 
 Stock & Loan Co., Union Stock Yards, Denver. 
 
 The American Live Stock & Loan Co., ' 
 Dewoer, Oolo., February 28, 19U. 
 In regard to the attached statement I desire to make affidavit as to Its cor- 
 rectness to the best of my knowledge and belief. I have been In tie live-stock 
 business in the country west of the one hundredth meridian for 25 years, during 
 which time I have been In active contact with the production of live stock la 
 this country and have had much to do with the financing of live-stock under- 
 takings, and the principal business of our present company Is the furnishing 
 of young cattle to stock growers and financing their transactions when desired. 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 A. E. de Rtoqitos, 
 General Manager. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 253 
 
 STATEMENT OP MB. A. E. DE BICQLES, OF DENVER, COLO. 
 
 Failure on the part of the Federal Congress to pass adequate and proper 
 land laws that would give title under lease or otherwise to the grazing lands 
 west of the one hundredth meridian, is one of the principal causes for the 
 present scarcity of meat animals with the attending much-talked-of " high cost 
 of living." Passing laws to create " agriculture " where nature planned a 
 grazing or pastoral country does not relieve the situation any more than the 
 efforts of the land locaters, emigrant agents, or speculators to make the crops 
 grow on the Bad Land Buttes of the Dakotas. To those who want a fresh 
 example of the late misuse and abuse of a good country, let them go to the 
 section in South Dakota between the Black Hills and the Missouri River, which 
 in 1901 and 1902 produced great numbers of meat animals. The new settlers 
 who came to " farm," chased the stock growers out, and now we find thousands 
 of these settlers leaving the country and no cattle, and many acres of Russian 
 thistles and deserted claims of settlers where once was good grass and fat 
 cattle. Had the law provided some means of giving these newcomers rights 
 to the grazing lands adjacent to their claims, the development of the country 
 would have gone forward rapidly on a basis intended by nature and this exodus 
 would not have taken place. The experience of South Dakota has been the same 
 as many other Western States, and even Nebraska, with its 640-Kinkaid 
 Homestead Act, has not been without damages from the misuse of the country. 
 By the way, that Kinkaid Act has played into the hands of those who desired 
 to secure large bodies of grazing lands for the purpose of running cattle rather 
 than toward the settling of the country, and it is probably a fact that over 
 90 per cent of the Kinkaid homesteads, within two years of the patent, are 
 sold to stock growers who run cattle in considerable quantities, so it is probably 
 an act that defeated the very purpose it was intended to serve. 
 
 What I especially want to call your attention to is the matter of financing 
 would-be and active stock growers in this western country, and the difference 
 that exists between the stock grower who has grazing prvileges, either in the 
 way of pastures or on the forest reserves, as compared with the one who has 
 not. As a general proposition, stock growers, large or small, are borrowers of 
 capital. In the spring they borrow money for young cattle to go on the 
 grass, and in the fall they borrow money for use in purchasing feeding cattle 
 or for buying feed to go into the cattle they own. Within the last 30 days 
 we have been receiving applications for our regular spring business, and for 
 your information wish to say that from the State of Colorado alone we have 
 had 210 applications from stock growers to purchase young cattle for spring 
 delivery. These 210 applications class as follows : 
 
 Number of applicants who will pay cash for their cattle 49 
 
 Number of applicants who wish to borrow the money to make payment 121 
 
 Number of applicants who do not state whether they will pay cash or wish 
 credit 40 
 
 From these figures you will see that 57.6 per cent desire financial assistance. 
 It is a fact that where a stock grower has a permit on the forest reserve his 
 business can be handled and financed more readily than one who has not; in 
 other words, the forest-reserve permittee has better credit than the man on 
 the outside without rights. The reason of this is that the banks look on the 
 reserve as an immense pasture and they know that the regulations in effect are 
 beneficial to the stock growers; furthermore, stock produced on controlled 
 pastures is worth more money, and I would say offhand that cattle produced 
 on the forest reserves in Colorado are worth 30 per, cent more at market 
 than those produced on the outside; therefore it is safer to advance money 
 and you can advance more money per head on forest-reserve cattle than on 
 cattle on the outside. This also applies to the pastures in the Panhandle of 
 Texas. These two examples, of the forest reserves and of the Panhandle of 
 Texas, are sufficient, I believe, to show your honorable body the advantage 
 of protecting and controlling the grass and using it under Federal permits or 
 leases, based on what is best for the district, so that the pastures may not 
 be overstocked and the grass keep up with the demand. The large areas of 
 unoccupied, unappropriated public lands grazed without limitations as to 
 pastures or fences do not carry the number of cattle they would if the grass 
 were fenced and protected. 
 
 Furthermore, in the country known as the " dry-farming district " crops that 
 are best suited to the high altitude are only fit for animals and can not be fed 
 
254 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 to human beings. These crops, in the main, consist of sorghum, kaffir corn, 
 milo maize, and millet, and live stock must be supplied to consume these crops, 
 and the small farmer, who is producing these staples in the dry belt, should 
 have the opportunity to utilize the grazing lands in his vicinity to the end that 
 he can market what he produces. With the advent of a grazing bill or grazing 
 land regulations the stockman-user will immediately find his credit improved 
 and he will be able to get the money necessary for his business. The most 
 necessary thing for the development of the new country Is credit, and anything 
 that will increase the opportunities for the new settlers or the ranchers to get 
 credit will be a step in the direction of solving our present-day food-supply 
 problem. 
 
 Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 A. E. de Ricqles, 
 General Manager the American Lire Stock, & Loan Co. 
 
 State of Colorado, 
 
 City and county of Denver, ss: 
 
 Mr. A. E. de Ricqles, general manager of the American Live Stock & Loan 
 Co., who is personally known to me, being first duly sworn, states that the 
 above is a true statement of facts, to the best of his knowledge and belief. 
 
 [seax.] James F. Griest, Notary Public. 
 
 My commission expires November 8, 1915. 
 
 Residing at Denver, Colo. 
 
 In May, 1912, I had the pleasure of appearing before the Public 
 Lands Committee regarding the Lever bill, then before that com- 
 mittee, and it is with considerable satisfaction that I now refer 
 briefly to the points I then sought to present to your committee. I 
 then said that the grazing on the forest reserves met with the ap- 
 proval of the great majority of the cattlemen and the sheepmen. 
 There was then some seeming doubt as to the correctness of that 
 statement, but I believe that the evidence adduced at this hearing 
 has dispelled all doubts that may have been entertained at that 
 time. I then stated that the small stockmen and members of our as- 
 sociation indorsed the Lever bill, which is the same as the Kent bill. 
 I think after hearing the small men who have been testifying here 
 there can be no question about the accuracy of my former statement. 
 If there is, we are ready to bring from every State west of the Mis- 
 sissippi River small stockmen like the ones who have been heard by 
 your committee, and they will all testify to the same facts. I have 
 reread the testimony on the Lever bill in 1912, and there was some 
 seeming doubt in the minds of the committee, pardonable perhaps, 
 that I did not state the facts as to the attitude of the sheepmen. I 
 believe the sheep men here now will corroborate what I said. 
 
 I also stated, and it has been oft repeated before this committee 
 and before Congress, that the very unsatisfactory range conditions 
 had resulted in a decrease in live-stock production in the West. No 
 one who is at all familiar with the present live-stock conditions in the 
 West will now question that statement. There are to-day in the 
 public-land States — compared with 10 years ago — approximately 
 6,000,000 less cattle, and there are estimated to be 6,000,000 less sheep. 
 Those are the Department of Agriculture figures. Everyone in the 
 West knows there is less live stock, and it can be proven beyond 
 dispute. We said that unless something was done with the public 
 lands the live-stock production of the West would continue to de- 
 crease, and conversely we contended that if Congress would pass 
 some law that would administer the public lands upon a business 
 basis the production would increase. That representation was made 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 255 
 
 to Congress at the time of the hearings on the Burkett bill and at 
 the time that President Roosevelt asked a special committee of stock- 
 men to come down to Congress and testify as to western land con- 
 ditions. It was made at the time the Curtis-Scott bill was before 
 the committees of the Senate and House of Representatives; and we 
 certainly made it plain two years ago. I think Congress, and par- 
 ticularly this committee, has been negligent, I might say derelict, 
 in their duties, pardonably so, perhaps. There have been objections 
 in the West by certain interests to this transfer of power to a bureau 
 of the Government. The resolutions filed by the Hon. Clyde Daw- 
 son, of Denver, show that. We contend that the passage of a bill 
 such as is now pending before the committee, the Kent bill, will 
 increase the settlement of the West. It was so in Texas. It will be so 
 all over the West. The act which created the forest reserves and their 
 administration is unique in the history of all land legislation in 
 that it has protected the small man and conserved our resources. 
 All land laws that have been enacted, and I am fairly familiar with 
 most of them, have been abused. The forest-reserve legislation, while 
 there has been some complaint about it, has certainly resulted to the 
 benefit of the small man. In Mr. de Ricqles's statement reference 
 is made as to the actual operation of the Kinkaid Act. I am thor- 
 oughly familiar with the results of the Kinkaid Act in western 
 Nebraska. When that bill was enacted, it was contended that a 
 man taking up 640 acres of the sand-hill land in western Nebraska 
 could make a living. Time has demonstrated that he could not. 
 They have proven up their claims and sold, and the very purpose of 
 the act has been defeated. The land has gravitated into the hands 
 of the big stockmen, and at about $500 to $1,000 a section. Some 
 of them have acquired between 25,000 and 50,000 acres of that land, 
 and instead of providing a home for a small settler, it has drifted into 
 the hands of the big men. 
 
 Stockmen have been coming down here for many years on legisla- 
 tive matters and I believe that, commencing now, our recommenda- 
 tions and our opinions will receive a greater respect, because no one 
 has proven where we have misrepresented anything about this public 
 land question. We yield to no one in our respect and sympathy for 
 the homesteader. Many of our members will not be benefited by the 
 passage of such an act as the Kent bill. I know that the gentleman 
 whose name the bill bears, Mr. Kent, will lose heavily in actual money 
 by the passage of this bill. I have talked with his manager and 
 know that Mr. Kent's outfit will lose not less than $15,000 in pay- 
 ment of fees for land which they now control. There are members 
 of our association who are similarly affected. So do not think that 
 we are down here to ask for something from entirely selfish motives. 
 We have as patriotic motives as any other class of citizens. 
 
 Mr. Selway, of Montana, who appeared before you, was of the 
 opinion that a 640 section would send all land in Montana there to 
 title. My knowledge of that State and the other States ir. the A'ezt 
 does not 'lead me to the same conclusion. 
 
 Congress has been trying to reduce the cost of living. They have 
 put meats and live stock on the free list. I doubt very much whether 
 those products will ever again go on the dutiable list. I believe that 
 would have been done under either party. The clamor was to reduce 
 the cost of living, and whether the administration was Republican, 
 
256 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. *"" 
 
 Democratic, or Progressive, that would have been done just the same. 
 The world's condition as to meat-food products, stated in a nutshell, 
 is this: All the surplus countries, Canada, Argentina, Mexico, and 
 Brazil, are not to-day exporting meat-food products to the value of 
 $200,000,000, scarcely more than our exports of the products of hogs 
 the last year. Under present conditions we can not hope to receive 
 meat- food animals and meat produced to exceed $30,000,000 annualy, 
 and when the statistics are compiled by the Department of Commerce 
 for 1914 they will show this to be a fact. 
 
 In the documents which have been filed and in the representations 
 which have been made, and which I now make, we contend that Fed- 
 eral regulation of this semiarid and unappropriated range will result 
 in an increased production of live stock in the West, in the public 
 land States, of about 50 per cent. These public land States have to- 
 day 12,000,000 cattle and 30,000,000 sheep. Assuming that we are 
 too high, make it a 25 per cent increase and you have 3,000,000 more 
 cattle and 7,500,000 more sheep. That increase, stated in dollars and 
 cents, is from five and six times the amount of possible value of im- 
 ports of meat that we would receive from all the surplus countries 
 of the world, no matter how the other countries may be developed. I 
 am satisfied that I am correct and the figures will bear me out in the 
 years to come. We have contended before the various committees 
 of Congress that the placing of live stock and its products on the 
 free list would not result in cheaper meat to the consumer. 
 
 I do not believe that any member of this committee will now chal- 
 lenge the correctness of our statement. If we are to raise as much 
 meat per capita in this country in the years to come as we have in 
 the past, it must come from the semiarid range States. It was con- 
 . tended when the West commenced to settle, that the breaking up of 
 the range and the settlement of these 160-acre homesteads would 
 result in a vast increase in the production of live stock. The con- 
 trary is true. There is less live stock in the West and the unsatis- 
 factory range conditions are responsible for it. I go a step farther. 
 If you enact a 640-acre grazing homestead law and a large amount of 
 land goes to title, it will promptly result in a decrease of the present 
 volume of live stock in the West. It will unsettle range conditions, 
 for the settler who will take up that land can not economically raise 
 live stock on it. The producing capacity will be cut in two. It will 
 be cut 50 per cent. I think the production of live stock on a 640-acre 
 grazing homestead, if such a law is enacted by Congress, will be 
 reduced in the public-land States. Am I correct, Mr. Potter? 
 
 Mr. Potter. I do not quite catch your statement. 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. I made the statement that if the 640-acre home- 
 stead law was passed and it was availed of, it would result in a 
 decrease of the production of live stock in the West by 50 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Potter. You mean by reason of the fact that it would not be 
 available to the outside stockman ? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Potter. No; I do not think so. If the homesteader raises 
 stock on his section, it would not. It has not worked that way in 
 other sections. I do not agree with that proposition, that if the 
 homesteader raises stock it would decrease the production. I assume 
 that Mr. Tomlinson means that if it passed into the hands of men 
 who did not own live stock and the 50 per cent went into the hands of 
 
_ DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 257 
 
 that kind of settlers, it would reduce it 50 per cent, but if the settlers 
 raised live stock on it, I do not see where it would reduce the produc- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Tomlixson. The homesteader does not ordinarily raise live 
 stock. I draw my inference from the fact that the settlement on the 
 160-acre tracts in the West has resulted in a decreased production of 
 live stock, and I am equally satisfied that if the 640-acre grazing 
 homestead law is enacted, without a leasing law as a corollary thereto, 
 that the reduction will be even greater. 
 
 Much has been said about the classification of the range. I was 
 impressed at one time somewhat with the necessity of a classification. 
 Last year when I was in Washington on other matters I made a 
 careful investigation at the geological department of this Govern- 
 ment, and through the assistants in charge of that branch secured 
 some information on that subject. From the information secured I 
 found that it would take from 12 to 15 years to make a correct 
 classification, as the Government does such matters, and that it would 
 cost from ten to fifteen millions of dollars. I immediately dropped 
 the idea of any classification of that kind, because this open-range 
 question is one that presses for settlement now, and I feel confident 
 that this Congress will do something on it. It is not entirely in the 
 interests of the stockmen.but in the interests of the whole country 
 and the consumer. The Department of Agriculture — its Secretary, 
 Mr. Houston — has appointed a committee to investigate the western 
 range conditions, and I am as sure as I am that the sun will rise to- 
 morrow that said committee, and it is one of experts from all over the 
 country, will report that some Federal regulation must be made of 
 the open range. Congress, through its committees, and the depart- 
 ments have been investigating this now for about 20 years. Senator 
 Cary, in the document filed before the Public Land Committee at 
 its meeting two years ago, stated that it had been under investigation 
 for 30 years. In my statement at that time I referred to the various 
 commissions that had been investigating this question, and showed 
 that they had all uniformly recommended that there should be some 
 kind of supervision over this range, which has deteriorated and de- 
 pleted, and its carrying capacity has been so largely decreased. 
 
 The Texas land law has resulted in the settlement of western 
 Texas; they have two kinds of leases in Texas, one lease providing 
 for a sale and the other is a term lease. My opinion is that a lease or 
 grazing permit on the open range should be for a term of years, and 
 that it should not be interfered with during that time. 
 
 I desire to file the result of the report of our association in support 
 of the Kent bill, and to file several letters I have from small stockmen 
 in Colorado and Wyoming regarding this. bill, which will reflect the 
 general sentiment of the people in the land States of the West. I 
 think I have now taken up my time. 
 
 The Chairman. Unless there is objection the letters will be incor- 
 porated in the record. 
 
 35074— ft 1—14 17 
 
258 DISPOSITION OF GBAZING LANDS. 
 
 (The letters referred to are as follows:) 
 
 RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY AMERICAN NATIONAL LIVE STOCK ASSOCIATION URGING 
 FEDERAL CONTROL OF THE UNAPPROPRIATED AND UNRESERVED SEMIAR1D GRAZING 
 LANDS. 
 
 The American National Live Stock Association, in convention assembled at 
 Denver, Colo., January 20-22, 1914, hereby declares that — 
 
 We believe that the prosperity and development of the stock-raising industry 
 on the public grazing lands of the arid and semiarid West are seriously threat- 
 ened by the present indiscriminate methods of grazing, and that- thereby the 
 permanent value of such lands Is greatly Impaired ; and we strongly recommend 
 the early passage by Congress of a bill providing for Federal control of these 
 unappropriated public grazing lands and a just and a reasonable method of 
 leasing such lands. 
 
 We favor the adoption of the Kent bill (House bill No. 10539), now before 
 Congress, as the best possible measure to protect and build up the live-stock 
 Industry, except that we recommend that the words " nor less than one-half 
 cent per acre," page 2, line 18, be stricken from said bill. 
 
 STATE AND LOCAL ASSOCIATIONS MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN NATIONAL LIVE STOCK 
 
 ASSOCIATION. 
 
 Albanay County Cattle & Horse Growers' Association; O. Wallis, secretary, 
 Millbrook, Wyo. 
 
 Albany County Wool Growers' Association; Joe King, secretary, Laramie, 
 Wyo. 
 
 American Hereford Cattle Breeders' Association; R. J. Kinzer, secretary, 
 Kansas City, Mo. 
 
 American Short-Horn Breeders' Association; Roy G. Groves, secretary, Chi- 
 cago, 111. 
 
 Apache County Cattle Growers' Association, St. Johns, Ariz. 
 
 Arizona Cattle Growers' Association; Sam Bradner, secretary, Phoenix, 
 Ariz. 
 
 Arizona Wool Growers' Association; M. I. Powers, secretary, Flagstaff, Ariz. 
 
 Bent & Powers County Cattle Growers, Association; M. J. McMilUn, secre- 
 tary, Las Animas, Colo. 
 
 California Live Stock Association; F. J. Sinclair, secretary, San Francisco, 
 Cal., 628 Montgomery Street. 
 
 Cattle & Horse Protective Association, District No. 9; Frank K. Watkins, 
 secretary, 1525 Wazee Street, Denver, Colo. 
 
 Cattle Raisers' Association of Texas; E. B. Spiller, secretary, Fort Worth, 
 Tex. 
 
 Cattle Sanitary Board of New Mexico; W. J. Linwood, secretary, Albu- 
 querque, N, Mex. 
 
 Cattle & Horse Raisers' Association of Oregon; S. O. Correll, secretary 
 Baker, Oreg. 
 
 Coconino Cattle Growers' Association ; T. C. Frier, secretary, Flagstaff, Ariz. 
 
 Colorado Live Stock Association; John Grattan, secretary, Broomfield, Colo. 
 
 Cochise County Cattle Growers' Association; Thomas Allaire, secretary, 
 Wilcox, Ariz. 
 
 Corn Belt Meat Producers' Association ; H. C. Wallace, secretary, Des Moines, 
 Iowa. 
 
 Delta County Live Stock Association; George C. Wilson, secretary, Delta, 
 Colo. 
 
 Eastern Colorado Live Stock Association; E. I. Thompson, secretary, Hugo, 
 Colo. 
 
 Gunnison County Stock Growers' Association of Colorado, Ralph R. Allen, 
 secretary, Gunnison, Colo. 
 
 Kansas State Live Stock Association, J. H. Mecer, secretary, Topeka, Kans. 
 
 Kern County Cattle Growers' Association, A. T. Lightner, secretary, Bakers- 
 fleld, Cal. . 
 
 Kern County Wool Growers' Association, L. B. Olcese, secretary, Bakersfield, 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 259 
 
 Laramie Peak Stock Growers' Association, J. C. Underwood, secretary, Under- 
 wood, wyo. 
 
 taryTaModdad, Colo? 7 ^"^ Growere ' Assoclatl <» 1 . Thomas Richmond, secre- 
 Middle Park Stock Growers' Association, W. O. Howe, secretary, Kreininling. 
 
 Montana Stock Growers' Association, D. W. Raymond, secretary, Helena 
 Mont. 
 
 Navajo & Apache County Cattle Growers* Association, J. E. Cox, secretary, 
 Holbrook, Arii. 
 
 NW>raska Stock Growers' Association, Charles C. Jameson, secretary, Ells- 
 worth, Nebr. 
 
 North Park Cattle Growers' Association, T. John Payne, secretary, Walden, 
 Colo. 
 
 Northwest live Stock Association, G. F. Whetsel, secretary, Rosalia, Wash. 
 
 Oregon Pure Bred Live Stock Association, N. C. Maris, secretary, Portland, 
 Greg.. 53 East Seventh Street. 
 
 Park Connty Cattle Growers' Association, J. E. Harrington, secretary, Hart- 
 sal, Colo. 
 
 Pikes Peak Cattle & Horse Growers' Association, Raymond S. Husted. sec- 
 retary, Cripple Creek, Colo, 
 
 Plateau Valley Cattle Association, Willis Hodgson, secretary. Collbran, Colo. 
 
 Panhandle & Southwestern Stockmen's Association, William Harrell, secre- 
 tary, AmarUlo, Tex. 
 
 Snake River Cattle Growers' Association of Colorado, E. W. Reader, Dixon, 
 Wyo. 
 
 Southern Utah & Northern Arliona Cattlemen's Union, W. W. Seegmiller, 
 secretary, Kanab, Kane County, Utah. 
 
 Sweet Grass Stock Growers' Association. Grant Bisher, secretary, Spring- 
 date, Mont. 
 
 Virgen River Stockmen's Association. D. H. Morris, secretary, St George, 
 Utah. 
 
 Western South Dakota Stock Growers' Association, F. M. Stewart, secretary, 
 Buffalo Gap, S. Dak. 
 
 White River Cattle Association, James A. Bills, secretary, Meeker, Colo. 
 
 Wyoming Stock Growers' Association, Miss Alice Smith, secretary. Cheyenne, 
 Wyo. 
 
 Tri State Live Stock Dealers' Association, F. E. McConuell, secretary, Allen. 
 Mich. 
 
 Dixon, Wyo., Fcbruaiy 2.J, 19 1 4. 
 Hon. Scott Ferris. 
 
 Chairman PmWiV Lands Committee, Washington, D. G. 
 
 Dear Sir: As a ranchman and stockman, living in Moffat County, which is 
 the northwest county in Colorado. I wish to pronounce my views in regard to 
 Mr. Kenfs bill (H. R. 10539). that I understand is now before your committee. 
 I am in favor of the passage of this bill, and wish to state to you my reasons. 
 
 I am engaged in the cattle-raising business, have lived at my home in the 
 NE. i of section 13 X., R, 91 W„ sixth principal meridian, since 1888. I 
 homesteaded this tract of land at that time, and have lived on it since then. 
 During that time I have run a stock herd on the public domain, started 
 with one or two cows, and increased my bunch until I had at one time 
 about 500 head. During the time that I have been engaged in raising cattle. 
 I do not think that my percentage of calves would average 60 per cent, owing tot. 
 the following reasons: My cows have roamed at large on an open range, un--. 
 fenced and uncontrolled; have been graaed during the spring, summer, andv 
 fall with my neighbors' cattle which have been composed principally of steers* 
 bought and shipped in from the South. My stock have not improved in quality 
 notwithstanding the fact that I purchased thoroughbred bulls, as those of my 
 neighbors who were running stock cattle turned out scrub bulls, and as it was ; 
 necessary that our cattle run together was deprived of the entire benefit of my 
 bulls, as I had no way in which I could keep my cows and bulls under control. . 
 In 1911 I sold my cows, as I was discouraged by the small profits, and now J^; 
 am running steers that I purchased in the South. 
 
 There is a very large amount of the land in the West that will never be of 
 more value than it is for grazing. At the present time it is used by everyone 
 
260 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 and controlled by no one. Each year the grass becomes less, especially more 
 around the watering places where large numbers of cattle are compelled to 
 come a long distance for water. Springs are tramped by the stock so that they 
 are nearly dry. Twenty-five years ago 90 per cent of all cattle on these ranges 
 were raised thereon ; now 90 per, cent of all cattle are shipped in from the 
 South. Each year the ground squirrels and prairie dogs are increasing, until 
 now they cover our entire range and destroy the grass, as they dig it up by 
 the roots. 
 
 If this bill should become a law all of the ranchers could have the advantage 
 of a pasture that he could control either by individual or community allot- 
 ments. The user would then have an interest in the care of the domain that 
 lie occupied. As it is now he does not know from one year to another whether 
 or not he will occupy the same range, and has no interest in improvement, or 
 exterminating predatory animals. He could then graze any kind of stock he 
 wished without detriment to his neighbor; he could reserve and set aside 
 grazing tracts for different seasons, and thus be prepared for protecting his 
 stock. As it is now his stock may be far from feed during a bad storm, and 
 he may loose many before they can be found. 
 
 There are large sections of this country that are not occupied; they consist 
 of tracts where there is no water; and before they can be used for grazing 
 it will be necessary to sink wells. This will not be done until some one has 
 control, and will be sure that he will derive the benefit of his expenditure, for 
 who would spend money for permanent improvements on the public domain? 
 
 It is my opinion that if this bill became a law that this section would very 
 soon return to breeding, and instead of shipping steers from the South to 
 mature we would raise them at home, and thereby help to increase the supply 
 of beef. 
 
 There are many arguments for the bill, and I can see none that can be ad- 
 vanced against it. Conversing with my neighbors and small-stock men, I 
 find that they all favor this bill, as it would be of great benefit to them. No 
 small ranchman can buy sufficient pasture to graze sufficient cattle on to sup- 
 port a family, and if he turns his cattle on the public domain the cost of look- 
 ing after them, the value of those that stray and are never found, together 
 with those that he looses on account of not being able to get in and care for 
 during the storms will more than offset the gTazing fee and cost of fencing 
 pastures. • 
 
 I hope that what I have written will be of benefit to your committee, and 
 that you will report favorable on H. R. 10539. 
 I am, respectfully, yours, 
 
 C. E. Ayee. 
 
 Dixon, Wto., February 25, 1914- 
 Hon. Scott Febeis, 
 
 Chairman Public Land Committee, Washington, D. 0. 
 
 Dbab Sib: As a small sheepman and a homesteader living in the southern 
 part of Wyoming, sec 6, T. 12, 6 P. M., R. 90, I would like to give you my views 
 in regard to the Kent bill, H. R. 10539. I have 105 acres of cultivated land, 
 the principal part of which is in hay. I own and keep on this place 750 sheep, 
 12 cattle, 3 horses: Graze these on the public domain during the grazing sea- 
 son. In the wintertime they are kept on the ranch and fed hay. The public 
 domain is grazed by large sheepmen in the vicinity of my place, so I have to 
 drive my bunch some distance for summer grazing; and as the fall range is 
 grazed off, I am compelled to bring my bunch in on the ranch much earlier 
 than I should. 
 
 My ranch would support 2.000 head of sheep and 50 head of cattle if I was 
 able to lease sufficient grazing land. 
 
 Under the present system on the public domain, a small man is under a great 
 disadvantage, as the large sheep owners, who run many bands of sheep, can so 
 crowd him that it makes it unprofitable. 
 
 If this bill becomes a law, I would then be able to lease range for my sheep 
 in the spring, summer, and fall ; and with the same expense that it takes to 
 run the small bunch that I have now I could run three times that number. 
 
 In this sagebrush and greasewood country I think one-half cent per acre alto- 
 gether too much. 
 
 As this bill provides that 25 per cent of all money received each year for 
 grazing should be paid into the State treasury for the benefit of schools and 
 roads, it would greatly lessen our tax. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 261 
 
 I consider the enlarged-homestead bill that. is now before your committee 
 would not be of benefit to the small sheepman, as it is necessary for sheep to 
 be moved to different localities at different parts of the year. 
 
 I have talked to my neighbors in regard to this bill, and they feel as I do- 
 that its passage would be of great benefit to the small stockmen. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 H. B. Russell. 
 
 Dixon, Wm, February 25, 1914. 
 Hon. Scott Febbis, 
 
 Chairman Public Lands Committee. 
 
 Dear Sib: I am writing you my views and also the views of many small 
 ranchers and homesteaders that I have talked with in regard to the Kent bill, 
 H. R. 30539. I own and live upon a homestead that I settled upon in 1902, in 
 Colorado, section IS, township 12, range 90. I have about 30 acres in hay and 
 the balance 130 acres is pasture. I have about 25 head of horses and cattle 
 that I keep on this land the year around. This pasture land can all be irri- 
 gated, and if it was seeded to alfalfa it would produce at least 300 tons of hay 
 at the present yield of that I have seeded. If this bill becomes a law I could 
 then lease sufficient public domain to pasture all the cattle that I could raise 
 hay for, and by so doing it would increase the production of beef to that 
 number. This is strictly a grazing country, 40 miles fram a railroad, and no 
 likelihood of a railroad ever being built any nearer. The public domain is 
 fully occupied by large cattle owners, and if I were to turn my stock outside 
 of my pasture there would be a large per cent stray, and the cost of looking 
 after and gathering them in at feeding time would be great; besides, many 
 would be lost entirely, so that it would not pay for me to graze my stock on 
 the public range. I am but one that is similarly situated. I know of several 
 ranchmen that have hay ranches, but do not own but a very few cattle, but 
 would handle all that they could raise hay to feed if this bill becomes a law. 
 Then, again, there is in this Moffit County thousands of acres unappropriated, 
 and, under the present system, will never be. There is no revenue derived from 
 this land, either to the local or Federal Government, but if this bill is passed 
 then one-fourth of the amount per acre that it is leased for will go to our local 
 government. 
 
 It is my opinion that there are many thousands of acres in this section that 
 would not be worth one-half cent per acre for the 10 years, but after it had 
 been grazed in a judicious manner for that length of time it would be worth 
 more. This I know by experience, that by judicious grazing the productiveness 
 of the range can be greatly increased. 
 
 I am writing you this hoping that your committee will be convinced that this 
 is a good law for the masses that live in this western country, and that Con- 
 gress will pass the bill. 
 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 John Btjbns. 
 
 Flagstaff, Ariz., February 17, 1911 h 
 T. W. Tomlinson, Esq., 
 
 Secretary 'National Lice Stock Association, 
 
 909 Seventeenth Street, Denver, Colo. 
 My Deab Sib : Answering your favor of recent date regarding the feeling in 
 this community among the stockmen toward the Kent bill, covering the leasing 
 of the public domain, have wired you the following night letter, which I now 
 beg to confirm : 
 
 "After thorough canvass among all stockmen in this section of Arizona, the 
 great majority of them who are small owners, we have unanimously decided 
 in favor of the Kent bill covering lease of public lands. The passage of this bill 
 means just as much to the small owner of cattle as it does to the large owners. 
 We have all seen and realized the immense benefits accruing to the live-stock in- 
 dustry from the establishment of forest reserves, tending toward making better 
 cattle, increasing the production in this seiniarid country, where grazing is 
 regulated, and preserving the ranges. We fully believe that under the Kent bill 
 we would be protected to the same extent. Please present this telegram to 
 Hon. Scott Ferris, Washington. 
 
 "T. C. Fbiee." 
 
262 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 With one or two exceptions, practically all of the men engaged in the cattle 
 business in northern Arizona are what would be called small owners; that is, 
 the number of head of cattle they run varies from, say, 100 head to about 
 1,000; averaging, however, about 500 head of cattle. 
 
 Ever since the forest reserves have been established in this country it has 
 been noticeable to quite an extent what a difference there is in the stock raised 
 and run on the reserve, where the Government controls the range, and the cattle 
 raised off of the reserve, where the country is overstocked and there is not 
 enough feed to go round. Off the reserve the cattle are never as fat, the 
 winter death loss is very heavy, and the calves if dropped early in the spring 
 never gain the weight and size of calves raised on the reserves. 
 
 Possibly conditions may not be the same all over, but we know this to be 
 the fact in this part of Arizona. A good part of the public range in northern 
 Arizona to-day is as bare and barren as if there never was any forage on it. 
 Where the range is controlled by the Government this is not the case, thus 
 both protecting the live stock on the range and protecting the range itself, as 
 once the range is overgrazed it is a good many years before it is ever worth 
 anything again for grazing purposes. 
 
 Trusting that I have clearly expressed the opinion of the stockmen in this 
 vicinity, 
 
 I beg to remain, yours, very truly, 
 
 T. C. Frier. 
 
 Bakersfield, Cal., February 21, 1914. 
 Hon. Scott Ferris, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sir : As a small cattle raiser of California I desire to call your atten- 
 tion to H. R. bill 10539, for the improvement of grazing on public land, and to 
 urge your support of the same. I am the owner of 200 head of cattle, and, in 
 common with others of my neighbors, I am convinced that the bill, if it 
 should become a law, will benefit the men of small means. Also I believe that 
 the grazing homestead bill will materially benefit the small cattle owner and the 
 home builder. 
 
 Trusting that you will see your way clear to give this measure your support, 
 I am 
 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 Ralph Harwood. 
 
 First National Ban^k of Fort Sumner, 
 Fort Sumner, N. Mex., February 18, 1914. 
 Hon. Scott Ferris, 
 
 Chairman Public Lands Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 My Dear Mr. Ferris : I ;iin writing you in regard to the conditions relative 
 to stock raising in New Mexico. There is a class of people who call themselves 
 dry farmers that come into this dry country to destroy the production of live 
 stock. They have destroyed millions of acres of fine grazing land, as good as 
 there is in the world, and will destroy the whole thing if there is no law to stop 
 them. 
 
 This country called New Mexico, at that time a Territory, used to turn out 
 over 200,000 beef cattle to the different markets each and every year, and to-day 
 there is less than 10,000 large steers in the whole State of New Mexico. What 
 Is the reason of the decline in production? I will tell you. It is the people who 
 come here to speculate on the United States Government, get land all around 
 the stock producer's deeded land and watered properties, getting the producers 
 to either buy them out or they will destroy the properties of the producers ; that 
 is the cause of beef shortage in New Mexico. And it will still be worse in case 
 these reserves are opened for more depredating dry farmers. 
 
 The proper way for the United States Government to do is to lease the bal- 
 ance of the open land in New Mexico to stock producers whether they are cattle, 
 sheep, or horse men. 
 
 I heartily indorse the Kent bill. Let each and every man pay a low rate of 
 lease for his range, and any man who is not a bum will not object to such a 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 263 
 
 law. Any man coming into the country looking for something for nothing is an 
 undesirable citizen for this part of- New Mexico. 
 
 Thanking you in advance for your attention to this letter, I am, 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Nels Curtis. 
 
 American National Live Stock Association, 
 
 Phoenix, Art:.., February %4, 19Uf. 
 Hon. Scott Feebis, 
 
 Chairman Public Lands Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sir : Knowing that the Kent bill, H. R. 10539, is coming up before 
 your committee in the near future, I would like to express my views on this 
 bill. 
 
 I personally — and it is the general sentiment in this locality — would like to 
 see this bill passed, as I feel that this is the only way to increase the production 
 of live stock and to properly conserve the range. The small owners as well as 
 the large are in favor of this bill. 
 
 Very truly, yours, J. M. Cartwbiqht, 
 
 R. F. D. No. 3, 
 
 Hon. Scott Ferris, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Public Lands, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Sir : The undersigned, stockmen of northern Wyoming, respectfully petition 
 your honorable committee to approve and to endeavor to have enacted into 
 law H. R. 10539, providing for Federal control of the semiarid unreserved public 
 grazing lands of the West. Under such control, similar to the administration 
 of grazing on the national forests, stockmen could raise more and better stock, 
 and at less expense per head. At present neither cattlemen or sheepmen are 
 inclined to increase their holdings of live stock on account of the hazards and 
 uncertainties incident to running stock on the free and open range. A law such 
 as the Kent bill will enable stockmen to adjust their business on a stable basis 
 and will tend to build up and settle our country. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Location. 
 
 Number of head of stock. 
 
 C.N.Walters 
 
 Buffalo, Wyo 
 
 1,000 cattle. 
 
 L. A. Webb 
 
 
 800 cattle. 
 
 
 do 
 
 300 cattle. 
 
 
 
 Do.. 
 
 
 Buffalo, Wyo 
 
 800 cattle; 7,000 sheep. 
 1,000 cattle. 
 
 
 do 
 
 
 do 
 
 800 cattle. 
 
 
 do 
 
 2,000 cattle. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 500 cattle. 
 
 
 
 400 cattle. 
 
 
 Buffalo, Wyo 
 
 300 cattle. 
 
 
 do 
 
 50 cattle. 
 
 
 
 
 El Paso, Tex., February 27, 1914. 
 Hon. Scott Ferris. 
 
 Chairman of the Public Lands Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Sir : I think that a great many of the people who have declared themselves 
 as opposed to the Kent bill have been guilty of taking snapshot judgment of a 
 very important matter that they have not really investigated to the fullest. 
 
 .Many are prompted to their opposition by the thought that Federal control 
 of the ranges will favor the big man as opposed to the little man, where, as a 
 matter of fact, it works for the benefit of the little men just as well as for the 
 big men. 
 
 One has but to stop and look at the splendid results of Federal control on the 
 forest reserves to know what will be the outcome of Federal control of all the 
 grazing lands. 
 
 More and better grass on any given area, and therefore more cattle and sheep 
 will be the answer. 
 
264 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 I have just come back from a trip through New Mexico, where I met and 
 talked with a great many of the small ranchmen, and I found that almost to 
 a man they were in favor of Federal control of the grazing lands. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 Kenneth D. Oijveb. 
 
 Judge Raker, will vou examine the gentleman? 
 
 Mr. Raker. Referring to Texas, in the period from 1900 to 1910, 
 the population there decreased, did it not ? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. I can not answer you that exactly. 
 
 May I ask, Mr. Chairman, the privilege of filing, on behalf of our 
 association, a brief as to the Texas land law, which will set forth 
 fully those facts? 
 
 The Chairman. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Of course, then, the statement that the Texas system 
 had been a great advantage in increasing the population — if these 
 figures are true, the reverse would be so, would it not ? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. Under the Texas land law, I have understood 
 from talking with stockmen and other people down there, an increase 
 in the settlement of Texas has resulted. 
 
 Mr. Raker. But they have decreased in percentage during the 10 
 years from 1900 to 1910, according to these figures. 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. You mean in population? 
 
 Mr. Raker. Yes, sir; in percentage. 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. I don't think that means anything. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You said they were improving in population right 
 along. 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. They are increasing in population, I know that; 
 perhaps the percentage of increase may not be quite so high. 
 
 Mr. Raker. In regard to the Kinkaid Act in Nebraska, is it not 
 a fact that the department thought so well of that act they have 
 opened 30,000 acres in the last three months for settlement ? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. That was land eliminated from forest reserves 
 and naturally went under the operation of the Kinkaid law. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Oh, no ; not naturally ; they didn't have to ; we passed 
 a special bill permitting it to be handed out by the Department of the 
 Interior, and they desired it to be worked under the Kinkaid Act — 
 the 640-acre act. 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. But that doesn't alter my statement that the Kin- 
 kaid Act has resulted in land passing to the great stockmen. The 
 record will show it and I will file some letters on it if you desire 
 me to do so, Mr. Raker. 
 
 Mr. Raker. If Mr. Kinkaid will state that the working of that 
 act has been very beneficial to the State and has gained the home- 
 steaders an opportunity to improve their land, and has created more 
 homes and better conditions than under the forest reserves, would 
 you still be inclined to stand by your statement? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. It depends on how you view the matter. If you 
 think it is better for the State for the land to go to title and pass 
 into the hands of the big stockmen, which is the fact, then perhaps 
 it would be beneficial to the State ; but my theory is that it is better 
 to use all these lands for the purpose of making homes for some 
 people, as would be the case under the Kent bill. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 265 
 
 Mr. Raker. Mr. Kinkaid's statement was to the contrary. These 
 reserves were created in the interests of the stockmen when the 
 people wanted them thrown open. 
 Mr. Fergusson. When did the Kinkaid bill first pass Congress? 
 Mr. Raker. I can not give you the exact date. 
 Mr. Tomlinson. The Nebraska lands did go into the hands of the 
 big stockmen, and the small homesteaders are moving out, and that 
 is precisely what would happen under the Fergusson bill. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You know the working of the Kinkaid Act, do you, 
 personally ? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. I go over to Alliance, Nebr., which is in the center 
 of the Sand Hill country, every year to attend a meeting of the 
 Nebraska Stock Growers' Association, and naturally I talk with 
 these stockmen and know how they view it, and I am fairly as well 
 acquainted with the operation of the law as anyone not living there. 
 Mr. Raker. Your statement was that the cattle had decreased in 
 the Western States in the last 10 years. Do you mean that ? 
 Mr. Tomlinson. Yes, sir; in the public-land States. 
 Mr. Raker. Isn't it a fact that they have increased in all the 
 public-land States? 
 Mr. Tomlinson. No. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You have investigated that subject and are able to 
 answer authentically, or is that just an opinion of yours? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. I know that as a general thing there is less live 
 stock in the West. 
 Mr. Raker. The figures show that in the Pacific Coast States the 
 
 cattle had increased 26.2 per cent in 10 years ; of course 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. Judge Raker, if you will recall, I did not specify 
 in any particular State. Up in Oregon I know there has been in- 
 crease in cattle, an increase in sheep, and an increase in hogs. 
 
 Mr. Raker. We are not talking about hogs, we are talking about 
 cattle. I don't want to get into hogs- if we can keep away from them. 
 There has been an increase in California. 
 Mr. Tomlinson. In cattle ? 
 Mr. Raker. Yes ; in cattle. 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. No, sir; there is less cattle in California. 
 Mr Raker. This shows that in 1909 there were 1,444,626 cattle in 
 California, and in 1910 there were 2,077,025. 
 Mr. Tomlinson. Are you talking about dairy cattle or beef cattle ? 
 Mr. Raker. All cattle. 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. I am talking about range beef cattle. 
 Mr. Raker. And I am talking about all cattle. 
 Mr. Tomlinson. I was not referring to cattle furnishing the milk 
 and dairy supplies of the country. 
 Mr. Raker. What were you referring to? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. We will take Colorado, now. Mr. Killian, what 
 was the decrease in cattle in Colorado ? 
 
 Mr Killian. 1 believe the decrease in the last 8 or 10 years has 
 been about 800,000 head of cattle. I believe the sheep industry has 
 been on the increase. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You are wrong about Colorado. In 1900 there were 
 1,433,318 cattle and 1,122,737 sheep. 
 
266 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 I will state the thing again: In your statement, now, do you refer 
 to cattle generally in the Western States as to the decrease, or just to 
 steers ? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. I was referring to range cattle, and I am refer- 
 ring to range States. Of course there are more milk cows around 
 Denver and all towns. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Do you want your statement to apply all over the 
 Western States? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. Well, now, Judge, I said I thought there was 
 more range cattle in Oregon, and possibly in the State of Wash- 
 ington, but the figures are undisputed that there are about 6,000,000 
 less cattle in the public-land States now than there was 10 years ago, 
 and about the same number of sheep. Isn't that about right, Mr. 
 Barnes ? 
 
 Mr. Barnes. According to the Agriculture Department reports; 
 yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Then the statistics gathered by the statisticians you 
 would not rely on? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. That is according to Agriculture Department 
 reports; now, as to these statistics 
 
 Mr. Raker. I don't care to discuss the relative value of the figures; 
 everybody knows the value of these figures, and I wouldn't take 
 up any of your time with that discussion. 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. All right, 
 
 Mr. Raker. You say there is less cattle but the more homesteads 
 you get. Is that what you mean to say ? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. That is the way the homesteading of the semiarid 
 West has resulted ; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. The settlement of the West has been very rapid in the 
 last 10 years? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. Yes, sir; more than 
 
 Mr. Raker. Some States have increased over 100 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. I think the Pacific Coast States probably have. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And the homesteads that have been filed upon and 
 land occupied and desert-land claims have increased enormously in 
 the public-land States? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. The number of claims filed have increased, but I 
 don't think they always stick. The homesteaders have increased in 
 many portions of the West. 
 
 Mr. Raker. How many have not stuck ; do you know ? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. That is difficult to answer. I am sure you desire 
 precise information, Judge. I happen to be a landowner myself; 
 unfortunately so. I have a little dry-land farm about 16 miles from 
 Denver. I bought it at what I considered a bargain, but I've found 
 out it wasn't. That place is well improved, and yet I have never 
 been able to get anybody to stay on it ; and not one year out of the 
 seven I have owned it has it ever paid its taxes • and yet it is as good 
 as any dry-land farm around there. I also had a couple of sections 
 in eastern Colorado — so-called dry land ; in the boom dry -land area — 
 which I bought from the Union Pacific. I have leased them to stock- 
 men, but have never been able to get as much as the taxes. I also have 
 an irrigated farm in Colorado, which I farm or lease; and right 
 north of my place there are a lot of homesteaders, and I think I 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 267 
 
 support about four of them, and all their homesteads are for sale; 
 you could buy them at about the cost of the improvements. 
 
 Mr. Bailee. These figures show that Washington has increased 
 120.4 per cent during the preceding 10 years, and Oregon is 62.7 per- 
 cent. 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. In population? 
 
 Mr. Raker. Yes; in population. California has increased 60.1 per 
 cent; Nevada, 99.4 per cent; Arizona, 66.2 per cent; New Mexico, 
 66.6 ; Idaho, 101.3 ; Montana, 54.4. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Does the census report show how much of that is 
 rural and how much urban? 
 
 Mr. Raker. No ; but it is practically all urban. 
 
 Your theory is, Mr. Tomlinson, that the excessive homesteading 
 has been a detriment to the West ? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. Will you let me qualify my remark a little bit? 
 My position is that the bulk of the good, commercial land that can 
 be farmed and can produce a reasonable living for a man and his 
 family is largely gone in these semiarid States unless you can get 
 irrigation. Now, to induce people to come out and settle on the re- 
 maining portions of those so-called dry-land areas, where they can 
 not make a living, has not been of any substantial benefit to the State, 
 and it has certainly been disastrous to the people who went there to 
 settle. 
 
 Mr. Raker. It has been a disadvantage to the State, to the home- 
 Stead, and to the desert-land claims? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. On the classes of land to which I referred. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And your view is that practically all of the remaining 
 public domain is of that character? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. Assuming that there is 325,000,000 acres of the 
 semiarid range yet unappropriated, my estimate is that of that prob- 
 ably 5 per. cent — that is, taking all the Western States — is susceptible 
 of cultivation for agricultural purposes, and that probably one-fifth 
 of that 5 per cent, or 1 per cent, could be irrigated within the next 
 decade; perhaps in two or three more decades there might be from 
 6 to 10 per cent come under cultivation. But for the next 10 years, I 
 would state as my best conservative opinion that 95 per cent of the 
 semiarid range we are talking about will never be farmed, and could 
 not be. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Then your view is that none of that land should be 
 opened for settlement? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. No. 
 
 Mr. Raker. If — let us get to an understanding between ourselves : 
 If there is but 5 per cent susceptible of cultivation and any good for 
 agricultural purposes, upon which a man can make a living, he ought 
 not to be permitted to go on it ? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. I think we are doing him a blessing not to let him 
 go on it. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That is your view of the matter, is that right? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. Once more I would like to state there are sections 
 in Wyoming, Montana, and New Mexico, I have no doubt, and other 
 places throughout the West, where it would not be true ; but in the 
 total aggregate there is not over 5 per cent that can be cultivated so 
 a man could make a living on it. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Don't you want to answer my question ? 
 
268 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. If a man can not make a living on it, and it ought not 
 to be filed on, then the Government ought not to permit a man to file 
 on it, should it? . 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. I think it is a mistake to permit people to file on 
 such land on the theory that they can make a living on it. 
 
 Mr. Raker. How long have you been in the cattle business? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. I have been secretary of the American National 
 Live Stock Association for eight years; previous to that I was en- 
 gaged in the live-stock business at the stock yards in Chicago. I am 
 not a practical cattleman. I feed on my irrigated place some years 
 from 300 to 400 head of cattle; this year my tenant feeds 3,000 to 
 ,4,000 sheep. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Being secretary of the live stock association, of course 
 you are very anxious to see a leasing bill adopted ? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. I think it is for the good of the entire country; 
 cattlemen and sheepmen can survive these conditions; they can go 
 out of business; but I think the interests of the consumer and the 
 general public are paramount of the interests of the stockmen. It 
 is a matter that requires prompt attention. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Has not the stock, in percentages, increased in thosjB 
 States where they do not have the large herds, but raise on small 
 farms? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. Where they can. 
 
 Mr. Raker. As a matter of statistical investigation, during the 10 
 preceding years has not the stock in these States where they have 
 small ranges, from one to a thousand acres, increased more than in 
 some of the larger ranges? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. I think in a few isolated cases, in the States of 
 Washington and Oregon, they probably have increased the production 
 of live stock. But I am talking about this 95 per cent of the land 
 which will never be worth anything except for grazing. Nobody 
 can ever make a living on it. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I say, that being your view, you believe that 95 per 
 cent of the land ought not to be opened to homestead settlement? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. Well, I think it would be better not to. In any 
 legislation regarding the control of this semiarid range, if there be 
 any doubt about the character of the land, don't lease it. I am sure 
 the stockmen are willing to rely on the good judgment of Mr. Lane 
 and of Mr. Houston and their subordinates on that matter. We don't 
 want any land held back if there is the slightest chance of making a 
 living on it ; but this other 95 per cent — and I am not far wrong in 
 this statement — where they can not cultivate it in some way, ought 
 not to be open. 
 
 Mr. Raker. What about the classification of the land? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. I said that I found out it would take the Govern- 
 ment 12 or 15 years to make the classification. But I don't think 
 detail classification would help you much. You could roughly clas- 
 sify this 95 per cent between now and the 1st of July. 
 
 Mr. Raker. If it can be, it ought to be done first, ought it not? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. Well, I believe the Department of the Interior 
 and the Department of Agriculture and the officials of the Forestry 
 Service have enough information now before them to establish graz- 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 269 
 
 ing districts on all of this land in the twilight zone that may be capa- 
 ble of agricultural development. 
 
 Mr. Raker. All right, we will eliminate all land susceptible of 
 agricultural development from the land subject to grazing only, and 
 we will say we have 95 per cent for grazing purposes. Your view of 
 the leasing bill is that the permittee should be permitted to fence? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. The sheepman would not want to fence and let 
 the small men run a community pasture. The topography of the 
 country would determine whether they would want to fence it or 
 not; besides, fences are expensive, and they wouldn't want to build 
 any more than they had to. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Are you in favor of the provisions of this bill which 
 permit the permittee to fence his land ? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. Certainly I am; but* I don't believe it is prac- 
 ticable for operation on more than 25 per cent of the land. 
 
 Mr. Raker. But if he wants to fence he ought to be permitted to 
 do so, and continue to have that right to keep his fence during the 
 term of the 4ease ? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. I think so. Our association indorses the Kent 
 bill, and you are asking me my personal view on this ; but the reso- 
 lution which I filed indorses the Kent bill. 
 
 Mr. Kent. And the bill is very much more lax than your view. 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. Very much. We have conceded every possible 
 objection that we thought might be raised for the homesteader. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I take it from that statement that people who are now 
 filing upon the public lands are either incapable of making a living 
 on them, or else they are shiftless. 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. No. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Or they are incompetent to provide for themselves 
 and their wives, those who have filed on the public domain. 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. Far from that, Judge; they have been deluded 
 into filing on those dry lands in certain sections of the West, and 
 they have worked hard ; but you can not change nature ; you can not 
 increase the rainfall out there. It is pitiful, the condition of some 
 of those people — the dry-land farmers. As Mr. McClure said yes- 
 terday, if you gentlemen of this committee would go out there and 
 investigate this matter you would get some idea of what dry farming 
 is.. I know what it is; in some places they are making a living, but 
 in most other sections they are starving out. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Well, your view is that a man getting the right to 
 fence, it should be maintained ? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. If he wanted to. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I am assuming that he wants to ; and he should not be 
 annoyed by people going in and out at will during the term of his 
 lease ? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. Oh, no; if anybody wants to go through his pas- 
 ture for a legitimate purpose, let him go ; he has the right to do that. 
 
 The Chairman. Judge Raker, you have about a minute, if you 
 have any important matter you wanted to bring out. 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. There are a great many things I would like to 
 refer to about this, and with the permission of the committee our 
 association would like to file, a brief on some of these points. I have 
 arranged for the appearance of some New Mexico people and one 
 
270 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Montana man, and I will be glad if the committee will hear them 
 when they come. 
 
 The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Tomlinson; we will be glad to 
 hear them. 
 
 (Following is brief for the American National Live Stock Associa- 
 tion, by Mr. S. H. Cowan, which Mr. Tomlinson was authorized by 
 committee to file ; also letters for which pel-mission was granted to file 
 
 in the record:) 
 
 Laramie Peak Stock Growers' Association, 
 
 Underwood, Wyo., March 7, 19H, 
 Hou. Scott Ferris, 
 
 Chairman Public Lands Committee, Washington, li. C. 
 
 Dear Sir: Regarding the Kent grazing bill. H. R. 10539, now before your 
 committee. 
 
 The above association, which I have the honor to represent, has for a number 
 of years been in favor of a reasonable leasing law, and has Indorsed this 
 particular bill. 
 
 Our association is made up of nearly 200 individual stockmen, who each own 
 from 75 to 500 head of cattle, with possible 10 exceptions, who own around 
 1,500 head, and one company that owns 3,500 head. In our membership we also 
 have several small sheep owners, who run from 1,000 to 2,000 head. Our mem- 
 bership is located mostly in old Laramie County, which is now three couuties, 
 some in Albany County, to the west of us, and some in Converse County, to the 
 north of us. 
 
 Attached herewith is a map, which shows the borders of old Laramie Comity. 
 This map shows the streams that traverse the county, the railroads, and the 
 post offices. "That portion of the map which I have colored yellow indicates the 
 portions in which dry farming is now being extensively carried on, although 
 within this yellow border are some of our best ranches. The yellow portion 
 within the red circle indicates the location of the company owning 3,500 head. 
 A great portion of the land their stock graze upon now is withdrawn from entry 
 under the Pathfinder irrigation project. 
 
 All that portion of the map left white — all of the north end of Albany County 
 to the west — which is about the same area as Laramie north of the brown line, 
 and a strip 25 miles wide on the south eud of Albany, on our west side, is land 
 similar to our white area. All the streams indicated in Laramie County bend 
 in the above portions of Albany County. 
 
 Practically all of the workable land along these streams are now patented. 
 These lands are in the main owned by the membership of this association, who 
 maintain their homes upon this land. All of the land that lies between these 
 streams is high, rough, and unirrigable land, only fit for grazing purposes. 
 
 The men who own these ranches have been residents from 20 to 40 years. 
 They have improved their workable land by cutting off the sagebrush, plowing, 
 leveling, and hauling off rocks to make them producing hay lands — have ac- 
 quired the water rights along these streams and placed it over the Irrigable 
 lands in order to provide winter forage and winter insurance to their live 
 stock. Their holdings vary from seven to eight hundred acres up to a few 
 holdings about eight to ten thousand acres, but the larger holdings are in the 
 checkerboard railroad limits and the land does not lie in a solid body. In 
 many instances this land Is used by the public from the fact that it Is too 
 rough to fence or without water to each section. 
 
 The men who own the ranches along these streams must depend upon the 
 rough highlands between the streams for their summer and fall grazing. 
 From January 1 to May 1 practically all the stock in the white area is carried 
 on hay. 
 
 Ninety-flve per cent of the owners in this white territory are in favor of 
 having a law passed that will allow them to lease and finally acquire in some 
 equitable manner these rough lands. These lands can never be dry farmed, as 
 they are on the average too rough and of a stony or gravel formation. 
 
 Within this white border are a great deal of our regular school sections) 
 and State selected lands that are now leased by the various owners in small 
 tracts as grazing lands. 
 
 All of the water in the white area is now owned or controlled by State leases 
 by the actual residents. The majority of the water is under fence. By the 
 peculiar topography of the white area stock are forced to walk, in numerous 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 271 
 
 instances, a long distance to water. In this way the areas close to open water 
 are tramped and fed to death and the outlying portions are never fed to any 
 advantage. If this land were equitabally divided' and fenced the grazing area 
 would increase its grass advantages and within a very few vears these 
 same lands would carry three times the cattle they now do. 
 
 By fencing the lands the grazing period would be controlled to that part of 
 the season best suited to the particular area. As an example, a great deal of 
 land is now summer grazed that should be winter grazed and vice versa. The 
 rougher portions should be held for winter, in order that stock may be 
 afforded the protection from the cold winds that we are subject to, and the 
 more open areas summer grazed when we do not have these winds. Only the 
 individual controlling the area can determine these matters. 
 
 It is not the wish of stockmen that lands susceptible of cultivation should be 
 leased for grazing purposes, but it is our candid opinion that most of this white 
 territory is not that kind. Over this area it requires IS to 40 acres a year 
 to graze an animal to an advantage that are carried on hav from January 
 until May. 
 
 A majority of our stockmen figure to have a ton of hay or more to each 
 animal they winter, which insures winter piotection. In such cases the death 
 loss in winter is about one to the hundred, but on the range during the sum- 
 mer and fall months the death loss will average five and six to the hundred, 
 while stock under fenced areas during the same period would not average 
 over one or two to the hundred. These destroying features, however, can not 
 be controlled on the open range. 
 
 The most serious loss is that of breeding. Where cattle roam at will, and 
 there is no law or custom to regulate, the average annual increase in the calf 
 crop is about 50 to 100 cows with the service of 6 to 8 bulls. In pastures the 
 crop will average S5 to 90 calves to the 100 cows with service of 3 to 4 bulls. 
 
 Old Laramie County has an area of 5.000,000 acres. One million three hun- 
 dred and six thousand eight hundred and twenty-one acres are patented. 
 Eight hundred thousand acres of this patented area is owned and used ex- 
 clusively by the stock interests. I have no reliable figures of the leased area 
 of the county, but should judge it is close to 1,000,000 acres. Our State has no 
 more land to lease, so we have no means of legitimately acquiring the addi- 
 tional areas we need to carry on our business. 
 
 Tour committee should not be confused with the idea that because land is 
 worked in small units in the Eastern States that it can be done in the West. 
 A bunch of 500 cattle only bring the owner who has an average family a 
 fair return on the money he has invested after deducting his expenses and 
 living. For a herd of this size the average ranch should have 350 acres or 
 more of hay land and 9,500 acres of grazing land. Ranches of this size would 
 be of credit to the States and the Nation, and were they controlled in such 
 fashion the increase in meat food products would be something amazing in a 
 short period of time. 
 
 Under present conditions owners can not increase thinr herds or the weight 
 of their animals; these two things are decreasing, and will until some stable 
 method is provided men to build upon. 
 
 What is true of Laramie County is true of the topography of the 21 counties 
 of the State. The State has an area in round figures of 63,000,000 acres. Nine 
 million six hundred and nine thousand and thirty-four acres are patented. 
 Twenty million acres are controlled by the State under lease and the Federal 
 Government under forest reserves. Of the remaining 33,000,000 acres probably 
 in 25 years ten to twelve million acres will be taken by dry farmers and irriga- 
 tion projects. The balance will always be grazing lands. 
 
 The assessed valuation of our State is as follows: 
 
 Value of live stock $30,000,000 
 
 Value of land, implements, etc.. used by stockmen 30. 000, 000 
 
 Value of railroads 51,218,270 
 
 Value of other corporations 2, 374, 171 
 
 Value of all property in cities 36,773,151 
 
 This State and all others where meat-food products are raised should be 
 given the protection that you afford to all other legitimate enterprises. This 
 can only be done by allowing us to acquire sufficient land to put our business 
 on a solid basis. No other system of business in this land is asked to turn its 
 most valuable assets loose to roam at will without any adequate protection 
 whatsoever and at the same time be asked to compete with the world on open 
 markets; even more, we must submit to the most rigid antemortem inspections 
 
272 DISPOSITION OF GRA15ING LANDS. 
 
 and range Inspections, aud the world unloads at our doora with no such erudi- 
 tions to meet . , . 
 
 The successful stockman to-day must work every day or the woe*, mouth, 
 and year to keep his business going. He knows not the 8-hour day of other 
 laborers nor the Sundays of your city people. He and his family must 
 forego the social customs of the cities and the eastern farming communities. 
 When you endeavor to people up a new section he must carry thetr tax burdens 
 tor years; yet you deny to him the right to place his business within a boundary 
 where he can control It 
 
 We trust you will give this great question your most serious consideration, 
 as the small stockmen of the West will either go ahead or backwards by you* 
 actions. If the people of Oils country are to be fed we are the ones who will 
 have to produce It If we con not acquire the areas to Increase our produc- 
 tions, then we will either stand still or go backward. Men who are now 
 selling three and four year old steers at an average weight of 1,100 pounds will, 
 In two or three more years of open range, be selling their calves at an average 
 weight of about 400 pounds. It will not require an expert to explain what 
 that will mean to the consumer. 
 
 We believe the Kent bill nearer solves all the difficulties that must be sur- 
 mounted, if administered by the prseent forest officials, than any other method, 
 and the one system that will solve the meat-food question. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 J. 0. TJndbbwood, Secretary. 
 
 Bonqis, Fremont County, Wto., February 08, 19 f 4. 
 T. W. Tomlinson, 
 
 Secretary American Live Stock, Association, Washington, Z). 0. 
 
 Dear Sib : Upon suggestion of D. J. Sheehnn 1 , of Ogden, Utah., 1 nin Bonding 
 expression of my views of the pubUc-land questlou lu the Went, as a ranch- 
 man and small cattle and horse raiser. I believe it very Important to tuti 
 whole people of the United States that the small cattle grower of the West bt 
 given some rights In the use of the public range, which, under the present sys- 
 tem, he has not got. The selecting of lands by the State and leasing and sals 
 of water holds to the sheepman In 40-acre tracts. Also when nonresidents enn 
 bring large herds of cattle and horses into a community where there happen* 
 to be for a season good graslng, and when they have left the country bare 
 and destitute of feed and move away to fresh pastures the resident small cattle 
 grower Is strictly up against It He must reduce his herd and keep them In 
 pastures of patented and leased lauds, which he has little show of obtnlntng In 
 competition with the mutton monarch and cattle baron. There Is not a sheep- 
 man on the southeast or west within 100 miles of this place who produces out 
 pound of feed. Neither for 00 miles on the north. Instead of making two 
 blades grow where one grew before they destroy the little nature hat provided. 
 
 I have a copy of H. R. 10680, which, so far as I understand, looks fairly good, 
 But by all means let us have a lease law under Federal control, giving the 
 actual settler, the man who makes his homo In the country 1 , preference. 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 Okas. Fwctokhi, 
 
 Denver, Oolo., March >, 1SU. 
 Mr. T. W. Tomlinson, 
 
 Care of New Willard Hotel, Washington, D. 0. 
 Dicab Mb. Tomlinson : I have rend the copy of the Kent graslng bill, being 
 H. R. 10580, and It seems to me that this bill sufficiently safeguards the inter- 
 ests of the parties concerned, particularly the homesteaders, nnd that either 
 this bill or some such legislation ought to be euncted by Oongross in order that 
 the unoccupied public domain outside the forest reserves can be utilised In an 
 orderly and proper manner. As it is, there Is no control whatever, and the 
 strongest man or the man with the greatest number of employees dominate) 
 in many Instances and controls the use of the public lands to the detriment of 
 the small stock grower and particularly to the detriment of the man who de- 
 sires to obtain a homestead of the public lands. 
 Very truly,, yours,. • 
 
 FttANK 0. Gounrv . 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 273 
 
 The (i O S Cattle Co., 
 Fierro, N. Mem., February 88, X9V/. 
 Hon, Scott ^'ebbis, 
 
 Chairman Putittv Land* Committee, 
 
 Home of Representatives, Washington!, D, 0. 
 
 Sib: I have had my attention culled to H. R. 10539, Sixty-third 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, by Mr. 
 Kent. 
 
 I understand that this bill has been referred to the Public Lands Committee, 
 of which you are chairman, and Is now under consideration in the committee. 
 
 I have been engaged in the live-stock business in southwestern New Mexico 
 continuously for 30 years, and am from my experience thus obtained quite 
 familiar with range conditions in this region. I am president and manager 
 of the G O S Cattle Co. and vice president and manager of Mangas Cattle Co., 
 which two concerns are engaged in the range-cattle business in Grant County, 
 N. Mex. The G O S cattle Co. has a history of about 30 years of continuous 
 operation In this county. Mangas Cattle Co. is a recent organization, but the 
 stock of cattle and range rights which it acquired and is using have a history 
 of over 25 years of continuous operation in this county. The range of the 
 G O S Cattle Co. is entirely within the Gila National Forest. The range of 
 Mangas Cattle Co. is partially upon. the Big Burros Division of the Gila 
 National Forest and partly upon the public domain. 
 
 I have a personal acquaintance with almost every individual and corporation 
 engaged in the cattle business in Grant County, N. Mex., and I have discussed 
 the provisions of this Kent bill with a large number of these people, both those 
 who represent large Interests and those who represent small. Without exception 
 each -of these has expressed himself as in favor of this bill. Those of ns 
 who ran cattle in this country prior to the establishment of the national forests 
 as well as since then find a decided difference in favor of a controlled and 
 regulated range over the unregulated and uncontrolled use by cattlemen of 
 the public domain. When the public domain was open to the use of anyone 
 who drove his cattle thereon, not only were there constant difficulties over 
 conflicting claims to range rights until such rights by general consent became 
 denned, but even after such definition the range constantly suffered from over- 
 stocking. As the matter is regulated in the national forests both range rights 
 are clearly defined and overstocking is prevented, to the ultimate benefit of the ' 
 cattle industry and to the preservation of the range as a source of wealth 
 to the country. Together with all of those with whom I have talked, I regard 
 this proposed bill as the most effectual means now conceivable of approximating 
 upon the public domain the results which have been obtained in the national 
 forests. Furthermore, as between the large and the small cattle interests, it 
 will undoubtedly afford the small holder greater protection in every case where 
 he has established what are known and considered as range rights in the coun- 
 try than is now obtainable. The day of the indiscriminate use for range, cattle 
 of the public domain has passed. The areas suitable primarily and chiefly for 
 grazing of cattle are limited and their use should be so regulated that they will 
 produce the greatest number of food animals consistent with their preservation 
 for this purpose for this and succeeding generations. Considering that this bill 
 effectually regulates this matter and at tie same time allows the taking up of 
 areas for any other purpose so as riot to restrict the disposal of public land un- 
 der the Land Office, and taking into consideration the provisions for the extlrpa- 
 pation of predatory animals, I believe that I express the views of the citizens 
 of this region as a body when I say that we are distinctly in favor of the 
 passage and enforcement of this measure. 
 
 If I can be of any assistance to your committee in furnishing data or figures 
 concerning the live-stock industry in this region, or any other information which 
 may be of use in your consideration of this bill, I beg that you will command 
 me at any time. 
 
 Tours, respectfully, Victor Culbjebson . . 
 
 35074— ptI— 14 1,8 
 
274 DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Nebraska Stock Growers' Association (Inc.), 
 
 Alliance, Nebr., March J f , 191/ t . 
 Mr. T. W. Tomlinson, Secretary, 
 
 Washington, D. G. 
 
 Dear Mr. Tomlinson : Tour favor, under date of February 21, was on my 
 desk upon my return on the 1st instant from a visit South and Bast. I do not 
 know that this reply will reach you in time to be of value. 
 
 Referring to the Kent bill, H. R. 10539, it would be of no value to the people 
 of our territory. However, living in western Nebraska, where the Kinkaid law 
 or the one-section homestead has been in operation for the past eight years, 
 I would be in a position to give some idea of the value of its operation. 
 
 In the first place, it is well known by all parties that the lands which came 
 under this law or were taken as Kinkaid homesteads were nonagricultural, 
 and were of no value except for grazing purposes. It is also well known that 
 it requires about 20 acres to supply one animal for summer range. This terri- 
 tory, or sand hills, is interspersed with many valleys, which produce a good 
 wild hay, which is used by the ranchmen for caring for their cattle during 
 the winter season. These valley lands have been homesteaded and occupied 
 for the past 25 years, the hill lands simply remaining Government lands be- 
 cause they were of insufficient value to attract anyone to their use. 
 
 The people here generally favored the Kinkaid homestead law, for the simple 
 reason that a few years ago the Government became so persistent and active 
 in prosecuting the people of this territory for building fences upon the Govern- 
 ment land that we were glad to have some method by which the land would 
 pass from the possession of the Government. I believe that I am warranted 
 in making the statement that 90 per cent of those who have made proof on their 
 Kinkaid homesteads and acquired title have sold these lands to those who 
 formerly occupied the territory, or who are the owners of the valley and hay 
 lands. You will readily understand that it would be useless for anyone to 
 remain on 640 acres of gracing land and attempt to support a family unless 
 they had sufficient means to purchase other lands, and especially to purchase 
 some of the hay lands. 
 
 We 'take it that the 640-acre homestead or Kinkaid law is and was a farce, 
 except as I have explained to you above, and would serve about the same propo- 
 sition in other States and other territories. I know that yourself and your 
 organization are working to accomplish the greatest good to the greatest number 
 of people, and it occurs to me that your lease-bill law would be more benefit to 
 the people in general. Personally, I have always believed that the sooner these 
 things were permanently settled the better, and for that reason I have favored 
 some law by which the lands could be sold to the producers of live stock. 
 
 Very respectfully submitted. 
 
 R. M. Hampton. 
 
 Rushville, Nebb., March 8, 1914. 
 Hon. M. P. Kinkaid, M. 0., 
 
 Washington, D. 0. 
 
 Dear Mr. Kinkaid : I am heartily in favor of some leasing system for the 
 semiarid unappropriated Government lands, and think the Kent bill (H. K. 
 10539) is as good as any that has shown up yet, and in. the absence of anything 
 better, I hope you can see your way to support it. 
 
 I really think the present cattle shortage could have been avoided if the 
 powers that be had given us a little more consideration and treated as as though 
 we were a part of this great American Republic. 
 
 If a safe and sane policy is adopted of leasing, I am quite sure we will soon 
 make up the shortage. 
 
 Personally, you know I am not interested, only in the greatest good to the 
 greatest number, as your farseeing 640-acre homestead bill settled the Gov- 
 ernment land as far as I am concerned, thanks to you. 
 
 The great majority of the homesteaders, at least 90 per cent will, I think, 
 sell out and get out, leaving the land in the hands of the original users, and it 
 seems to me it would have been better to have passed a reasonable lease bill 
 and let the title remain in the Government. But since times were not ripe 
 for that, then your Kinkaid homestead bill was the next best thing, and per- 
 haps just as good, as far as the Sand Hills were concerned. 
 
 With kind regards, I am. 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 A. R. Modisett. 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 275 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa., March 9, 1911 t . 
 Mr. T. W. Tomlinson. 
 
 New Willard Hotel, Washington, D. G. 
 
 Dear Mb. Tomlinson : I find in my mail here in Philadelphia several letters 
 from you, forwarded from the ranch, concerning the Kent bill, and also your 
 letter of February 19 regarding railroad rates from Montana points to the 
 Pacific Northwest. In looking these rates over it seems to me that you have 
 put them in very good shape, and I have no suggestions to make, in any way. 
 
 There is nothing I can say about the Kent bill further than what we dis- 
 cussed at the Waldorf the other afternoon. I have to-day written Mr. Tom 
 Stout relative to this measure. You asked me the other day how the larger 
 ranch tracts in the State of Montana had been obtained so that the land lay in 
 bulk. In answer to this 1 would say that most of these large tracts lay within 
 the Northern Pacific land grant, which, as you know, consisted of every other 
 section or square mile on either side of the track for 50 miles. The early 
 ranchers bought these railroad sections and then obtained the Government land 
 lying within by purchasing the homesteads that were afterwards taken up and 
 by using the desert-land act in putting under ditch and reclaiming 320 acres. 
 By combining the homestead and desert-land act one man could acquire 480 
 acres of land, and it would not take very many settlers of this type to fill up 
 the vacant square miles lying between the already purchased railroad lands. 
 What lands could not be taken up in this manner script was put upon, which 
 used to sell at about $4 an acre, and after the script was exhausted the State 
 of Montana was called upon to select the remaining portions of Government 
 land for school purposes, and these lands were then leased by the ranchmen 
 or purchased outright from the State of Montana. The State was able to do 
 this, as they had a great deal of lieu land coming to them from lands taken away 
 when the Indian reservations, and especially the forest reserves, were formed. 
 This is the way our large ranch was obtained intact, and I think upon investi- 
 gation it will be found that most of the large ranches became the property of 
 single owners through these methods. 
 
 Trusting this is the information you need, and with best regards, 
 Tours, truly, 
 
 Wallis Huidekoper. 
 
 State Forestation Commission of Nebraska, 
 
 March 10, 1914. 
 T. W. Tomlinson, Esq., 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sir: Replying to your inquiry relative to local land conditions, would 
 say that as the land is patented under the 640-acre Kinkaid homestead act, it 
 is being acquired by the local ranchmen as rapidly as practicable or their 
 financial circumstances will warrant, and ultimately much the major portion 
 will be held in large tracts by them. 
 
 I personally know of many of these homesteaders who are borrowing money 
 on their claims to either tide them over until they can sell or to enable them 
 to go elsewhere. In fact, it is my honest belief that but a small minority can 
 or will make a stick of it, or that they ever had any intention of establishing 
 a permanent home when they filed ; they simply viewed it as a means to an end. 
 An investigation of the county records in this Cherry County will, I know 
 from personal knowledge, substantiate the above statements. 
 With kind personal regards, I am, 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 Woodruff Ball. 
 
 Leasing of or Granting Grazing Permits on the Unreserved Public Lands 
 
 of the United States. 
 
 [By S. H. Cowan, attorney for American National Live Stock Association.] 
 
 Hon. Scott Ferris, Chairman, and to the Committee on Public Lands of 
 
 the House of Representatives : 
 
 Representing the American National Live Stock Association as its attorney, 
 and in behalf of that organization, I beg to submit the following statement and 
 argument in support of the Kent bill, H. R. 10539 in particular, and generally 
 
276 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 in behalf of the proposition to lease, or otherwise through a system of grazing 
 permits, to give to stockraisers some reasonable individual control of defined 
 parts of the unreserved public grazing lands of the United States, so that they 
 can fence it, water it, preserve the pasturage, and more successfully raise_live 
 stock on it. 
 
 Expression of the desire of stockraisers for such a law has been repeatedly 
 made by resolutions of the American National Live Stock Association and State 
 and district or local associations of stock raisers which for the purpose of this 
 presentation finds concrete expression in the Kent bill. 
 
 Its terms may not be the best, changes by additional provisions or otherwise 
 may be desirable ; it is the principle involved to which this statement and argu- 
 ment are directed, and that in view, of course, of the present situation of the 
 subject matter where the great heritage of the whole people is largely going to 
 WHste. 
 
 In last analysis, men interested directly generally act in line with self-interest. 
 That may or may not be in line with the public interest, but public interest is at 
 last the greatest good to the greatest number, preserving in all cases the rights 
 and benefits to which even the minority are fairly entitled. The public interest 
 viewpoint is not confined to the locality where the land happens to be, but as it 
 belongs to the whole people, it is at last the interest of the people to which we 
 must look in determining the rights, privileges, and duties to be prescribed, as 
 well as that of the users of the public lands present or prospective, whoever 
 they may be. 
 
 Experience is the great school of knowledge. In matters involving a great 
 multitude of conditions requiring practical application of rules and regulations, 
 the result of which can not be known in advance, it is the only means of final 
 determination. 
 
 The fundamental theory of the Kent bill is that the grazing privilege, permit, 
 or lease, by whatever 'name designated, is subject to the right of acquisition of 
 title to the land under any of the land laws present or future, under reasonable 
 regulations of rights of the permit holder or lessee and the homesteader, which 
 we contend is perfectly feasible ; and furthermore, it will in 'the end redound to 
 the benefit of both. 
 
 LEASING OF THE PUBLIC LANDS WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH HOMESTEADINQ, BUT BY 
 DEVELOPMENT, ENCOUBAGE IT. 
 
 The history of the leasing for grazing and the sale of the public lands of 
 Texas is an object lesson to prove: 
 
 1. The development and occupation of the land. 
 
 2. The sale and settlement upon the leased land. 
 
 In 1883 Texas enacted the first comprehensive leasing system of its school, 
 university, and asylum lands, the principal part being common-school lands 
 (act Mar. 12, 1883, Sess. Laws. p. 85), providing for leasing pasture lands for 
 not over 10 years at a minimum of 4 cents per acre, subject to sale to actual 
 settlers in quantities not to exceed 640 acres of agricultural or watered land 
 and 7 sections of dry grazing land without actual settlement. 
 
 Four years previous to the enactment of this law the western termini of the 
 railroads of Texas were in the vicinity of Denison, # Fort Worth, Waco, Austin, 
 and Ran Antonio, and the vast domain lying west of those points had no rail- 
 roads. In 1881 the Southern Pacific west of San Antonio and the Texas & 
 Pacific Railway west from Fort Worth were completed to El Paso, and shortly 
 after that time the construction of the Fort Worth & Denver City Railway 
 northwest was begun, but not completed for several years. 
 
 At the completion of the Texas & Pacific Railway there were practically no 
 farming operations beyond 75 to 100 miles west of Fort Worth, Denison, Waco, 
 or San Antonio, and very little within the intermediate territory, so that there 
 was a vast domain in Texas, embracing more than half of its area, in which 
 there was no business other than the business of raising and grazing live stock, 
 and in that area not one-fifth was occupied. By far the larger portion of the 
 land had been surveyed by railroads in the location of the land grants, whereby 
 alternate sections were located and field notes returned for the public-school 
 lands and to a comparatively small extent for university and asylum lands. 
 Within that domain was also a large amount of nnlocated public lands belong- 
 ing to the State of Texas, in which from time to time the four leagues of school 
 laud allotted to each county was surveyed and thereafter patented to such 
 county. Three million acres were sold to the Capitol Syndicate for the building 
 
mspoemosr of grazing laisds. %11 
 
 of the Texas capital, this tract being about 2S0 miles in length from the extreme 
 northern part of the State southward, and averaging 25 or 30 miles in width, 
 and ft#V8*> body of the unappropriated public domain was sold to the public In 
 1881, at 30 cents per acre, by the State. Through these means the public do- 
 main was nearly all exhausted, and within the next three or four years there- 
 after whatever there was of the public- domain which had not been located was 
 appropriated to the public-school fund. 
 
 The construction of the railroads meant the rapid development and settle- 
 ment of Texas; the necessity for deriving revenue from the public-school lands 
 for the public schools, the desire to secure the development of the country by the 
 production of water, and the subjugation of this vast domain into a productive 
 country and make it possible for settlers to occupy the public lands, and induce 
 them to purchase it, lay at the very foundation of providing for the leasing of 
 the public lands for grazing purposes, subject in all eases under this law to sale 
 to actual settlers. 
 
 Thereupon it became the fixed policy of the State to lease the public lands 
 and to prohibit their exclusive use by fencing, line riding, or otherwise, except 
 where they were leased, and this policy has been pursued with great success 
 ever since, and during that period no portion of the United States where graz- 
 ing is the chief industry has at all kept pace- with the development of Texas. 
 
 From year to year the law was amended. By the act of April 1, 1887, Ses- 
 sion Acts, page 83. provision w.is made for the classification, valuation, sale, and 
 lease of these public lands. Lands classified as agricultural lands having water 
 th ereon to be sold to actual settlers in quantities of 640 acres; that classified as 
 pasturage, without water, not to exceed 4 sections, at not less than $2 per acre, 
 and in case of watered lands $3 per acre, on 40 years' time, with interest at 5 
 per cent, and pro rata principal payable annually; provided said lands might 
 be leased for the period of five years at 4 cents per acre for pasture lands, with 
 refusal at the expiration of the lease to the lessee to renew the same if still 
 subject to lease, and providing that lands classified as grazing should not be 
 subject to sale during the lease, or possession disturbed ; bnt the lands classi- 
 fied as agricultural lands should be subject to sale, except where improvements 
 to the value of $100 had been placed upon a section so leased and sought to be 
 pTwrmiUnl, and where the settler purchased within the leasehold he was not 
 permitted to turn loose more than 1 head of cattle or horses for every 10 acres 
 of land purchased by him and not inclosed, or in lieu thereof 4 head of sheep or 
 ghate for each 10 acres. Fencing, line riding; or other appropria tion of the 
 land not fenced was prohibited. Provision was made for the construction of 
 gates and fences and for the passage legifimatiely of live stock through and over 
 leased land or other Enclosure in which fitere were public lands. 
 
 This law was amended by die act of April 8, 1889. Session Acts, page 51, per- 
 mitting any bona fide settler who bad purchased not more than one section of 
 agricultural or watered land to purchase three dry and strictly pasturai 
 sections. It was provided that all lands lying north of the Texas & Pacific 
 Railway and east of the Pecos River should be leased for a period not longer 
 than six years, and lands sooth of the Texas & Pacific Railway and lands west 
 of the Pecos River and all lands in a few counties north of the Texas & Pacific 
 Railway which are named should be leased for a period of years not exceeding 
 10 years at 4 cents per acre, except the university lands, which should be 
 leased for 3 cents per acre, subject to the right of renewal at the expiration 
 of file lease if still subject to lease. 
 
 It was also provided that no lands classified as grazing lands should be sub- 
 ject to sale during the lease, bnt that lands classified as agricultural lands 
 should be leased subject to sale, except where improvements to the value of 
 $MD had been placed on the section by the lessee, and limiting the number of 
 cattle, horses, and sheep to be turned loose by said parties into the pasture to 
 1 head of h orses , nudes, or cattle to each ID acres, and 4 sheep or goats to 10> 
 acres within such leasehold. 
 
 The law was again amended by die act of April 28, 1891. Session I^ws, page 
 laP.^exitpting out certain counties south of the Texas & Pacific Railway from 
 the JD years' lease, and limiting leases north of the Texas and Pacific Railway 
 to five yearn, the lands leased in the five years' district subject to sale, except 
 the improved sections, and the grazing lands hi the 10 years' district not sub- 
 ject to sale during the lease. 
 
 By bne act of 1895 the sale and lease of the university lands was turned over 
 b) Che regents of the university, which was generally thereafter leased at 2 
 eeat* per acre. 
 
278 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 ■ The law was again amended by tlie act of 1897, Session Acts, page 184, pro- 
 viding for the sale of two sections of agricultural land, a total of four sections 
 altogether, and allowing the purchase of additional lands within 5 miles of 
 the section occupied by the settler, reducing the price on agricultural lands 
 to $1.50 per acre and on grazing lands to $1 per acre, with 3 per cent interest. 
 The absolute lease district is again defined by designated county lines, un- 
 necessary to detail, covering in a general way the same territory as the pre- 
 vious laws, with the exception of a few counties, giving preference right to the 
 actual settlers to lease a few counties, giving preference right to the actual 
 settler to lease lands within 5 miles of his settlement, not exceeding three sec- 
 tions held by the leasehold, and reducing the leasehold to not less than 10 sec- 
 tions. All lease at not less than 3 cents per acre. 
 
 Provision was made for lease on condition of boring for water, with the right 
 to surrender the lease in case of failure in 90 days, etc. 
 
 This law was again comprehensively amended by the act of April 19, 1901, 
 Session Acts, page 292, providing for valuation and sale on 40 years' time and 
 interest at 3 per cent, in quantities not exceeding four sections, including pre- 
 vious purchases, to one person, requiring improvements to the amount of $300 
 within three years. The absolute lease district is again defined, with right of 
 renewal after the expiration of 60 days following the expiration of the lease 
 if the land is not in demand for settlement. 
 
 No purchaser within the leasehold could turn loose stock without providing 
 water for them. 
 
 By the act of 1905 it was provided that the school land should be sold to the 
 highest bidder, after valuation made by the Commissioner of the General Land 
 Office was filed with the county clerk of the county where the land lies. In 
 counties west of the Pecos River and some others it might be sold in quantities 
 of eight sections to one person. This was in recognition that it takes 30 acres 
 on the average per year to a cow. 
 
 • Other amendments and laws have been passed, but the foregoing are sufficient 
 for the purpose of showing the general scope of the enactments, providing for 
 sale and lease of the public lands in a territory 600 miles across in its greatest 
 distances, and utilized precisely for the same purposes as similarly situated 
 public lands of the United States east of the Rocky Mountains, and in many 
 other localities. Twenty years' experience was enough, but it extends down 
 to this time a uniform success. 
 
 The designation of land as agricultural or grazing was mostly by the district 
 where located, and was inexpensively and promptly done, as local surveyors 
 knew sufficient to readily make the designation. 
 
 The one hundredth meridian on a line between Texas Panhandle and Okla- 
 homa, projected south, runs near Abilene on the Texas & Pacific Railway about 
 470 miles east of El Paso and Uvalde on the Southern Pacific, near the same 
 distance east of El Paso, and is about 200 miles east of the eastern boundary 
 of New Mexico, and more than 450 miles from the northeast corner of Texas 
 across the State. 
 
 It may be safely said that approximately half of the land in that vast area 
 to the west, besides a vast area east of that line, belonged to the public-school, 
 university, asylum, or other funds at the beginning of the Texas system of 
 leasing its public lands, subject to sale, with varying provisions for absolute 
 lease as indicated in the foregoing mentioned acts of the legislature and other 
 similar acts. The regents of the university leased on an absolute lease, water 
 was procured, lands enhanced in value, which has accrued to the university, 
 much of it worth $5 per acre to-day. 
 
 At the time the system was begun there was no farming west of the one hun- 
 dredth meridian except isolated cases, where small patches were under irriga- 
 tion not worth mentioning. Not only in that territory, as far as it was utilized 
 for grazing purposes, but for a distance approximately 100 miles further east 
 across the State was a free-grass country. Of course, it is different to-day, and 
 cotton is extensively grown 275 miles west of Fort Worth, and forage crops 
 and other crops throughout the Panhandle and as far west as the Pecos without 
 irrigation. 
 
 The controversy with respect to the lease-law advocates and the free-grass 
 advocates waxed warm. Practically everybody in the grazing country was iu 
 favor of free grazing. There was room enough for everybody at the beginning, 
 but after the construction of railroads and the rapid influx of population, mainly 
 engaged in the business of raising cattle and sheep, watering them from the 
 natural supplies of water holes, natural streams, and from springs, as far west 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 27& 
 
 .s the plains country, the controversy for the use of water became rife, as 
 uore and more live stock were taken into the country, so in course of time the 
 ;rass was eaten out around and within a considerable distance of the water 
 ind artificial means had to be provided, so that by the time the lease-law sys- 
 em was well under way the stockmen began to lease and fence for the purpose 
 if protecting such water as they obtained within their leaseholds and for the 
 rarpose of being able to provide artificial means by the boring of wells, erecting 
 yindmills, and building of tanks. So the country rapidly developed in that 
 ine. Tracts of land were leased, both large and small, and fenced. Settlers 
 :ame into the pastures and purchased lands therein, and the tide of develop- 
 ment pushed westward so that by 1900 practically all of the lands of the State 
 >f Texas had been leased as far west as the eastern boundary of New Mexico 
 ind the Pecos River, and put under fence, and water developed throughout the 
 mtire country by the boring of wells and the use of windmills, the construction 
 jf tanks, and otherwise, and, as census reports will show, large numbers of set- 
 tlers went into the country as far west as could be developed, and farming was 
 successful. A large number of settlers with small bunches of cattle leased 
 other lands within the pastures where they had the privilege of doing so, and 
 that continued. 
 
 The country west of the Pecos has practically all been fenced and watered. 
 At the beginning of leasing and fencing, for the first two years, in many locali- 
 ties there developed considerable lawlessness, resulting in fence cutting, but 
 with proper policing by ranger force and by county officials, and prosecution- 
 for those depredations, and by ample provisions to protect those who were not 
 guilty of lawlessness, all of this lawlessness died out within five or six years, 
 and since that time there has been no difficulty whatever for honest men and 
 honest settlers to acquire land subject to sale within leaseholds and establish 
 themselves and carry on successfully their business of farming in the districts 
 where farming could be carried on, and stock farming in the districts most 
 suited for that class of business, and stock raising in those districts most 
 suited to that class of business. The result of that is the entire State of Texas 
 is practically fenced, and water has been developed, oftentimes at great depths, 
 and the experiment of boring into the earth for water nearly everywhere has : 
 been developed surprisingly, and those experiments made it possible for the 
 men of small means to move into the country and locate their homes and 
 carry on their business. Of course, cases of embarrassment by going into the 
 pastures happened, but they were isolated. 
 
 I take the liberty of referring to the Members in Congress from Texas, some 
 of whom are personally acquainted with the entire history of the land-leasing 
 and grazing system of Texas. 
 
 It may be said also that the railroad and other lands situated within this 
 vast area were largely leased and in most cases subject to sale, and many of 
 those lands have been acquired by settlers and others. 
 
 Beginning in the early eighties there was a very large influx of sheep from 
 California and other Western States to Texas, which were grazed by herding 
 over large areas, the grazing being nomadic generally. Texas grow to be 
 at one time the largest wool-producing State. Within two or three years after 
 the lease law went into effect, the sheep business began to decline, and irr the 
 absence of knowing the cause, it might be attributed to the fact of the leasing 
 of the land, but that is not the case, although sheepmen did not think they could 
 afford to lease. For many years before the land where sheep were prin- 
 cipally raised was leased and fenced, the scabies caused great death loss; 
 wool declined in value in the early nineties from the former price of 25 cents 
 to 4 cents at the place of shearing ; mutton declined ; very hard winters killed 
 a great many and the prospect of the business was such that the sheepmen 
 were not disposed to lease and fence lands, and so the business declined very 
 rapidly and many of the sheep were moved into New Mexico. This was not 
 on account of the^lease law, as is shown by the fact that in many instances 
 in west Texas, and particularly in southwest Texas, lands have been leased 
 and the sheep business is to-day carried on on leased lands or privately 
 owned lands, and in some instances both cattle and sheep business are operated- 
 toEGtlisr. 
 
 -There are other instances in Texas where wolf-prOof fences are built and 
 sheep turned loose, and the business successfully carried on on either private 
 of Jessed lands. 
 
280 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 The cattleman in all this vast territory referred to has been the pioneer 
 in the production of water and in making it possible for the settler and others- 
 to come in without having to experiment. He has furnished the market for 
 such feed as wars produced in the way of forage crops and in many instances 
 was the first to experiment with the production of forage crops. There are no 
 material losses in the winter now to cattle anywhere in Texas. In the winter 
 of 1884-85 cattle drifted from the extreme northern part of the State in the 
 Panhandle 400 miles south to the Pecos River, and the country throughout 
 was strewn with their dead carcasses and tens of thousands of cattle per- 
 ished, and many men were ruined. That was previous to the time water had 
 been developed on the plains or extensive fencing. With building of cross 
 fences, smaller pastures, and production of forage crops, no such thing can 
 happen again and has not happened for many years. The settler and farmer 
 who produce forage crops finds a market for them. His cattle running in the 
 large enclosure can not go far from home, and he is protected by the facilities 
 that have grown up. Depredations in the way of thieving have been thus 
 largely stamped out until in many localities they are a thing of the past. All 
 of the industrial and moral civic conditions have been built up and made pos- 
 sible by the system which Texas has adopted. 
 
 Another significant thing is that there is no tendency to retain large tracts 
 of private land when in demand for settlement and the price is an inducement 
 to sale. So, constantly the big pastures are being put on the market to home- 
 seekers. 
 
 The character of the grasses, the supply of water, the few streams that 
 exist within the territory mentioned, the adaptability to the breeding and 
 raising of cattle and grazing of sheep, is not materially different to all that 
 territory lying immediately north of western Texas, clear on to the Canadian 
 line, except the fact of the difficulty of long-continued snow on the plains or 
 rolling prairies east of the Rocky Mountains. 
 
 The proper development of the country in the way of water and preservation 
 of the grass so that the individual has possession of it with the idea of preserv- 
 ing it and not overstocking it, has brought about these results, and it would 
 seem that there could be no obstacle to the Government providing a system 
 which would work out along the same lines as in the State of Texas. 
 
 So great an undertaking and so successful an undertaking in this similar 
 country engaged in a similar business, where the conditions are not, so far as 
 the subject matter is concerned, materially different to those in the territory 
 to the north, presents a conclusive example of what can be done. 
 
 Texas as a breeding ground for northwest range pastures, where young steers 
 are sent to mature, and the corn-belt States, who buy them finally at Denver, 
 Missouri River, St Paul, and Chicago to finish on' corn, and the consumers 
 of corn-fed beef are all materially interested in having the most and best of 
 cheap pasturage by some such control, use, and improvement of the range as is 
 proposed by the Kent bill. Not only the public lands will come into use for 
 raising and pasturing cattle, as a permanent business, but millions of acres of 
 private lands interspersed with the public land will likewise be brought within 
 use in the same manner. 
 
 Profit, present and prospective, keeps a man in business. Cheapen produc- 
 tion and leave fair profit, and all benefit and prosper. 
 
 We present this brief outline to demonstrate the fallacy of the oft-repeated 
 suggestion that the leasing of the public lands would interfere with the settle- 
 ment and development of the country, and to show by actual demonstration the 
 advantages of a leasing system. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 American National Live Stock Association. 
 
 H. A. Jastbo, President. 
 
 T. W. Tomlinson, Secretary. 
 
 S. H. Cowan, Attorney. 
 
 Mr. Kakeb. I would like to have a chance for Mr. Kinkaid to 
 appear before the committee, as he has a lot of information on this 
 subject and has a bill himself. 
 
 The Chairman. Before we pass this, Judge Eaker, I wanted to say 
 that you started to develop a thought which I think is particularly 
 pertinent, and I want to ask you if you won't put in the record the 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 281 
 
 figures from the 1900 and 1910 censuses regarding the number of 
 cattle in these public-land States ? 
 
 Mr. Hayden. In another volume of the census returns, a larger one 
 than the one you have there, the cattle are segregated, the range 
 stock and dairy stock being given separately; it shows just how many 
 range stock there are and how many dairy stock. 
 
 The Chairman. To my mind, so far as I can see, a tame cow is 
 worth probably twice as much as a range cow, and if we could, I 
 think we ought to, have a table in the record showing how many 
 there are in the two classes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I am working on that now, and the Director of the 
 Census is to get me up for each of these 16 States a statement of the 
 cattle in the last 10 years — I mean to cover the last two censuses. 
 
 The Chairman. All right, Judge, we will rely on you to do that. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I will bring it here and see that it gets in the record. 
 I will have Mr. Potter work on that for me. You do that, Mr. 
 Potter. 
 
 The Chairman. We will hear the next witness now — Mr. Camp- 
 bell. Mr. Graham, will you examine Mr. Campbell after he has 
 finished his statement? 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. J. K. CAMPBELL, JUNCTION, ARIZ. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Mr. Chairman, I am a member of the Arizona 
 Cattle Growers' Association, and own about 800 cattle. 
 
 I know the committee is desirous of concluding the hearings as 
 soon as possible, and for that reason I will not occupy very much 
 time. I desire, at the outset, to state, however, that I was born 
 and raised in Arizona, and have been engaged in the range-cattle 
 business all my life, except for about four years, when I was in the 
 Eorestry Service, working on the general inspection of grazing lands 
 in those reservations. 
 
 During the years I have been pursuing this industry in Arizona a 
 great many changes have taken place in the carrying capacity of the 
 ranges. In my particular locality, in 1883, when I was a mere boy, 
 all through the Lonesome Valley and Big Chino country they used 
 to mow grama grass and. sell it to the Government to feed their 
 horses and mules. You could turn a mowing machine loose any- 
 where around there and mow hay profitably — about 400 pounds to 
 the acre. In 1897 the country had become so denuded that the cattle 
 were shipped out of there at a price of $6.25 per head, and to-day 
 I don't suppose there is 1 cow on it where there used to be 20. 
 Erosion has taken place until the grama grasses have been checked, 
 and the country is overrun with brush and dog holes. A few miles 
 from the place where I am in the stock business there is the line of 
 the western boundary of the Prescott National Park. Since the 
 Forestry Service took charge of this range, you would be surprised to 
 see the carrying capacity of the two areas compared. I would like 
 to make for your information a few figures on this piece of paper that 
 will enable us to make some comparisons. 
 
 I am going to make these little marks and try to show you how I 
 think the proposed Kent bill will work. Assume this is a township 
 of land [making drawing] 
 
 The Chairman. Thirty-six sections? 
 
282. DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Twenty-six thousand and forty acres out in my 
 country. 
 
 I am living on the head of the Verde Eiver, the first branch of 
 the river that comes down about like this [indicating on drawing]. 
 My place is about here [indicating]. Over here [indicating] is 
 Lonesome Valley, where they used to get 400 pounds of grama grass 
 to the acre. It is in this country to the south [indicating] that sup- 
 ports the city of Prescott. 
 
 The Verde Eiver runs off generally in this direction. That puts 
 part of my ranch inside the national forest and part outside the 
 national forest. This part [indicating] of the country is only open 
 to a certain number of stock, while this southern part of the range 
 is free, and sheep going through there in the fall come over here 
 [indicating] and dip, and on south to Phoenix there is no limit to 
 the number that can go in there. 
 
 Last year I sold some steers that only weighed 941 pounds, and 
 some feeder cows that weighed 742 pounds. That shows the neces- 
 sity for something being done on this range, as well as on those out 
 there in Lonesome Valley. 
 
 There have been a good many dry farmers to take up claims out 
 there in the last five years, but I would say that 60 per cent of them 
 have had to leave their places and are working at the Jerome mines, 
 owned by Senator Clark, or working at the transfer point where he 
 transfers all materials from the narrow gauge to the standard-gauge 
 road. 
 
 Personally I am strongly in favor of the homesteader, and don't 
 believe there should be anything in this bill that would in any way 
 bar him from large tracts of land ; only such portions as are strictly 
 grazing lands should, in my opinion, be taken in. I think that is 
 all I have to say, gentlemen. 
 
 The Chairman. All right, Mr. Campbell, come back around here 
 where Mr. Graham can ask you some questions. 
 
 Mr. Graham. What is the elevation of that portion of the country? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. About 4,000 feet. 
 
 Mr. Graham. How much winter do you have? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. About four months — December to March. 
 
 Mr. Graham. How do you take care of your stock during those 
 months ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. As a general rule the cattlemen allow them to 
 range on the open range if the season is good. Last year we had a 
 very unfavorable season, and a good many cattlemen who don't raise 
 their own feed had to ship hay up from Phoenix. 
 
 Mr. Graham. How far are you from the Salt Eiver Valley? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. About 150 miles from the city of Phoenix. 
 
 Mr. Graham. What crops are raised in the vicinity of your ranch? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. I have 480 acres on the head of the Verde Eiver, 
 and of that I think I have 40 acres in alfalfa, and the balance in 
 garden, and I get about 100 tons of hay a year. I am a little better 
 fixed than some of my neighbors in that respect and can wean my 
 calves earlier. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Do you have any irrigated land ? - 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Graham. What is the rainfall there ; do you know ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. I should say 10 inches. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 283 
 
 Mr. Graham. Is there any dry farming? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir; quite a little. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Now, in the township where you are have you any 
 other settlers? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Graham. How many farms? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. I guess there are only four farms. 
 
 Mr. Graham. And in the adjoining township ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. South of there, there must be 20. 
 
 Mr. Graham. How do they make a living? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. As I said, most of the dry farmers are working at 
 Jerome Junction in the mines or at the transfer point. 
 
 Mr. Graham. What do they raise, when they raise anything? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. A little corn and a few spuds. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Potatoes, you mean ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Have they stock? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Just work stock, and a dairy cow or two. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Do they attempt to raise any beef cattle at all? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. What we term a " dry farmer " does not ; no, sir. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Do any of the settlers ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Oh, yes; you understand there are cow ranches 
 every 5 or 6 miles. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Those are utilizing the public domain ; but those 
 living on their own ground, do they ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Graham. How much land would they have ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Why, I don't think they have to exceed 160 acres 
 apiece. It is not my understanding that any of them have taken up 
 land under the 320-acre act. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Are their holdings fenced in — inclosed by a fence? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir; mostly all of them. 
 
 Mr. Graham. And all around them ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Not the whole 160 acres ; just those portions they 
 endeavor to till are fenced. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Are any of them making a living off the land ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. An absolute living? 
 
 Mr. Graham. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. I regret to say that I don't think they are. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Would it be any different if they had 640 acres than 
 the amount they now control ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. So far it would not. A majority of them have not 
 realized the cost of their seed. 
 
 Mr. Graham. How long have they been on the ground there? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Some of them for five years. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Have any of them parted with what title they had, 
 by sale or otherwise ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. No ; I don't know of any transfers that have been 
 consummated. I know of two that can be purchased right now. 
 . Mr. Graham. The population there has been increasing rather than 
 diminishing? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. It is my understanding that over the period of the 
 last 10 years it has increased ; yes, sir. 
 - Mr. Graham. And ;during the last five years? 
 
284 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. It might have in the last five or six years. 
 
 Mr. Graham. What facilities have they for rearing their children, 
 for educating them ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. They have a very good school at Jerome Junction. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Is that a little village ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir; quite a little village. They have 46 
 children in the school there, I think. 
 
 Mr. Graham. How far do the children have to go to it? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Some of them as far as 4 miles; some of them go 
 in with a one-horse buggy, taking their lunch. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Do they raise anything on their places that they 
 can convert into money ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir; they can sell some corn. I have in mind 
 a man who had an exceptionally good piece of bottom land, very 
 fertile land and pretty rich, and he raised some good corn down 
 there, and sold it at 52 cents ; he also raised some good potatoes and 
 sold them. 
 
 Mr. Graham. What kind of corn? Just ordinary corn? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir; just ordinary field corn. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Not pop corn? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Oh, no; just ordinary commercial corn. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Did that man have any irrigation ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. No, sir; no irrigation. But he is an intensive 
 farmer. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Does he raise a crop every year? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. He didn't last year. He is out boring wells now. 
 
 Mr. Graham. What is the prospect in that region for underground 
 water ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. They are getting it at 350 feet. 
 
 Mr. Graham. How high does it rise after they get it ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Sufficiently high so as to supply the house; for 
 all domestic purposes. 
 
 Mr. Graham. I know, but, of course, it rises in the well nearer 
 the surface than that. How high does it rise after you tap the 
 stream ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. I could not tell you. 
 
 Mr. Graham. What is the supply, when they get it? Very plen- 
 tiful and of good quality ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. It is splended water for the purposes they use it. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Are they trying with either steam or wind pumps 
 to use it for irrigation ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. No, sir; most of them have little gasoline en- 
 gines. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Would the quantity justify trying to use it for irri- 
 gation purposes? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. I don't think so; I am not so familiar with that, 
 but I am under the impression that if it was, they would have been 
 using it for that purpose. 
 
 Mr. Graham. With a sufficient supply of water enough land could 
 be irrigated on a section homestead to enable a homesteader to make 
 a living ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Will you repeat that question ? 
 
 Mr. Graham. You would admit, would you not, that if there was 
 a plentiful supply of underground water which could be made ac- 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 285 
 
 cessible by either wind or steam pumps, if there was a sufficient 
 quantity to permit this, a small man owning 640 acres, with such 
 facilities for raising even limited crops, could make a living on his 
 homestead ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Do you know of any such conditions down there ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. No, sir; I do not know of anyone who has devel- 
 oped sufficient water to demonstrate that. 
 
 Mr. Graham. There are locations down there in Arizona and New 
 Mexico where they have found sufficient water, not artesian water, 
 to do that? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. I think water development such as you refer to 
 has been succcessf ully tried in places where it was near the surface 
 and could be pumped very inexpensively. 
 
 Mr. Graham. I think you are right about that; but my question 
 was, Where the water could be found in sufficient quantity and under 
 such favorable conditions that it could be pumped, then homesteading 
 is feasible? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Graham. And then I asked you if you knew of any place down 
 there where those conditions did exist, as a matter of fact. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. No, sir ; I do not. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Well, if there were any such conditions as those, even 
 if they occurred in the midst of a range, what, in your judgment, 
 would be the duty of the Government? Would it be the Govern- 
 ment's duty to open that up for homesteading, or do you think it 
 would be better for the general welfare to retain such sections in the 
 pasture districts ? 
 
 Mr. Campbell. It is my belief that if any such areas could be 
 opened up, the homesteader should be given the preference over the 
 grazing man; that is, I think it could be put to a higher use in 
 farming than grazing. 
 
 The Chairman. The time is now up, Mr. Graham. We will have 
 to call the next witness. Mr. Cook, you will be recognized now. 
 
 STATEMENT OF W. W. COOK, PHEONIX, ARIZ. 
 
 Mr. Cook. Gentlemen, the herd of cattle we have there now is 
 one of the first herds that started in northern Arizona. I had an 
 unele who went out there in 1863 and took up a homestead near Pres- 
 cott and started a dairy, as an auxiliary to his homestead, and the 
 herd of cattle we now have originated from that. In 1876 I went 
 to the Territory, as it was in those days, and I might say that I 
 went in company with Mr. Hayden's father and mother, who were 
 on their wedding trip. 
 
 The Chairman. That gives you a very good standing before this 
 committee, Mr. Cook. 
 
 Mr. Cook. Our cattle are situated partially on the reserve— not on 
 the reserve either, as it is a watershed regulated by the Forestry 
 Service people. About one-half is on the reserve and one^half off 
 the reserve, and unfortunately I was situated in the foothills, just 
 where the large drives of sheep came over, and if it had not been for 
 the reserve I would have been mostly out of business. 
 
286 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 I am heartily in favor of the Forestry Service handling this public 
 domain. On the unrestricted area that I am situated in, if it could 
 be regulated and put under the same conditions as the reserve I am 
 confident that the whole area would take care of three or four where 
 it now takes care of one, excluding the portion of the sheep that would 
 be allowed in on their rights. 
 
 In the Salt River Valley our water conditions are getting better, 
 and we can raise more than we used to. But on this dairy matter 
 I am sure there are many less cattle now than there was from 1885 
 to 1895, and Mr. Sellway, in his talk this morning, virtually por- 
 trayed the conditions of our country, only he has a better grazing 
 country and can support more than we can in our country, two to one. 
 I think he made the best showing for our portion of the country, as 
 well as any cattleman we have had, although we have been a little 
 bit leary of the sheep men on that side; he was as good a witness for 
 our side as any we have had. 
 
 I don't know of anything else I can say that would be of interest 
 These questions have all been gone over, it seems to me, many times 
 already, but if the gentlemen wish to ask me any questions, I shall be 
 glad to answer them. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Brown has been designated to examine you 
 on behalf of the committee, Mr. Cook. 
 
 Mr. Brown. From what you have seen, is it reasonable to suppose 
 that the Department of Agriculture could determine certain areas for 
 grazing without infringing on the prospective rights of the home- 
 steaders to get in? Could they segregate a great portion of this 
 300,000,000 for grazing purposes without doing any injury to the 
 homeseeker? 
 
 Mr. Cook. I think so. 
 
 Mr. Brown. Are you in favor of giving the homesteader the bene- 
 fit of the doubt in every case? 
 
 Mr. Cook. I am. 
 
 Mr. Bhown. Would it be possible to write anything in the bill so 
 as to make his rights secure; so there would be no question in any- 
 body's mind ? 
 
 Mr. Cook. I think possibly you could do that. 
 
 Mr. Brown. Have you any definite suggestion along that line? 
 
 Mr. Cook. No, sir ; I have not. 
 
 Mr. Brown. It has been estimated here by various gentlemen 
 that from 50 to 90 per cent of the entries made on certain dry-land 
 farming areas, because the best grazing country was not open to. 
 them, have been sold to the cattle men. Have you any knowledge 
 as to whether they are correct in their estimates? Has any of that 
 been done in your country ? 
 
 Mr. Cook. No, sir; not in my country immediately. In the 
 country north of us, and over in New Mexico I have heard that was 
 done; but I have never been in that country, and don't know about 
 that. No such conditions exist in my immediate vicinity, within 20 
 or 30 miles of me. 
 
 Mr. Brown. One gentleman stated that around his section of the 
 country where he lived it would take 50 acres to support one cow, 
 and he further stated, if I am not wrong, that the value of the land 
 was about $3 an acre. For one cow that would be $150 capital in- 
 vested, and if a man's money is worth 8 per cent to him out there 
 
DISPOSITION OF GBAZING LANDS. 287 
 
 that would be $12 in interest on the investment to maintain one cow. 
 1 hat sounds to me like a great deal of money. Can the cattle busi- 
 ness be conducted on any such lines as that? 
 Mr. Cook. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Brown. Then why did the gentleman acquire all this land 
 at $3 an acre ? 
 
 Mr. Cook. He acquired it— that was Mr. Reed, I believe— as it was 
 necessary in the operation of his business ; he has to have some place 
 on the outside for- his steers to range, for if he gathers them in his 
 corrals they will get footsore and you would be unable to get them 
 to the market, and then they would fall off so, if he had them 
 .gathered up. You have to sell by weight, you know, and vou might 
 lose anywhere from one to five dollars a head. So it is necessary, 
 and they can afford to pay these prices, up to a limited amount, to 
 get a place to put the cattle in, so they can get it ready for market 
 in a merchantable condition. 
 
 Mr. Brown. What would your estimate be of the average selling 
 price of the 325,000,000 acres, which we may term as the range 
 country ? 
 
 Mr. Cook. For what purpose ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. The range can only be used for one purpose, can it 
 not? 
 
 Mr. Cook. Oh, for range conditions. 
 
 Mr. Brown. For range conditions. 
 
 Mr. Cook. I don't believe a man could pay a dollar an acre for it 
 and maintain it and pay taxes on it; he couldn't do a cattle business 
 on it at that price. 
 
 Mr. Brown. Taking it by and large, a dollar an acre is all the land 
 would stand? 
 
 Mr. Cook. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Brown. By and large. That is all, Mr. Chairman, I think, I 
 have to ask. 
 . The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Cook. 
 
 We will now hear from Mr. Bullard, attorney general of the State 
 of Arizona. 
 
 STATEMENT OP MR. PURDY BULLARD, ATTORNEY GENERAL, 
 STATE OF ARIZONA. 
 
 Mr. Btjllard. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
 am not appearing here this afternoon as attorney general of Arizona 
 in an official capacity. I am appearing to testify to the conditions 
 in Arizona, about which these witnesses have been telling you, and 
 to verify in some way and to a certain extent what they have been 
 saying. 
 
 I was very glad that the chairman asked the question about the 
 sentiment in Arizona concerning this proposition. We have a very 
 peculiar population in Arizona. We have 14 counties in the State, 
 and 3 of those counties — Maricopa, Yuma, and Cochise Coun- 
 ties^-are agricultural counties. They are in the large irrigating 
 centers, Yuma and Maricopa being under the Reclamation Service. 
 Outside of those 3 counties the other 11 counties in the State 
 are given over entirely to mining and stock raising, and while we 
 can grow anything in Arizona, if we can get water on the soil, outside 
 
288 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 those 3 counties it is practically impossible to get sufficient water 
 on the soil for the purpose of raising crops of any kind or nature 
 whatsoever. 
 
 The mining counties are unanimous in their sentiment for leasing 
 the public lands; in fact the sentiment is so strong that it was im- 
 possible to get a bill through the legislature allowing us to sell the 
 school land which belonged to the State in the irrigated districts. 
 The bill was turned down when we wanted to sell our school lands. 
 The sentiment in the mining counties was so strong that it was im- 
 possible to get any legislation which will even permit us to sell our 
 school sections, which belong to the State in the irrigated districts. 
 
 The policy of the State and of the land commission of the State is 
 to lease the school lands belonging to the State, that are avail ale for 
 grazing lands. We have, I think, some two or three million acres of 
 land ; it may be more than that and it may be less, but I think more 
 than that, which we are allowed to select as lieu lands. The State 
 land commission has selected about 600,000 acres, and I will promise 
 you one thing, gentlemen, and that is, after the selection of the lieu 
 lands there won't be an acre of land that hasn't been selected by the 
 State that you could raise a crop on for any purpose. And for that 
 reason I insist that the cattlemen remember this; and I mention the 
 fact that when this bill is finally framed that nothing in the bill con- 
 tained shall interfere with the right of the State to select its lieu land. 
 That part of my remarks are official. 
 
 The lands in the northern part of the State of Arizona, the so-called 
 grazing lands, I think, would be subject to this bill. But outside of 
 Mr. Fergusson, who may be familiar with portions of Arizona, I 
 don't think you gentlemen have any idea of what land conditions 
 down there are. You haven't the slightest conception of what the 
 public domain is in the State of Arizona. We have vast areas of 
 land down there that it is a wonder that a jack rabbit can subsist on 
 it ; it has a very slight covering of short grass and mesquite bush, and 
 there are millions of acres where there is no possibility whatsoever 
 of developing water for any purpose, as there are no storage facilities, 
 and where there are storage facilities you will find that before this 
 bill can get into operation that land will already have been selected 
 by the State. 
 
 I think this committee should look on this bill — and I desire to say 
 that I am not talking particularly for this bill — but I think that in 
 working out the details of this bill the committee should study all 
 these conditions carefully. Personally, I believe that a man leasing 
 grazing land under this bill should not be- permitted to fence or not, 
 as he chooses; I think that provision of the bill should be changed 
 and that he should be permitted to fence under certain restrictions. 
 
 I am satisfied, as Mr. La Follette said, that with the bill as now 
 drawn it would be possible for a person leasing one of these districts 
 to put on any portion of it a hundred dollars' worth of improvements 
 and keep that land from being homesteaded. I think that feature 
 should be eliminated from the bill. But all those are matters of de- 
 tail for the committee to decide. These gentlemen who are appearing 
 here are for the general principles of the bill. They have come up 
 here not to lobby, but with all earnestness of purpose, to promote the 
 interests of the entire State of Arizona and not their own individual 
 interests. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 289 
 
 The resources of the State of Arizona are three. They are agricul- 
 ture, mining, and stock raising ; and we conceive it in our State, and 
 we believe you conceive it to be the duty of the people of Arizona to 
 conserve all the interests of these industries, not one at the expense of 
 the other, but as nearly as possible to improve and extend all three 
 without injury to any of the others! 
 
 I think you should look at this bill from two standpoints, and the 
 principal one is the economic standpoint. I don't know anything 
 about the statistics of my friend, Judge Raker, has here. I have 
 found many to show that the production of range cattle in the United 
 States has decreased 13 per cent, and that the population has in- 
 creased 10 per cent. I know that the price of beef in Arizona has 
 increased 100 per cent. I know it costs me 100 per cent more to buy 
 a porterhouse steak in the city of Phoenix than it cost 10 years ago ; 
 and to all of you gentlemen, Democrats, Republicans, and Progres- 
 sives, I want to say this, we have got to reduce the price of living in 
 this country, or if we don't we will live to see the day when a ma- 
 jority of this land will be run by the socialists, and I want to see that 
 day come after I am dead. 
 
 Then, you must consider this bill from the standpoint of the cattle- 
 man, because the cattle industry is just as much entitled to protec- 
 tion as any other industry. The point that the cattlemen make is 
 this: Congress created the forest reserves, and provided that only 
 those might go on the forest reserves who had a permit. You can 
 not put all the cattlemen in Arizona on the forest reserves. Now, 
 you gentlemen don't want to do an unjust thing, but yet you are 
 doing it when you allow the cattlemen on the forest reserve to graze 
 there and preserve his pasture, and then, when he thinks his pasture 
 is being depleted, to drive his cattle over on the public domain and 
 eat up the feed of the man who is compelled to live on the public 
 domain because he can not get on the forest reserve, as there is no 
 room for him there. That is not right and it is not just. 
 
 If you lived in Arizona — and I say this in all kindness to the sheep- 
 men — if you lived there and saw the conditions as they exist in that 
 country; if you could see that range after these hundreds of thou- 
 sands of sheep have been driven over it. It looks as if a swarm of 
 locusts had, passed over the land, for those sheep eat up every living 
 green thing that it is possible for them to get to, and they leave tlie 
 cattleman without any feed whatsoever. And yet this is the age of 
 conservation: We can conserve our water supply, we can conserve 
 our forest reserves, and we should conserve our cattle ranges. We 
 should have a systematic handling of the cattle ranges just as we 
 have a systematic handling of the forest reserves. If you don't do it 
 you are going to see the day when you will have no cattle ranges to 
 speak of. 
 
 I have been prosecuting attorney down there for six years, before 
 I was attorney general, and my friend, Mr. Hayden, over there was 
 the sheriff, and he and I remember the days when the courts were full 
 of the struggles going on between the cattlemen and the sheepmen. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. The big men and the little men? 
 
 Mr. Bullard. Yes, sir. That used to be the situation, for the only 
 law you had on the range then was the law of might. But we have 
 35074— pt 1—14 19 
 
290 DISPOSITION or GRAZING lands. 
 
 mainly done away with all of that, and I would say it was principally 
 through the good work of the prosecuting attorneys and the sheriffs 
 of the State of Arizona. 
 
 I believe that holding the range under regulation will also pre- 
 vent cattle stealing, to some extent. We have minimized that now, to 
 some extent, by the very rigid enforcement of some very efficient cat- 
 tle laws passed by the legislature. But there is still a large amount 
 of stealing going on, and I believe the proper sort of regulation will 
 reduce the amount of stealing. 
 
 We are differently situated in Arizona from Montana and Utah 
 because we are a border State, and vast herds of Mexican cattle are 
 frequently driven over. That is a very inferior grade of cattle. 
 You can take one of those Mexican steers and put him on the best 
 range in Arizona and he won't gain 10 pounds in 10 years, and if you 
 don't have the range protected the bulls from the Mexican herds mix 
 in with the herds on the range and deteriorate the class and grade of 
 the cattle on our ranges. 
 
 There was some statement made here about homesteading on these 
 ranges, and that it would be a benefit to the State because of the in- 
 creased taxes. I want to tell you one thing : It doesn't do the State 
 any good to have a man own a homestead down there if he can't 
 make enough money on it to pay his taxes. Mr. Hayden will bear 
 me out that even in as good a county as Maricopa we have been com- 
 pelled time and time again to buy in patented land because the taxes 
 hadn't been paid on it and nobody else would buy it. 
 
 These are briefly the points raised by the cattlemen in support of 
 this legislation, and I don't think Congress has ever had this matter 
 called to its attention as thoroughly as it has this time. What these 
 boys are after is the principle of the thing; if you don't think this 
 bill meets the situation as we have explained it to you, if you don't 
 think it is practicable, draft a bill that is practicable. But the prin- 
 ciple that is embodied in this Kent bill is what we want and ought 
 to have. 
 
 We believe that in all fairness and justice, for the reasons Ave have 
 given you, there should be some species of regulation on the public 
 domain by which the right of the one could be protected against the 
 other, so the cattleman can be protected against the sheepman and 
 the sheepman protected against the cattleman; and I feel certain 
 when you have thoroughly considered the matter you will decide that 
 is the thing you ought to provide for. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. La Follette, will you go ahead with your ex- 
 amination of Mr. Bullard ? 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Mr. Attorney General, did I understand you to 
 say that the State of Arizona leased its school lands and did not sell 
 them? 
 
 Mr. Bullard. That is the policy ; the legislature has forbidden the 
 land'commission to sell an' acre of land in the State of Arizona. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. What is your basis for leasing, a per capita or 
 an acreage basis, or do you know 1 
 
 Mr. Bullard. They have not solidified that policy yet; but prac- 
 tically, I think, they follow the per capita basis of leasing. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. You have a fence law in Arizona ? 
 
 Mr. Bullard. What is called the " lawful-fence law," yes, sir. Any 
 district may vote itself what is known as a " no-fence district." Un- 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 291 
 
 less you have the proper amount of fence around your place, you 
 don't get any damages in case stock trespass on you. I have never 
 seen a lawful fence in Arizona; that is one of the curiosities I have 
 never seen. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I think you have the same law we have in my 
 State, that a fence shall have so many wires, and posts so many feet 
 apart, etc. I wanted to ask you if you thought it would be just, in 
 the State of Arizona, if this law is put into effect, to have the Agri- 
 culture Department regulate, as they now do on the forest reserves, 
 the cattle that should go upon these areas and come down on the 
 homesteader? You say you have never seen a lawful fence in Ari- 
 zona, but if the homesteader had a good fence, but some man's cattle 
 got in and should eat him out, under your law there would be no way 
 for him to collect one cent of damages off of those cattlemen ? 
 
 Mr. Bullard. I should judge it would be necessary for the legisla- 
 ture, if this law was passed, to prescribe that these grazing districts 
 shall be " no-fence " districts. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. What would you think of the justness of a rul- 
 ing that would make a man whose crop had been eaten out when he 
 had two or three hundred head of cattle in an inclosure and didn't 
 have any permission in the pasture, if he could get out into" the high- 
 way and come in on the range, and the ranger would assess him $100 
 damages and he would have to pay it, where there was no fence at all, 
 just a public road leading into it? 
 
 Mr. Bullard. A man doesn't have to have a "no-fence" district 
 unless he wants it. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. In other words, would you consider it just for 
 the United States to pass a lease law having a provision for a fence in 
 conflict with the State that had a lawful fence law? In one case a 
 man would have his area fenced, but the fence would not be quite up 
 to the law, and his cattle were on the " no- fence " range, he could be 
 arbitrarily held up for a $100 damages by the ranger? 
 
 Mr. Bullaed. I think I catch your point, but I fail to see where 
 there would be any difference in the lease law, any more than there is 
 now. If a man homesteading on the public domain now has no lawful 
 fence, a man can come in and eat up his crop and he has no recourse. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. But if his own stock should get out on the open 
 range and eat up the grass, and some Government official would 
 charge him damages, like a case in New Mexico, where a man's cows 
 got in on the forest reserve, and they charged him eight or eighty 
 dollars, I didn't hear the amount clearly, because his cows had done 
 some damage. 
 
 Mr. Bollard. Those are the regulations of the Forestry Service. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. But could they not be the same under this bill ? 
 This bill provides that stock shall be considered trespassers, and 
 what I wanted to get at was whether you thought a regulation of 
 that kind would be just. 
 
 Mr. Bullard. Well, I think if it is not just it should not be put in 
 the bill. That is a matter for you to determine. Those are details 
 for you gentlemen to determine. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. In one question here I think somebody brought 
 it out that the Supreme Court had upheld the Forestry Service in 
 that, but I have found that the Supreme Court said they didn't pre- 
 
292 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 tend to settle the question whether the Government should fence in 
 a case like that. 
 
 Mr. Bullard. These administrative bureaus constitute a law unto 
 themselves sometimes. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I agree with you there. 
 
 There was another question I wanted to ask you about those herds 
 of Mexican cattle. It struck me as being peculiar that they would 
 be allowed to come in and you not be able to stop that, or to regulate 
 it by law. 
 
 Mr. Bullard. We may quarantine against unhealthy cattle, but no 
 State can prevent the importation of cattle from Mexico if it is 
 healthy. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Oh, they are imported ? 
 
 Mr. Bullard. Yes, sir; they are imported. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. You said there had been vast herds driven in 
 there. 
 
 Mr. Bullard. Oh, they are bought for speculation, and during 
 the late troubles with the Eepublic of Mexico there has been quite 
 large numbers brought in. The Mexican Government has passed 
 an export tariff on their beef cattle now, but their customhouse offi- 
 cials are not quite so efficient as ours. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. That is all, Mr. Chairman. If there is any time 
 remaining maybe some other gentleman may wish to ask some ques- 
 tions. 
 
 The Chairman. You were through, were you, Mr. La Follette? 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Yes, sir; but I think there is some time left. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. I Avould like to get your idea about one point on 
 which the testimony has not been uniform. We have had some tes- 
 timony here to the effect that under a lease law it would be possible 
 for the homestead law to operate. 
 
 Mr. Bullard. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. And there was other testimony to the effect that if a 
 man should lease an area and make certain improvements on it then 
 the homestead law would not operate during the leasing period. 
 Just where would you draw the line? 
 
 Mr. Bullard. My opinion on that point is that the bill is not good 
 in that respect. I know that the cattlemen drew it that way so there 
 could not be any possible objection on the part of the homesteader; 
 but I can conceive it as possible under this leasing law that a man 
 might lease one of these grazing areas and go to large expense im- 
 proving the range, and some one who wants to hold up the man who 
 has the lease could go in there and plant a homestead right in the 
 middle of that range and force him to buy it. Now, I think the law 
 should be so framed that no land should be leased under it except 
 grazing land, and that men having leased it should be protected from 
 the homesteader. He should be required to do a certain amount of 
 work on it ; the rule should be more strictly enforced even than it is 
 with reference to lands susceptible of cultivation. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. You are aware of the fact that when land is to be 
 designated for entry under the enlarged homestead act a showing 
 must be made that there is no possibility of obtaining water for irri- 
 gation. It seems to me that some plan might be worked out whereby 
 the burden of proof as to the character of the land would be placed 
 upon the prospective homesteader in a grazing area. It does not look 
 
DISPOSITION OF, GRAZING LANDS, 293 
 
 fair to me, considering the expense of obtaining water, that as soon 
 as a man has developed water and thus created something of value, 
 that his improvements may be immediately subject to location under 
 the homestead law. If the bill is left so wide open as that it is not 
 worth the paper it is written on to the stockman. 
 
 Mr. Bullaed. I pointed that out to them, but they said that their 
 need was so desperate for some kind of regulation on the range that 
 they were willing to take what we call the " gambler's chance " that 
 it would not work out to their detriment. They don't believe it 
 would hurt them. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. It seems to me to be of vital importance that there 
 be no twilight zone in the law ; the matter should be definitely stated 
 so a man may know what his rights are. If we compel him to pay 
 for grazing his stock and then leave it so that he has no right to 
 recover in any way for the loss of his improvements ; that is obtain- 
 ing money under false pretenses. 
 
 Mr. Bullaed. The bill should provide that the Secretary of Agri- 
 culture shall set aside grazing districts and that no person could file 
 on a homestead in that district, unless it could be demonstrated the 
 land was fit for agricultural purposes ; there should be no doubt about 
 it. There are millions of acres in Arizona, no doubt, that will never 
 be susceptible for agriculture. The committeeman from Illinois, Mr. 
 Graham, was talking about subterranean water out there. I may be 
 wrong, but I would like to state it as my opinion that there are lands 
 out there where you couldn't raise water if you had a hundred horse^ 
 power motor, because the water isn't there to raise. You have to- find 
 it before you can bring it up, and there is no subterranean water 
 there. You might find it in the surface soil in some of the valleys, 
 but up here in these high altitudes we are talking about, where the 
 grazing districts are, there is no way for the water to get into the 
 soil except from the rains, and God Almighty is mighty sparing 
 with the rainfall in those districts. 
 
 Mr. Graham. My inquiry was based on information I obtained 
 from Mr. Fergusson. He knows of a number of places in his State 
 where those conditions actually exist. 
 
 Mr. Bullaed. In New Mexico ; that may be a better State than 
 Arizona in that respect. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. It seems to me, from my knowledge of conditions in 
 Arizona — and I assume the conditions are similar in New Mexico — that 
 it ought not to cost 4 cents an acre to classify the grazing lands. I 
 would be pleased if the gentlemen of the Forest Service would ex- 
 plain the necessity for paying any such price as that. I hope that 
 they can submit to us some detailed figures, showing just what it 
 would cost. 
 
 The Chairman. We will get the Commissioner of the General 
 Land Office over here, and George Otis Smith, of the Geological 
 Survey, with his topographic maps, and see what they have to say. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. I believe in giving the homesteader the benefit of 
 every doubt in the classification. 
 
 The Chairman. We now have three witnesses left. We will hear 
 from you now, Mr. Painter. 
 
294 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. JOSEPH E. PAINTER, DENVER, COLO. 
 
 The Chairman. Give the stenographer your name and address and 
 the organizations to which you belong. 
 
 Mr. Painter. I take it, Mr. Chairman, that you don't want all of 
 the organizations, but simply the particular one which I expect to 
 represent here to-day. 
 
 The Chairman. I think it would be well to have them all in the 
 l'ecord. 
 
 Mr. Painter. All right, sir. I belong to the Colorado Live Stock 
 Association, the Western Hereford Breeders' Association, the "West- 
 ern National Stock Show Association, and the Cattle and Horse Pro- 
 tective Association, Round-Up District No. 9, and member of Nos. 
 7, 8, and 10. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, I don't doubt that you are getting somewhat 
 weary, and I will say what I have to say as quickly as I can. 
 
 The association that I am representing here to-day, by its own 
 name indicates what it really is. It is the oldest live-stock associa- 
 tion in the State of Colorado. That organization was started in 
 what we call the " boom days " of the live-stock industry, and it is 
 still in existence. 
 
 Personally, I have been in Colorado in the live-stock business for 
 33 years, and what remarks I make are from a practical standpoint 
 as a small stockman. Owing to the shortness of time, it would be 
 absolutely impossible for me to really give a brief sketch, even, of 
 the situation that you have before you. I am aware that you are 
 getting exceedingly tired, probably, of the wearisome matters we have 
 been presenting here for your information ; but this question of the 
 public lands, or the disposition of the remaining areas of the public 
 domain, is, in my opinion, of paramount importance over anything 
 under consideration in the Western States to-day. 
 
 As you well know, I come from a State that has probably been the 
 hotbed of everything that pertains to the public domain, and con- 
 sequently, having lived there and been identified with those interests 
 for so long, it has been necessary for me to become somewhat famil- 
 iar with all questions pertaining to the public lands. Therefore, 
 viewing the question as I do, I shall not try to go into any matters or 
 attempt to explain things I don't think it is necessary to go into ; the 
 time would not permit. I shall try and make a few brief points 
 which I may be able to draw out. 
 
 Primarily, I consider, from an economic standpoint, all the re- 
 maining grazing areas of the West are of more importance to-day to 
 all classes of American citizens than any other thing there is. The 
 stockmen have been blamed here and all over the country from time 
 to time with trying to control this public domain for their own 
 special and selfish interests. We all admit that that time once ex- 
 isted, and it does, to a certain extent to-day. 
 
 When I went into the business in 1880, as I said, I was a small 
 stockman and I have been nothing else since then, and our associa- 
 tion is composed of small stockmen. We located in the midst of 
 probably the largest cattle area in the State of Colorado, and it is the 
 best that Colorado ever contained. We were surrounded with herds 
 of cattle that amounted all the way from 20,000 to 400,000 head. We 
 had 150 head, myself and brother, during the spring and summer 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 295 
 
 round-up of 1883, when the eastern and western round-ups met and 
 we were swept along with 75 riders, with all the equipment of our- 
 selves and a few of our neighbors, who were also swept up and taken 
 along. After a day and night of hard riding we came up with the 
 men who had this herd of about 20,000 head of cattle in the carry at 
 that time, and we went up to the foreman and I made some remarks 
 to him myself, and he looked around and said, "Who are you ? " I 
 told him who I was, and then he said, " How many cattle have you ? " 
 I told him, and then with a cynical sort of sneer on his face he said, 
 " I started out with less than that, and maybe if you had a branding 
 iron maybe some day you will have some." Those are the condi- 
 tions we faced in those days, but, as you know, those things have now 
 passed into history and the whole scene is changed. 
 
 Any remarks that I should make to you would not in any way be 
 of benefit to me ; whatever legislation is enacted I can not possibly be 
 affected. My time is done for, so far as the public domain is con- 
 cerned. We did try, some 12 or 15 years ago, to acquire a little part 
 of the public domain in order to protect our interests, but that is 
 past and gone, and to-day we have not an acre of land we can range. 
 our cattle on outside our own fences. So, as far as I am personally 
 concerned, it matters not what law you should pass ; the only way I 
 can acquire any of the public domain is to buy it. 
 
 I have lived in Weld County, in the town of Greeley, the county 
 seat. Weld County is one of the richest counties in the State, and 
 when we went there first it was one of the largest counties in Colo- 
 rado. It was then some 300 miles in length and reached to the Ne- 
 braska and Wyoming lines. Our cattle ranged as far south as the 
 Platte River and the Arkansas and the eastern line of Nebraska. 
 So you can imagine the territory they covered. That territory in 
 those times contained most wonderful grass, and when we located 
 'there on our claim you could cut grass anywhere. The large herds 
 did not devastate the territory as in recent years; it was the after- 
 clap, after the large herds disappeared, that the territory became 
 devastated, going over the unoccupied range at will, summer and 
 winter, and therefore never giving the range a chance to«recuperate. 
 
 But my time is so short I see there is no use trying to discuss these 
 points, but there are one or two things further I wanted to say. 
 
 The question has been raised here in regard to this conflict with 
 the homesteaders, if this bill should pass. We have supported many 
 homesteaders in my day; we have had them come around us, but 
 we have had no trouble with them. We have found that intelligence 
 settles these questions. There has been no conflict. We want to see 
 these lands developed in the best way possible, and believe whatever 
 you do should be with the idea of bringing the greatest good to the 
 greatest number. I believe my time now has expired. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Johnson, on behalf of the committee, will 
 interrogate you, Mr. Painter. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. You are not in the stock business now ? 
 
 Mr. Painter. I am, to a certain extent; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Do you hold your land on which you graze ? 
 
 Mr. Painter. It is all titled land. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. So you don't use the public domain at all ? 
 . Mr. Painter. Absolutely not at all. 
 
296 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. You believe that the homesteader, where it is pos- 
 sible to make a homestead, should be given the preference over the 
 stockman ? 
 
 Mr. Painter. Mr. Johnson, if I may answer you this way : I don't 
 believe in restricting the rights of anybody, but I do believe that in- 
 telligence should at least be considered and that humanity should 
 be permitted to a certain extent to enter this problem; and, therefore, 
 I do blame our public bureaus, whieh haven't protected the innocent 
 settler on the public domain. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I understand from that that you favor the applica- 
 tion of the land to the homesteader rather than to the stock raiser, if 
 it is suitable for agricultural purposes. 
 
 Mr. Painter. I believe that is the foundation of it. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Is it your opinion it should so be? 
 
 Mr. Painter. Understand me this : That in the application of this 
 leasing bill, as I see it, you are laying the groundwork for the final, 
 economic disposition of these lands. If these lands go into fenced 
 areas, large or small, or if they go into tracts marked by drift fences, 
 there should be a system of careful classification to determine ex- 
 actly the carrying capacity of those areas, and therefrom be able to 
 make deductions as to what will be necessary to maintain a man and 
 his family upon them. When that is done, then make the final dis- 
 position of those lands. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I don't know yet whether I understand you. Do 
 you favor the application of the land to the homesteader rather than 
 to the stockman, where it is possible to do so? Is that right? 
 
 Mr. Painter. No; I don't think so. I think these grazing areas, 
 practically all of the unoccupied domain to-day, is better adapted for 
 grazing than for any other application. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. You think better and more stock can be raised on 
 private ownership than on the public domain? 
 
 Mr. Painter. Most certainly. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. You think it is? 
 
 Mr. Painter. That is, in private ownership and control. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Wherever you have private ownership you have 
 private control. 
 
 Mr. Painter. That applies as to Federal control. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. It may or may not. But you believe that more and 
 better stock can be produced on land that is under private control 
 than under public control, as you now have it ? 
 
 Mr. Painter. I know that to be a fact. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. So in that respect you favor a private controlof the 
 land? 
 
 Mr. Painter. I favor some control other than the public domain. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I mean by that private ownership. You realize 
 that stock are raised more successfully and more numerously in sec- 
 tions where the land is privately owned than on the public domain? 
 
 Mr. Painter. Not if you include the national forests in that re- 
 ppect. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Well, now, take the sheep industry, for instance,_ in 
 the State of Ohio. Ohio is one of the principal sheep-producing 
 States, isn't it? 
 
 Mr. Painter. The State of Ohio? 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Yes. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 297 
 
 Mr. Painter. Well, Mr. Johnson, I don't think any comparison 
 of that kind is applicable in this case. We are talking about the 
 arid lands of the West. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I am trying to talk about the proposition as to 
 whether or not it is for the best interest of the stock to have it pro- 
 duced on land under private ownership, and I ask you if it is not 
 a fact that where the land is under private ownership they produce 
 more stock to the acre than could be done under public ownership ? 
 
 Mr. Painter. I think it is. Free use makes free abuse. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. You don't care to answer the question in any other 
 way? 
 
 Mr. Painter. I think that does answer your question. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Now, under the public ranges in the section you 
 are acquainted with — that is Colorado, I believe — what amount of 
 acreage is necessary to the proper maintenance of stock, under proper 
 regulation ? 
 
 Mr. Painter. There is so very much variation there that I couldn't, 
 put it in one general answer. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Well, the average. 
 
 Mr. Painter. About 25 acres. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. To what? 
 
 Mr. Painter. To one steer. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Don't you think if this land was under private 
 ownership it would produce three or four times that ? 
 
 Mr. Painter. I am talking about the land under private owner- 
 ship. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I was asking you about the public range. 
 
 Mr. Painter. I don't know, but it would probably take 50 or 60. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I am asking you now about the average amount of 
 land that is necessary to the head of cattle. Don't you know ? 
 
 Mr. Painter. Under our calculation, we average 25 to the head. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Under the public domain? 
 
 Mr. Painter. It is so long since we have used the public domain 
 and we consider it so remote a proposition that we will ever use it 
 that we don't figure on it. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Now, Mr. Witness, don't you have a lot of the public 
 domain in Colorado, that is the subject matter of this bill — for leas- 
 ing it, and I ask you, as to that land, have you any judgment as to 
 what amount of it would be required to maintain cattle per head ? 
 
 Mr. Painter. Well, I would say, in what little there is left in 
 Weld County— about 97,000 acres left, I believe— it would take about 
 25 acres to the head ; in Las Animas County there is about a million 
 and a half, and that would take about 60 to 70 acres to the head, on 
 the average. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. That would probably be an average of 40 acres to 
 the head ? 
 
 Mr. Painter. I should judge so ; yes. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Now, under private ownership, it would not take 
 nearly so much, would it? 
 
 Mr. Painter. Well, not if you raised the grass for part of the year. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I will take it as an average, the same quantity. 
 
 Mr. Painter. If you are going to use it in the same manner as 
 to-day, it would take certainly the same. 
 
298 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I would not assume the private owner would use it 
 the same as on the public domain, but that he would confine it to an 
 intelligent use. Is it not true that you might produee twice the sum? 
 
 Mr. Painter. Absolutely so. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. So it would be your judgment, would it not, that to 
 
 §ut this land under private ownership and control it would produce 
 ouble what it does now ? 
 
 Mr. Painter. It would ; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Then, don't you think it would be better for the 
 country at large to transfer the title of this land to private owner- 
 ship, so that the private owner would be better able to control it and 
 bring it up to its full producing capacity ? 
 
 Mr. Painter. Well, I will tell you, Mr. Johnson, whenever, as I 
 stated before, we can find out to what extent it becomes necessary to 
 give these lands and tracts sufficient to maintain a man and his family, 
 then I believe in giving it to him, and I think that could be found 
 out by a leasing system and in no other way. My candid opinion is, 
 and I have reason for stating it. you had better have 500 contented,- 
 satisfied citizens building up their homes and paying taxes than 5,000 
 disgruntled people who are not making a living. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Undoubtedly so; but the history of our country 
 shows that the farming communities are the most contented, the most 
 2Jrosperous, and best-behaved class of citizens we have in the land. 
 
 Mr. Painter. Of course, we realize this ; but the good agricultural 
 lands have already passed into the hands of the farmers. 
 
 The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Painter. The next witness is Mr. 
 Wills. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. TOM N. WILLS, FLORENCE, PINAL COUNTY, 
 
 ARIZ. 
 
 Mr. Wills. I am a member of the National Stock Growers' Asso- 
 ciation and the Arizona Stock Growers'. Association. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I am going to give my experience in handling cat- 
 tle within a pasture and without a pasture in rough country. I am 
 a cattleman, cowboy, and ranger. I run cattle in a rough mountain 
 country and also on the desert in the cactus and browse country. 
 
 About 10 years ago I bought a bunch of cattle that was the remnant 
 of what used to be a herd of about 5,000 head of cattle ; that herd was 
 scattered all over everywhere, and it was awful hard to do anything 
 with them. After you branded a calf you had to turn him loose, 
 and sometimes you wouldn't see him again for three or four years. 
 Two years later I took this little place in the national forest and 
 got me a permit to build a fence, which I did, and I fenced in 625 
 acres, and made a drift fence for about 4 miles, inclosing three or 
 four thousand acres of pretty good grazing land. I gathered these 
 cattle up — a few here and a few there — and, by using this pasture 
 and the drift fence, gradually got the cattle tame and gentle, and they 
 raised me calves. During the round-up I found cattle, cows 5 to 7 
 years old that I hadn't got any benefit of, but I gentled them down, 
 and they commenced to raise calves, and were producers; and I put 
 them on the tax list and commenced to pay taxes on them. That 
 went on for two years, and then, for some reason or other, they drew 
 the line of the forest reserve in and left me out on the public domain. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 299 
 
 In a little while I got a notice from the United States district attor- 
 ney advising me to tear down my fence; that I was maintaining a 
 fence on the public domain. I wrote him and explained the condi- 
 tions thoroughly — the best I could — and told him it would be a step 
 backward to where we used to be before. 
 
 In reply to that he wrote me a very nice letter saying he understood 
 the conditions pretty well, but that it was the policy to have those 
 fences removed, and for me to consider that a second notice to tear 
 down the fence. There happened to be on one side of the fence — 
 the east side — on the forest reserve and the other three sides on the 
 public domain. I tore down those three sides and left the drift fence 
 up — a portion of that was on the forest reserve, also. I got another 
 very nice letter saying the drift fence would have to come down ; and 
 so later on I had to tear it all down or get arrested. So that put us 
 back to where we had to corral the cattle at night and gather the 
 steers and herd them out on the rocks in the daytime. Well, I had 
 commenced my round-up about the 10th of April, and was to deliver 
 in Tucson, f. o. b., in two months; and I had to have these cattle 
 drilling around there all that time. The result is, when the buyer 
 comes out you have a whole lot of tender-foot cattle that can not 
 reach the railroad, and you have a lot of hook stuff in there which 
 they won't take. 
 
 If any of you gentlemen have ever handled cattle, you know what 
 it is to round them up. They never get any rest ; you take them out 
 on the range, and they are too tired to eat; you have to water them 
 all at one time; and if you have a pasture, whether there is any 
 grass or not, those cattle will scatter around and lie down. When 
 they made me tear down these fences it was a big step backward; 
 and I sold this stuff last year to the next bunch of cattle, 30 miles 
 from there, on the San Pedro ; and the man who bought them wants 
 to sell out right now. 
 
 Now, that is the fix I am in and all the rest of my neighbors. The 
 San Pedro Eiver from Benson, where the railroad crosses, down to 
 the mouth where it empties into the Gila River is a hundred miles, 
 and the valley is a mile wide, full Government surveyed, and all the 
 way to the mouth ; the valley will average about a mile, some places 
 a little narrower, but all that land has been taken up from time to 
 time in the last 30 years under one law or another, and is nearly 
 all in the hands of a few men, and all those men owning the land 
 own cattle. 
 
 Outside of the valley there is no possible chance for any farming 
 to be done, except little garden spaces in the mountains, where there 
 are springs. It's all mining country. 
 
 I have 1,000 acres of patented land and I only farm 160 of it on 
 account of not having water for it. You can't raise anything there 
 without irrigation. We raise a little hay, and that is all, except a 
 few milch cows and saddle horses. The rest is desert, and without 
 fences to hold your steers in it is almost impossible to run cattle 
 with any profit. Now, our saddle horses we have to hobble them 
 out, or stand guard around them or they will get away with the 
 wild bunch, we call them, and you won't see them for two or three 
 years ; and sometimes you will have a cowboy in your crew who will 
 lose his whole string of horses. All these conditions prevail with 
 us fellows out in that part of the country, and its a mighty big one. 
 
300 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 I have a well that is 150 feet deep, but the farther out you go 
 from the streams the deeper you have to go to get water. Sixty 
 miles in a southwesterly direction beyond Tucson there is a well 
 700 feet deep, and 18 miles farther on there is one 500 feet deep, and 
 it takes a good deal of money to sink a deep well like that. 
 
 As far as this bill is concerned, we are not afraid of the home- 
 steaders coming in; they would starve to death the first year. I 
 know nearly every cattleman in that country and a good many of 
 the sheepmen, and I know it is the unanimous sentiment of the 
 whole bunch that we need a law whereby we can have fences. That 
 is about all I have to say. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Sinnott, will you examine Mr. Wills? 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. I have no questions to ask, Mr. Chairman. 
 
 Mr. Wills. Mr. Bullarcl stated something about a steer that 
 wouldn't grow 10 pounds in 10 years. The fact of the matter is I 
 have turned steers loose that weighed 1,000 pounds, and when we 
 were able to catch him again he wouldn't weigh but 800. 
 
 Mr. Stnnott. Did I understand you to say that you got permis- 
 sion to put your fence up in the first place? 
 
 Mr. Wills. On the forest reserve ; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. From whom? 
 
 Mr. Wills. From the supervisor. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. It was in the forest reserve? 
 
 Mr. Wills. At that time it was ; when I first bought the range it 
 was not, but they enlarged it and put the lines out and took me in, 
 and later on they cut them down and left me out, because there was 
 no timber there. That left me out on the public domain. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Were any applications made for homesteads on this, 
 tract? 
 
 Mr. Wills. Oh, no; there is no chance for that; it is all rocky 
 country, brush and canyons. There are some places where there is 
 room for a little garden, near the springs, perhaps an acre. I had 
 a half a dozen places, little narrow ones, and there have been people 
 who tried to live there on that, but there was no market for what they 
 could raise, and a man can't live on just a garden. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Did they make homestead entries? 
 
 Mr. Wills. No, sir; just mining claims. 
 
 Mr. Hatden. How did you start in the stock business ? 
 
 Mr. Wills. I started by working for wages and trading. I got 
 most of my cattle by buying remnants of herds from people who were 
 leaving the county after the drought. They were willing to sell the 
 remnant, and I always knew about how many were left ; I made it a 
 point to know that, and then I would give him his price. 
 
 Mr. Hatden. I have a letter here from Hon. Albert M. Jones, of 
 Seligman, Ariz., in which he makes the statement that a new beginner 
 in the stock business would practically be barred out; that when we 
 lease the public domain we capitalize the business, so to speak, the 
 permit becoming so valuable that it is hard for the new man to get 
 a start. Under a lease law would it have been as easy for you to get 
 into the stock business as in open competition on the public domain? 
 
 Mr. Wills. If I had had a range on the San Pedro Eiver and at 
 that time irrigated land, I think I would have been recognized as 
 having the right. 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 301 
 
 Mr. Hayden. I have heard this question discussed before by men 
 who were situated just as you were; they could buy a small herd and 
 add on, and they said it was easy for a man to go into the stock busi- 
 ness on the public domain. ' But do you think it would be as easy 
 for a new man to get a start after this bill has been in operation 
 for 10 years or longer as under present conditions ? 
 
 Mr. Wills. I think after that time it will be. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Then, the new man would have to buy somebody out. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You said something about turning a steer loose and 
 not seeing him again for 10 years ? 
 
 Mr. Wills. That's putting it a little bit longer than I said. 
 i Mr. Raker. How long, then ? 
 
 Mr. Wills. Two or three, maybe. I have seen those cases lots 
 of time, where you would let a steer loose and not see him again for 
 two or three years. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I was trying to get at the age of the steer. How old 
 would he be then ? 
 
 Mr. Wills. Six or eight years old. He has become a rough at 
 that time, and you have to make a separate deal with the buyer to 
 get rid of him. 
 
 Mr. Raker. After eight years he begins to retrograde and gets 
 bony? 
 
 Mr. Wills. Yes, sir ; after that he isn't much good. 
 
 The Chairman. The next witness is Mr. Sullivan. Will you give 
 the reporter your name and address, Mr. Sullivan. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. JERRY W. SULLIVAN, SELIGMAN, ARIZ. 
 
 Mr. Sullivan. I am a member of the Arizona Live Stock Associa- 
 tion, and also of the National Live Stock Association. 
 
 Well, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, I expect I am the old patri- 
 arch of the crowd. I have been a stockman for about 46 years. I 
 left this country — the State of Pennsylvania — in 1866 and drifted 
 into Arizona; I got in there in 1867 and spent about two years in 
 Arizona at a time when it tried men's souls to live there, under the 
 Indian conditions. I went from there to the State of " Washington 
 and spent a year there ; and from there over into Oregon, and started 
 in the cattle business along in the spring of 1872, and some four years 
 afterwards, in the summer of 1876, I drove a number of cattle to the 
 State of Arizona, a distance of 1,400 miles, across the States of Ne- 
 vada and Utah, through the lower end of California and into Ari- 
 zona. 
 
 I have been in the cattle business and dealing with cattle ever 
 since. I presume that during the last 35 years I have raised and 
 shipped something over a hundred thousand head of cattle out of 
 the State to different points in Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and 
 other points, and I have become very familiar with the cattle range 
 and cattle conditions. I am getting to be an old man, am over 70 
 years of age now, and have kind of retired from the cattle business, 
 about 18 months ago. But I still own a small interest. 
 
 Speaking of leasing and range conditions, when the forest reserve 
 was first proposed, and started in Arizona, I had quite a number of 
 cattle at that time, and I also ran sheep at one time. At that time 
 I, like many others, was opposed to forest reserve conditions, not 
 
302 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 fully understanding the conditions. But after I became familiar 
 with the conditions I became very anxious to have a lease law over 
 the rest of the grazing domains. At different times I tried to have 
 the reserves enlarged in different locations, as I had a permit on 
 the Prescott Eeserve. 
 
 My views are, in regard to those range conditions, that a man 
 owning a number o-f stock should have permission to fence anywhere ; 
 to put in drift fences, if nothing else. We have peculiar conditions 
 existing in Arizona, which you won't find in any other localities. 
 We have a very dry, arid country ; our rainfall on the average range 
 there is about '8 inches — that is, generally speaking. Our principal 
 rains or storms that we derive our feed from start in about the 1st of 
 July and last practically to the middle of September, and during the 
 rainy season in the locality where I have been interested we have 
 had quite a number of sheepmen. They have the privilege of drift- 
 ing around from "one point to the other, and while that grass is soft 
 and green, and, of course, the sheepmen have their sheep under con- 
 trol ; they take advantage of this green grass and they eat it off so 
 it never has a chance to seed out, and in the course of two or three 
 years it has gotten so it is killed off forever afterwards. My theory 
 has been that if the stockmen were allowed to put in drift fences, we 
 will say, around small inclosures for gathering in their steers, they 
 could shift their stock from one locality to another during the rainy 
 season, and thus preserve the grass. Our winter feed comes from the 
 summer rain, and if I can save one tract this year I can use that the 
 next, and vice versa, driving the stock back and forth. 
 
 I don't believe in completely inclosing the land, except at times, 
 for accommodation. There has been a great deal of feeling at times 
 between the sheep and cattle men of that country; the sheepmen 
 grazing in the summer season destroy a great deal of feed for the 
 cattleman. On the forest reserve they are held to a certain tract, but 
 that does not bind them on the public domain, and they go where 
 they please. I don"t believe it would be possible under those condi- 
 tions to lease this land to both sheep and cattle men in the same local- 
 ity, for sheep and cattle don't mix. But there is plenty of room there 
 for both parties, if you will segregate them and select out the locali- 
 ties for both the sheep and the cattle. 
 
 I might say that on account of these conditions and the fact that I 
 am getting to be an old man I have kind of closed out, and I have no 
 selfish motive in urging this bill. I am getting too old to go on the 
 range any more, but it is hard to break an old dog of his' old tricks; 
 I like to monkey around with cattle and horses and I like to be out 
 on the range. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Thomson, will you interrogate the witness on 
 behalf of the committee? 
 
 Mr. Thomson. You have run cattle on these ranges that were lo- 
 cated in the forest reserve and on the other ranges outside the re- 
 serves — on the public domain? 
 
 Mr. Sullivan. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. And I understood you to say, from the experience 
 you have had in running cattle, on these two kinds of ranges, thai you 
 believed such regulation of the range as has been enforced on the 
 forest reserves would be better ? 
 
 Mr. Sullivan. Yes, sir. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 303 
 
 M n r j £ H ° MS0N - Your experience would lead you to believe that it 
 would be better out on the public domain if there was some similar 
 regulation there? 
 
 Mr. Sullivan. Undoubtedly so ; that has been my experience. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Now, some questions were asked this afternoon, 
 within, the last half hour or hour, with reference to whether or not it 
 would be better if this public domain could be reduced to private 
 ownership. What would you say as to the practicability of bringing 
 parts of the public domain into private ownership ? Could the cattle- 
 men and the sheepmen buy up and own in fee, if it is possible to do 
 so, such an amount of this land as would be necessary to carry on 
 their business? 
 
 Mr. Sullivan. Too expensive. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. That is, there would be too much capital tied up to 
 make the investment pay ? 
 
 Mr. Sullivan. Very much so. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Now, as to such of this land still remaining in the 
 public domain, outside the forest reserves, you agree, do you not, 
 that there is a considerable portion of it that is undoubtedly suitable 
 for agricultural purposes? 
 
 Mr. Sullivan. Wellj I will say that I have in mind a section of the 
 country where I have been interested myself for many years. We 
 have a tract of country there that extends from Seligman, Ariz., to 
 Kingman, Ariz., a distance of somewhere near a hundred miles; it 
 is about 80 miles in width, and there is on that large area but two 
 springs and about four or five wells on that whole tract of country. 
 A great deal of cattle run on that range, but they are supplied by 
 reservoirs and littlepot holes here and there which the stockmen have 
 put in for the purpose of saving the surface water falling during the 
 rainy season. There have been eight wells drilled there 1,300 feet 
 ■deep and two wells 1,450 feet deep ; you can get good water there at 
 the western end of that range, and the rest of it is supplied by reser- 
 voirs, dams, and wells. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. What is the elevation of that country ? 
 
 Mr. Sullivan. The ranges are from abouti>,000 to 7,000 feet. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Well, there are sections of the public domain re- 
 maining in your State, are there not, that might be used for agricul- 
 tural purposes ? 
 
 Mr. Sullivan. Not for dry farming; very few. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Is there any portion of the public domain in your 
 State which, in your judgment, would be workable under the 640-acre 
 homestead scheme ? 
 
 Mr. Sullivan. I would say it would be cruelty to the human race 
 to induce a poor man to go on 640 acres in most of that grazing 
 country. That country has been settled up pretty well in 47 years 
 and every available spot of land has been taken up and utilized for 
 garden and agricultural purposes. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. If a man went in there and took up one of these 
 640-acre homesteads, if it were possible to do so, and his possession 
 of that homestead gave him the right to put some cattle on this 
 range, would that help him out any ? 
 
 Mr. Sullivan. A great deal. You take three- fourths of the range 
 where the water is supplied from reservoirs — of course, the men who 
 
304 DISPOSITION OF GKAZING LANDS. 
 
 got in there in the early days, they have taken up the reservoirs and 
 they have them pretty well under control. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Is the land lower than the section you speak of any 
 better than that section is? 
 
 Mr. Sullivan. You get down in what is the Arizona desert; it is 
 level, but a very dry country, except where they can irrigate. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Is that the public domain ? 
 
 Mr. Sullivan. That is the public domain; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. The portions of the public domain down there, 
 where they can irrigate, let us say, would that be workable under the 
 640-acre homestead law ? 
 
 Mr. Sullivan. That land is under the Reclamation Service now; 
 that is one of their projects, and a man wouldn't be allowed to take 
 640 acres down there. It is being held back. Then the State at the 
 present time is selecting out lands. You take the northern counties, 
 the grazing country ; they have been up there to select that land, but 
 they didn't find it available. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Would you say that the sentiment of the majority 
 of the smaller owners among the cattle and sheep men in your State 
 would be in favor of some sort of leasing bill ? 
 
 Mr. Sullivan. Most certainly, sir. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. I don't think I have anything further, Mr. Chair- 
 man. 
 
 The Chairman. The time is about up. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. This witness is very familiar with my State and 
 where I live ; I would like to ask him one or two questions. 
 
 The Chairman. All right, Mr. Sinnott. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. When you were in Oregon the section of the country 
 which is now devoted to agriculture was considered worthless for 
 anything except stock raising, was it not? 
 
 Mr. Sullivan. A great deal of it, Mr. Sinnott. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. And that is now our best farming section. So the 
 old cattle men were mistaken, and I wanted to ask you if it might' 
 not be possible that they are mistaken with reference to other sec- 
 tions of the country, which they do not think available for agri- 
 cultural purposes? 
 
 Mr. Sullivan. I will say that conditions in Arizona now are far 
 different from what they were in eastern Oregon. In the first place, 
 your rain and snow is much greater ; then you have a different soil 
 from what we have in Arizona ; the condition of the soil is different, 
 and the condition of the grass is different. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. The modern methods of farming have made our 
 country a good agricultural country. 
 
 Mr. Sullivan. In Oregon I experimented some on' the range, 
 and I found the conditions about as they turned out to be afterwards. 
 I found that mesa would grow a very good winter crop there. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Of course, there is no comparison as to the fertility 
 of the soil. 
 
 Mr. Sullivan. No, no ; there is no use comparing Oregon soil with 
 the dry climate of these volcanic sections. You have in Oregon 
 and in New Mexico a sod on the range ; we have not got it in Ari- 
 zona ; it is a loose lava country. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. You have nothing like our bunch grass? 
 
 Mr. Sullivan. No; nothing to compare to that bunch grass. 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 305 
 
 Mr. Raker. Thirty-five or forty years ago it was not considered 
 by the cattlemen as of much importance, not fit for agricultural 
 purposes. Is that right, Mr. Witness? 
 
 Mr. Sullivan. Yes, sir ; that was the condition. 
 
 The Chairman. Gentlemen of the committee, I would like to in- 
 quire of Mr. Kent and Mr. Heard, concerning the hearings. Have 
 you anybody else, Mr. Heard ? 
 
 Mr. Heard. No, sir ; we have nothing else. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Tomlinson, what shape are we in with refer- 
 ence to those witnesses coming on? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. I have not heard from the New Mexico people 
 who were coming here. Mr. Stout wanted Wallis Huidekoper, of 
 Montana, to appear ; he arrived in New York to-day, but I have not 
 heard from him. It won't take more than an hour or two; but if 
 he is unable to appear, I will file such written statement as may be 
 necessary. 
 
 The Chairman. You will let us know? 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. I will, Mr. Chairman; and if you will indicate 
 any further line of evidence you would like to have I would be most 
 pleased to endeavor to furnish it. 
 
 The Chairman. It really seems to me, speaking for myself, that 
 we have heard all that is necessary on this subject. I think we have 
 the views of you gentlemen. 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson. Of course, our association represents practically 
 all the Western States, and I could bring just as many more from 
 the States that have been heard from. 
 
 The Chairman. With that in mind, we want to thank you very 
 courteous and very delightful gentlemen for the way you have 
 handled this matter, and the committee appreciates it. 
 
 Now, Mr. Fergusson, we would like to hear your plan. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Of course, I think my bill is a very important one, 
 and I would like to say to the committee that it has gone through 
 all the regular channels. I have had it referred to the committee— to 
 a subcommittee; to the department — and I have a report on it. 
 When Mr. Kent brought a great flock of people here in person I felt, 
 of course, that it would be nothing but right for me to yield. I 
 Won't have much in person, except myself, as to New Mexico, but I 
 have a vast mass of letters and telegrams and petitions that came in 
 response to my telegraphic request to men out there to furnish me 
 what they could, as I could not get them here in person. The people 
 out there begged me for my bill, but I don't want to tire the com- 
 mittee, and we might let it go over until to-morrow. I know I want, 
 and I expect other members of the committee want, a chance to catch 
 up with their correspondence. 
 
 Statement Presented by Chables W. Walkeb, or Roswell, N. Mex. 
 
 I ranch, about 55 miles northeast of Roswell, in Chaves County, N. Mex. 
 I own and generally run about 600 stock cattle and 1,400 steers. I went there 
 In 1889 ; do not own any land where I ranch. Most of the land in my neigh- 
 borhood is Government land. I lease eight school sections from the State of 
 New Mexico ; some of that land has been leased four years and some two years. 
 I also have 1,360 acres of private land leased. I pay 5 cents an acre for all the 
 land I have leased. If I leased the Government land I could not afford to pay 5 
 
 35074— pt 1—14 20 
 
306 ' DISPOSITION OF GBAZING LANDS. 
 
 cents an acre for all that I use. The main industry in Chaves County is stock 
 raising, except the small percentage of farming on irrigated land. With the 
 exception of the creeks and the artesian belt, which is very limited, we have to 
 secure our water from wells ranging in depth from 100 to 500 feet. On my 
 place there are five wells and the shallowest is 140 feet. Our section of the 
 country was very largely homesteaded in 1906, 1907, and 1908 by land agents 
 who brought the settlers from other States by extensive advertising and mis- 
 representation. Of the number of people who homesteaded 95 per cent left the 
 country, and so. far as I know will never return. Many of them never proved 
 up on their claims, and those who did prove up are all anxious to sell at any 
 price. In fact, I don't know of any homesteader who is not willing to sell and 
 quit the country. Numbers of them spent everything they had and could not 
 have existed except for the little work they obtained in gathering fruits and 
 helping in the alfalfa fields in the irrigated sections. None of them left the 
 country with any money — in fact, all were broke. There is a post office about 
 miles from my headquarter ranch, and in 1911 there were 86 heads of families 
 who received their mail at that office. About two years later the number had 
 diminished to six people out of the 86, and four of them were stockmen and 
 only two were dry farmers, and these latter were able to exist by working in the 
 irrigated places in addition to what work I gave them. From my experience 
 in that section of the country I am satisfied that a dry farmer can not exist on 
 160 acres of land or twenty times that much. The dry farmers who came into 
 Chaves County in my section failed to make good on the 160 acres ; they were 
 equally unsuccessful on the 320 acres, and I am positive they could not do any 
 better on 640 acres, either by farming it all or by farming a part and devoting 
 the rest to stock raising. No one can profitably raise live stock in that arid 
 section on 640 acres of land; in fact, it would take more than ten times that 
 amount. 
 
 The condition of the range is very much worse than it was when I went 
 there. The dry farmers are partly responsible for this because they took up 
 land that might have yielded a little hay or at least a better range than the 
 balance of the country. The rainfall at my place does not average to exceed 
 7 inches annually. Some years there is more and some less. Frequently there 
 are serious droughts that cause heavy losses. One of the great troubles in our 
 neighborhood is that we can not fence our range on account of it being public 
 domain. If we could lease and fence, the users of the range could use and con- 
 serve it and its carrying capacity would be largely increased. Diseases would 
 be better controlled or stamped out. There is less stock in Chaves County 
 to-day than there was 15 years ago, probably only one-third to one-half as 
 much as then. At the present there is no incentive on the part of stockmen 
 to create water, and unless something is done it is my judgment that the pro- 
 duction of live stock in that section will decrease further rather than increase. 
 There was a meeting of stockmen held in Roswell on February 27, and a resolu- 
 tion was unanimously adopted indorsing the Kent bill (H. R. 10539). I was 
 directed to present said resolution to your committee, and the official record of 
 the passage of the resolution is as follows : 
 
 At a meeting of the stockmen held at the Commercial Club, of Rosewell, 
 N. Mex., Friday evening, February 27, 1914, at which meeting Mr. James B. 
 Hervey was chairman, and Mr. Lon Cottingham was secretary, the following 
 resolution was presented by Mr. H. J., Hagerman and seconded by Judge Gran- 
 ville A. Richardson : 
 
 Be it resolved. That we favor the addition of the House bill (No. 10539) 
 known as the Kent bill, as the best measure which has as yet been brought to 
 our attention for the preservation and control of the remaining unappropriated 
 Government range, and for the protection of the live-stock industry of the 
 United States, and we heartily urge its enactment into law. 
 
 The resolution was unanimously adopted and the chairman and secretary 
 were instructed to telegraph the substance thereof to Mr. Scott Ferris, chair- 
 man of the Public Lands Committee, House of Representatives. 
 
 The stockmen in my section of the country have all been so extremely anxious 
 to secure relief from the present intolerable conditions that they prepared a 
 petition addressed to the President of the United States, and which was signed 
 by over 400 stockmen and other interests concerned directly and indirectly in 
 the production of live stock. I am a signer of said petition and I belileve it 
 correctly represents the sentiment of the great majority of the people in that 
 part of New Mexico. The petition shows clearly the conditions which obtain in 
 that part of New Mexico and why we want Federal control by means of a lease 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 307 
 
 law. Mr. R. De Graftenreid and myself were delegated to present this petition 
 to President Wilson, which we have done. We were also directed to file said 
 petition with the Public Lands Committee as expressive of the views of the 
 stockmen in that section. The petition and the names of the signers follow. 
 
 C. W. Walker. 
 
 Robwell, N. Mex., February JO, 101J t . 
 To the President, 
 
 The White House, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Mr. President : We. the undersigned, your petitioners, most respectfully state 
 that we are residents of southeastern New Mexico, and that we are either 
 directly interested in the live-stock industry or indirectly interested in that 
 industry through banks, mercantile establishments, or other business establish- 
 ments whose success or failure is dependent in a very great degree on the 
 success or failure of the live-stock interests in our country. 
 
 The section in which we live is one of the oldest cattle ranges in the United 
 States. It comprises what is now Eddy County, Chaves County, and Roosevelt 
 County, and those parts of Lincoln and Otero Counties lying east of the El Paso 
 & Southwestern Railway. With parts of all of this country many of us are 
 intimately acquainted. We have ridden, driven, and camped, and handled cattle 
 in this district so long that, amongst us, we know nearly every square foot of it, 
 and are speaking of our own knowledge when we make any statements in regard 
 to it. 
 
 During the past 20 years great changes have been brought about in a certain 
 limited area of this district. Along the Pecos River, which runs south, dividing 
 the district about evenly east and west, great advances have been made in 
 agriculture, wherever irrigation water in sufficient quantities has been de- 
 veloped. This is especially true on a strip of land from 3 to 5 miles in width, 
 extending intermittently along the river from Roswell on the north to Malaga 
 on the south, a distance of about 100 miles. Large sums of money have been 
 and are still being spent by the Government, by corporations, and by individuals 
 in developing this area, with the result that several millions of dollars worth of 
 alfalfa, fruit, and other crops are now being annually produced there, and lands 
 within that area, which formerly were useful only as range, are now worth, 
 on a production basis, from $100 to $500 per acre, and sometimes sell for more. 
 The source of the successful irrigation of these lands is twofold : First, gravity 
 flow from the Pecos and other surface streams and springs ; and, second, wells — 
 artesian or pumped. 
 
 Besides the area just referred to, limited bodies of land in other parts of 
 our country are successfully irrigated. At Portales, in Roosevelt County, is a 
 considerable underground flow, made available by pumping through an efficient 
 electric-power station. Along the tributaries of the Pecos— the Black, the Felix, 
 the Penasco, and the Hondo— are many successfully irrigated small farms and 
 fruit ranches, some of which have been cultivated for several generations. 
 
 A great many of your petitioners, whose names are affixed to this paper, 
 have contributed largelv toward the development of these irrigated areas. They 
 have contributed to it in money, energy, and labor. Many of them now own 
 and operate irrigated farms in this country. We all fully appreciate the fact 
 that each acre of our land made successfully and permanently productive in 
 grains, alfalfa, and fruit is increased in value over a hundredfold, and con- 
 tributes by so much more to the food supply of the United States. 
 
 Now, what we desire most respectfully to call to your attention is this : The 
 area of successfully cultivated land in this section with which we are particu- 
 larly acquainted — and the same is true, we believe, in regard to much of the 
 rest of New Mexico and other Western States— and the area of land which, in 
 our opinion, can, within any reasonable time, be successfully irrigated and cul- 
 tivated is very small as compared with the total area in the district. The total 
 area of the district described in the beginning of this paper is, roughly speak- 
 ing, about 30,000 square miles, or about 20,000,000 acres. Of this 20,000,000 
 acres we figure, after a careful estimate, that there is at the present time no 
 more than 250,000 acres in successful cultivation. That is to say, not more than 
 1J per cent of the total area is in successful cultivation. It is probable that in 
 time a larger percentage than this will be brought under irrigation, but, when 
 we consider the fact that it has taken many years of hard work and, without 
 exaggeration, many millions of dollars to turn even this much of this country 
 
308 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 into producing farms, we have every reason to believe that over 95 per cent of 
 the total area will remain uncultivated for many years to come. 
 
 We use the term " successful cultivation " advisedly, for we are aware that 
 the Thirteenth Census of the United States gives the area of improved land in 
 farms in New Mexico as about 1,500,000 acres. Of this amount probably as 
 much as one-fourth, or about 375,000 acres, is listed as being in the district of 
 which we are speaking, but we believe that an investigation will show that 
 over 125,000 acres of the land in these counties listed as improved farms 
 would prove to be very unsuccessful "dry" farms, many of which have been 
 abandoned since the compilation of the census statistics. Our figure of 250,000 
 acres is more than ample to include all the successful nonirrigated farms, of 
 which there are a number, as well as the irrigated farms. The total acreage 
 under irrigation in all of New Mexico in 1909 reported in the last census was 
 461,000 acres. It is doubtful whether this much ib actually irrigated, but even 
 if the irrigated area should, as some predict, sometime reach a total of 1,000,000 
 acres, that would be only about one-eightieth of the total area of New Mexico. 
 We believe, therefore, that when we say that no( more than 5 per cent of this 
 district will be farmed for many years we are very conservative. 
 
 What is this vast area (this 95 per cent) good for? It is good as a breeding 
 and grazing ground for cattle and sheep if properly cared for; if not properly 
 cared for, it is good for nothing. This area has been one of the best grazing 
 countries in the United States. Those parts of it which have not been over- 
 stocked and upon which the grass has been carefully conserved are now among 
 the best natural grazing lands in the United States. 
 
 Many of us, your petitioners, have for years used the free Government range, 
 but we all of us now agree that unless this range is properly controlled, either 
 through private ownership or through effective regulation by State or Federal 
 Government, that those parts of it that are still Government land will soon be 
 so badly damaged as to be practically beyond redemption for pasturage. We 
 are led to these conclusions by our own experience in the stock business here, 
 and by close observation of many years. Vast areas of this section, such as 
 that between the Pecos River on the east and the White and Sacramento 
 Mountains on the west, which were formerly covered with rich gramma and 
 other forage grasses, are rapidly deteriorating and will not support one-fourth 
 the number of cattle they once did. We have closely watched the effect of 
 careful conservation on certain controlled areas within this district as compared 
 with the uncontrolled open range, and are convinced that only through control 
 of the land can the stock business be continued here for any great length of 
 time. These controlled areas are : First, lands owned by the State and leased 
 to stockmen at a usual rental of 5 cents per acre per annum ; second, lands 
 owned by the Nation in the Alamo and the Lincoln National Forests and in the 
 Mescalero Indian Reservation, where limited pasture permits are granted on a 
 per capita basis; third, areas of deeded grazing lands owned by individuals or 
 corporations, carefully fenced and divided into pastures. 
 
 All of these publicly or privately controlled areas are in vastly better condi- 
 tion than any of the oi.en range contiguous to them. The most cursory ex- 
 amination would convince anyone of this fact. We have no hesitancy in saying, 
 after most careful observation, that if all the land in southeastern New Mexico 
 suitable alone for grazing were as carefully cared for as the most carefully 
 cared for tracts now under the control of individuals, that in three to five years' 
 time this section would be able to produce three times as many beef cattle 
 per annum as it now produces. Besides the greater numerical production, the 
 quality would be greatly improved ; for it is very difficult for the open-range 
 breeder to use thoroughbred bulls at their present prices. We further foresee 
 that if present conditions are allowed to persist in this section for even a short 
 time longer, that in a few years the production of beef cattle will be decreased 
 to a number even greatly below its present production. 
 
 If this is true here, as we are certain it is, it is also true in other parts of 
 New Mexico, and in many other Western States, and the situation is such as 
 to demand the immediate and serious consideration of the Government. If, by 
 an efficient supervision and control of the remaining public range, the rapidly 
 decreasing meat production of the Nation could in a few years be greatly in- 
 creased, is it not the plain duty of our lawmakers to provide for such super- 
 vision ;!ud control? The country is now familiar with the facts concerning the 
 cattle shortage. The Department of Agriculture has just shown that, while 
 the population of the United States has increased from about 92,000,000 in 
 1910 to 99,000,00 now. the iniiiiVn- of l>eef cattle has decreased nearly 13 per 
 
DISPOSITION OF GKAZING LANDS. 309 
 
 cent in the same period, and that at the present time there is a shortage of 
 nearly 20,000,000 meat animals, including cattle, sheep, and swine. 
 
 We submit that it is unreasonable and inconsistent fir the Government in its 
 administration of the public property to so strikingly neylect to care for one 
 of the most valuable of our resources, especially at a time when such neglect 
 results in a material shortage of one of the most vital necessities. 
 
 We therefore most respectfully ask you to use your lutli-euce t.> bring about 
 the enactment of such legislation as will result in an efficient aud effective 
 control of the remaining Government lands which are or can be made good for 
 grazing and breeding of meat animals. While "we do not venture to judge 
 what would be the best method of bringing about this result, we think it could 
 be accomplished satisfactorily, either through a national lease law or through 
 the transfer to the States, permanently or for a term of years, of the remaining 
 grazing lands for supervision and leasing by the State governments. Whatever 
 system may be adopted, we are willing to pay a reasonable pasturage, either on 
 a per capita or acreage basis, provided an equitable classification of the lands 
 be made according to the quality of the grass and carrying capacity of various 
 districts. And we are willing to submit to any reasonable restrictions and 
 regulations, providing they result in the preservation and improvement of the 
 range, and providing that we can secure large enough areas for sufficient terms 
 to make it worth while to build fences, develop water, and capitalize our 
 business, 
 
 We do not think that such legislation would interfere with the effective and 
 permanent settlement of such sections of the country as can be successfully 
 colonized. On the contrary, we believe that it would actually hasten the settle- 
 ment of any such sections. Homesteading and dry farming have been pretty 
 thoroughly tried out in the region to which your petitioners refer, as they have 
 of late years in many other sections ; so thoroughly, in fact, that nearly all the 
 land fit for homes has been proven up on, and much that was unfit has been 
 so demonstrated. Under an adequate leasing system, which should provide 
 compensation to the lessee after a term of years for any permanent improve- 
 ments made by him during the term of his lease, the discovery and development 
 of new water veins and basins would be much more probable than is the case 
 with homesteaders, who usually lack the means to sink farther than for sur- 
 face water. If individuals had reasonably long tenures on good pasture tracts, 
 it would be to their interest not only to conserve the pasture by giving the 
 grass a chance to germinate and reseed the range, but in the digging of wells 
 and water holes they would be likely to discover any latent resources the land 
 might conceal, and they would have the same chances as any other citizen to 
 take advantage of these resources at the expiration of their leasehold tenure, 
 whether their pasture privileges were renewed or not. 
 
 We are strongly of the opinion that the Government range if it remains open 
 and free and unfenced, will not only never be properly cared for but will soon 
 be practically ruined. We are convinced that in this as in other matters, when 
 you get something for nothing you will abuse the gift, we are ready to pay 
 reasonably for our pasteurage and to take care of the range if the Government 
 will give us the chance. We beg you, Mr. President, to do what you consistently 
 can to preserve and improve the fast disappearing ranges of the West, ranges 
 which, if properly cared for, can, for many decades, produce beef and mutton 
 sufficient for millions of our people, without in any way interfering with the 
 proper settlement of the country, but which, if they are allowed to deteriorate 
 as they are now deteriorating, will cause inestimable loss to the Nation and its 
 people. 
 
 In addition to what has been said herein as to the manifest advantages of 
 the individual control of the range, it should be remembered that the splendid 
 work which has for the past 12 years been carried on by the Bureau of Animal 
 Industry would be very greatly facilitated. The officials of this department 
 have done excellent and efficient work in cleaning this part of New Mexico of 
 the various infectious diseases to which cattle and sheep are subject, but they 
 have been very greatly hampered and their work delayed and made infinitely 
 more expensive and difficult by the fact that there has been no method what- 
 ever of isolating such infected herds as graze on the public domain. It is 
 practically impossible to thoroughly eradicate even the least virulent of these 
 diseases, such as scabies, pleuropneumonia, and anthrax as long as the diseased 
 animals can not be permanently isolated from the healthy ones, which, with 
 herds running at large, is impossible. If under the present conditions of the 
 range such an infection as the foot-and-mouth disease— which has appeared 
 
310 
 
 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 twice in the United States in the past 12 years — should become distributed, the 
 cattle industry would be practically annihilated. It has been fully demonstrated 
 in this and other districts that where animals were under control in privately 
 owned pastures the eradication of disease has been entirely practicable, while 
 at the same time in contiguous open ranges vast heards have perished as a 
 result of these diseases, and their owners have been practically ruined. 
 
 We believe that our statements in regard to this feature of the situation 
 will be fully confirmed by the officials of the Government who have these 
 matters to deal with. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Residence. 
 
 Business or occupation. 
 
 J. P. Smith 
 
 
 
 
 do 
 
 Do. 
 
 C . W . Walker 
 
 
 
 W . W . W alker 
 
 do 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 do 
 
 Do 
 
 
 do 
 
 
 O. Z. Finley 
 
 do 
 
 Stock raising. 
 
 
 ...do 
 
 K. K. Scott 
 
 do 
 
 District attorney. 
 
 R. H. Wyatt 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Do 
 
 B. M. Miles 
 
 
 
 W. E.Smith 
 
 
 
 
 
 Do 
 
 
 
 Do 
 
 
 do... 
 
 Do 
 
 
 
 Drugs. 
 
 
 do 
 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 ...do... 
 
 
 H. C. Rohrbough 
 
 do 
 
 
 J. B. Smith 
 
 do 
 
 Cow puncher. 
 
 C. M. Mead 
 
 do 
 
 
 do... 
 
 Editor Advocate. 
 Carpenter. 
 Justice of peace. 
 
 B. D. Pate 
 
 do... 
 
 
 do 
 
 F. C. Knowles 
 
 do 
 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 do 
 
 Do 
 
 
 do 
 
 Attorney. 
 
 L. P. Evans 
 
 do 
 
 
 do 
 
 Attorney. 
 
 
 do 
 
 E. H. Crandall 
 
 do. . 
 
 
 H. C. Doss 
 
 do... 
 
 
 J. T. Price 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 do 
 
 
 J. C. Gage 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 do 
 
 
 H. Crouch 
 
 do... 
 
 
 E. C. Higgins 
 
 do... 
 
 Do 
 
 E. F. Hardwick 
 
 do... 
 
 Do 
 
 
 
 
 C. W. Williams 
 
 ...do . 
 
 
 C. E. Mann 
 
 do... 
 
 Druggist. 
 
 
 do... 
 
 John A. White 
 
 do... 
 
 
 
 do... 
 
 
 
 do... 
 
 
 L.C.Hall 
 
 do 
 
 Do 
 
 
 
 
 J. E. Mcllnany 
 
 do... 
 
 
 J. K. Hastie 
 
 
 
 D. R. Harkey 
 
 Carlsbad, N. Mex ,. 
 
 do.. . 
 
 Stock raising. 
 
 W.A.Craig 
 
 
 do 
 
 Stock raising. 
 County clerk. 
 
 A. R. (VQuInn 
 
 do 
 
 J.D.Walker 
 
 
 O.W. Beals 
 
 
 Do 
 
 Thos. E . Jon -s 
 
 
 
 B. L. Walker. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Do 
 
 J. H. Richard 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Geo. Stone 
 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 
 Do 
 
 R. 0. Beckett 
 
 
 Do 
 
 R. E.Dick 
 
 
 Druggist. 
 
 E.N. Harris 
 
 
 Chas. D. Church 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stockman. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS, 
 
 311 
 
 Name. 
 
 Residence. 
 
 Business or occupation. 
 
 
 
 Farmer. 
 
 H. F.Christian 
 
 do... ,. 
 
 W. H. Merchant 
 
 do... 
 
 County treasurer. 
 Stockman. 
 
 Do. 
 Theater. 
 Jeweler. 
 Merchant. 
 Insurance. 
 Bookkeeper. 
 Liveryman. 
 Farmer. 
 
 Do. 
 Merchant. 
 
 Do. 
 Stock raiser. 
 Stockman. 
 
 W. P . Mudgett 
 
 
 
 do... 
 
 
 
 W. C. Sellers 
 
 do... 
 
 
 
 Frank W. Hnss 
 
 do... 
 
 W. E. Nutt 
 
 do... 
 
 
 do... 
 
 
 
 Albert Rich 
 
 do 
 
 S.I.Roberts 
 
 do 
 
 J. B. Leek 
 
 do.. 
 
 
 do 
 
 R. E. Barber 
 
 do.. 
 
 Jno. T. Barber 
 
 do 
 
 R. P. Hanson 
 
 do 
 
 
 W. E. Lendon 
 
 do.. 
 
 Stockman. 
 Accountant. 
 Auto salesman. 
 Stockman. 
 
 M.A.Walker 
 
 do 
 
 C. W. Luckey 
 
 do 
 
 
 do 
 
 L. R. Pipkin 
 
 do 
 
 
 do 
 
 Do 
 
 H. C. Sands 
 
 do.. 
 
 Auto salesman. 
 Physician. 
 Stockman. 
 Saddlery. 
 
 W. G. Cowan 
 
 do.. 
 
 
 do... . 
 
 E. S. Kilpatrick 
 
 do... . 
 
 
 do 
 
 Y.R. Allen 
 
 do.. 
 
 
 M.R.Smith 
 
 do.. . 
 
 
 J. F. Harey 
 
 do... . 
 
 
 C. W. Lewis 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 do.. 
 
 
 
 do... . 
 
 
 M. T. Stone 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 do 
 
 Storekeeper. 
 Do 
 
 Walter Craft 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 
 T. E. Williams 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C. R. Foster 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 do 
 
 
 M. C. Stewart 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 do 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 do 
 
 Do 
 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 
 
 S.S.Ward 
 
 do 
 
 Do. 
 
 H.M.Carl 
 
 do 
 
 Farmer and ranching. 
 Do. 
 
 
 do 
 
 G.F.Ray 
 
 
 Do. ' 
 
 
 
 Do. 
 
 B. F. Barlow 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 .....do 
 
 
 
 do 
 
 Do. 
 
 C. A. Call 
 
 ...do 
 
 
 Albert Blake 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 do 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 do 
 
 Do. 
 
 J. T. Collins.. 
 
 do 
 
 
 A. C. Keinath. 
 
 . .do :. 
 
 Real estate, loans. 
 Banker. 
 
 
 do 
 
 S. W. Gilbert 
 
 do 
 
 
 J.T.Patrick 
 
 do 
 
 Farmer. 
 
 
 do 
 
 
 H. T. Boyd 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 do 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 ...do 
 
 
 Whit Wright. 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 do 
 
 Farmer. 
 
 
 do 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 do 
 
 Merchant. 
 
 H.M.Gage 
 
 
 Banking. 
 
 L. M. Fletcher 
 
 
 Do 
 
 P. C. Getzwiller 
 
 do 
 
 City marshal. 
 
 Win. Cole 
 
 do 
 
 Contractor. 
 
 P. H. Adams 
 
 do 
 
 Stock. 
 
 C. G. Prude 
 
 do 
 
 Cattleman. 
 
 H.White 
 
 do 
 
 Banking. 
 
312 
 
 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Residence. 
 
 Business or occupation. 
 
 F.M.Smith 
 
 W. L. Whitaker 
 
 EarlT. Whitaker... 
 
 A. W. Board 
 
 Tom Larrimose 
 
 Royal N. Whitaker. 
 R.J. T. Elms 
 
 D. Swift 
 
 E. M. Teel 
 
 Frank WyckofI 
 
 L. L. Prude 
 
 Cam Dow 
 
 G. C. Shelton 
 
 G. A. Shelton 
 
 J. S. Eaves 
 
 J. S. Garrett 
 
 T. W. Green 
 
 W. A. McMillan 
 
 L.F.Snell 
 
 A.M. Ellis 
 
 A. A. Dearduff 
 
 E.M.Smith 
 
 J. E. Dunaway 
 
 C. O. Gilley 
 
 P. S. Eaves 
 
 A. D. Jones 
 
 C. P. Chappell 
 
 J. D. Graham 
 
 A. Zimmerman 
 
 M. H. Medlin 
 
 Jas. M. Roden, jr 
 
 A.J. Scafl 
 
 A. B. Love 
 
 A. B. Finley 
 
 Boyd Williams 
 
 JohnT. Beal 
 
 James T. Beal 
 
 TyeBeal 
 
 E. B. Logan 
 
 W. S. Dardin 
 
 W. B. Ballard 
 
 J. O. White 
 
 C. N. Stansell 
 
 J. H. Meadows 
 
 F. M. Poteet 
 
 Tod Browning 
 
 C. O. Harbert 
 
 V. E. Fatherree 
 
 L. S. Maloney 
 
 G. O. Thomas 
 
 Virgil L. Hyatt 
 
 E. B. Bullock 
 
 Sam Brown 
 
 J. M. Conn 
 
 A. M. Wilbron 
 
 C. D. Harling 
 
 Fred A. Lmeif 
 
 James Sangster 
 
 Noah Garrett 
 
 M. Stevenson 
 
 J. Thomas 
 
 Sam A. Ellis 
 
 E. A. Hannah 
 
 E. B.Nefl 
 
 R.M.Williams 
 
 Jas. O. Greenlow 
 
 Kemp Lumber Co 
 
 J. Wertheim 
 
 E. B. McCaw 
 
 F. H. Donahue 
 
 E.S.Howell 
 
 E. B. Ward 
 
 Darwin U. Reed 
 
 John Franing 
 
 M. M. Inman 
 
 S.G.White '. 
 
 G. W. Larng... 
 
 N.E.Wiley '. 
 
 J. W. Shnall 
 
 M. P. Skeen 
 
 J. R. Ham 
 
 John P. Lowrey 
 
 P.N. Whitled 
 
 Geo. L. Bakar 
 
 W. P. Mass 
 
 Hope, N. Mex 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 i do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 Lovington, N. Mex . . . 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 Elva, N. Mex 
 
 Elk, N. Mex 
 
 Ranger Lake, N. Mex. 
 
 Elida, N. Mex 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 Roswell, N. Mex 
 
 do 
 
 ....do 
 
 Lovington, N. Mex. 
 
 Roswell, N. Mex 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 Artesia, N. Mex 
 
 do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do...... 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 ...do 
 
 ...do 
 
 ...do 
 
 ...do 
 
 ...do 
 
 ...do 
 
 ...do 
 
 ...do 
 
 ...do 
 
 ...do 
 
 Cattleman. 
 Merchant. 
 
 Do. 
 Farmer. 
 Stockman. 
 Merchant. 
 
 Do. 
 Horseman. 
 Ranchman. 
 
 Do. 
 Stock. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 Banker. 
 Stockman. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 Drug clerk. 
 Stockman. 
 
 Do. 
 Merchant. 
 Stockman. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 Horses. 
 
 Horses and cows. 
 Cattle and horses. 
 
 Do. 
 Cattle. 
 
 Cattle and horses. 
 Cattle. 
 
 Do. 
 Cattleman. 
 Farmer. 
 Cattle. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 Hardware. 
 Dry goods. 
 Farmer. 
 Dry goods. 
 Merchant. 
 Printer. 
 Fanner. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 Merchant. 
 Farmer. 
 Butcher. 
 Drayman. 
 Harness maker. 
 Farmer. 
 Mail carrier. 
 Tailor. 
 
 Physician. 
 
 Lumber. 
 
 Merchant. 
 
 Dray. 
 
 Merchant. 
 
 Ranchman. 
 
 Merchant. 
 
 Famer. 
 
 Farmer and physician. 
 
 Merchant. 
 
 Do. 
 Farmer. 
 Broker. 
 Physician. 
 Farmer. 
 
 Do. 
 
 Do. 
 Druggist. 
 Jeweler. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 313 
 
 Name. 
 
 Residence. 
 
 Business or occupation. 
 
 
 
 
 M. Yates, jr 
 
 
 
 Mr. Bristole 
 
 ....do 
 
 
 W.J. Rand 
 
 do 
 
 
 C. Russell 
 
 ....do 
 
 
 
 ....do 
 
 
 P. M. Baker 
 
 . ..do 
 
 
 
 do 
 
 LaWjarf — "■— 
 
 R. G. Tupper 
 
 ....do • 
 
 
 W. B. McCombs 
 
 
 
 B.F.Baker 
 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 ....do 
 
 Do. 
 
 F.L.Strickland 
 
 ....do 
 
 Do. 
 
 M. L. Cottingham 
 
 .do . 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 . do . 
 
 
 
 
 
 J.W.Rhea 
 
 
 
 J.E.Rhea 
 
 do :... 
 
 Do. 
 
 VI. ii. Pendleton 
 
 
 Cattle raising. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Sheepman. 
 Cattle. 
 
 
 ...do 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 
 
 J.C. Weaver 
 
 do 
 
 Merchant. 
 
 R.S.Elliott 
 
 do 
 
 
 T.L.Nail 
 
 
 
 T.J.Nail 
 
 
 Do. 
 
 W.H.Losey 
 
 do 
 
 Banking. 
 
 A.N.Miller & Co 
 
 do 
 
 
 do 
 
 
 CM. bevenport 
 
 do 
 
 Stock raising. 
 Alfalfa Mill Co. 
 
 
 do 
 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 Roswell.N.Mex 
 
 Grocers. 
 
 McCain Drug Co 
 
 do... 
 
 Druggist. 
 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 do 
 
 Real estate and Insurance. 
 
 R. P. Bean 
 
 do 
 
 Farmer. 
 
 
 do 
 
 Stock raising. 
 
 
 
 Farmer and stockman. 
 
 
 
 Stockman. 
 
 
 do 
 
 Sheepman. 
 Member legislature. 
 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 Stockman. 
 
 
 do 
 
 Ex-stockman. 
 
 
 do 
 
 Horses. 
 
 
 do 
 
 Cattle inspector. 
 
 
 
 Superintendent of live stock. 
 
 
 Roswell, N. Mex 
 
 
 R.L. Littlefleld... ... . 
 
 
 Stockman. 
 
 
 do 
 
 Doctor and stockman. 
 
 
 
 Merchant. 
 
 W. M. Crow 
 
 
 Stockman. 
 
 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 do 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 do 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 do 
 
 United States and office. 
 
 
 
 Ranchman. 
 
 
 
 Member legislature. 
 
 
 
 Do. 
 
 J.F.Hinkle 
 
 
 Member State senate. 
 
 
 
 Sheriff Chaves County. 
 Superintendent of schools. 
 
 C.C.Hill..: 
 
 
 J.D.Mell 
 
 
 Probate judge. 
 
 R.F.Ballard.. 
 
 
 County clerk. 
 
 
 ...do 
 
 County assessor. 
 
 
 do 
 
 County treasurer. 
 
 
 do 
 
 State veterinarian. 
 
 
 
 Broker. 
 
 W.A.Wyatt„... 
 
 
 Real estate. 
 
 Wm.M.Belt 
 
 do 
 
 Fanner. 
 
 
 
 Stock. - 
 
 W. B. Britton 
 
 
 Stock farmer. 
 
 W.B.Scott 
 
 do 
 
 Banker. 
 
 A. G. Pistle 
 
 do 
 
 Merchant. 
 
 W. B. Jones 
 
 ....do 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 do 
 
 Do. 
 
 Geo. T. Littlefleld.... 
 
 do 
 
 Stock. 
 
 W. T. Littlefleld . 
 
 do 
 
 Do. 
 
 W. H. Cooper . 
 
 do 
 
 Stock farmer. 
 
 C. H. King. 
 
 do 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 .!...do 
 
 Farmer. 
 
314 
 
 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Residence. 
 
 Business or occupation. 
 
 
 Kenna, N. 1 
 ...do. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J. F. MoKee 
 
 ...do : 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 do 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 do 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 . do 
 
 Do. 
 
 Geo. E. Tayfer.. . , 
 
 . do 
 
 Do. 
 
 Frank Good.-J!^»'™— r: 
 
 . .do 
 
 Stock. 
 
 H. G. Watson.;i' .-. ; 
 
 Hope, N. M 
 
 
 Druggist. 
 
 
 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 do 
 
 
 H. C. Beckett 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 do 
 
 Stock. 
 
 
 do 
 
 
 A C White 
 
 do 
 
 
 W P.Riley 
 
 do 
 
 Fruit grower. 
 
 W. M. Fite 
 
 do 
 
 
 do 
 
 
 F. E. Fite 
 
 . .do 
 
 
 
 do 
 
 
 H A. Taylor 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 ...do 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 ...do 
 
 Carpenter. 
 Cattle. 
 
 R L. Knight 
 
 Midway, N 
 
 Ruidosa, N 
 
 Roswell, N. 
 
 .do 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Mex 
 
 
 A Pruit 
 
 
 Cattle and sheep. 
 Do. 
 
 
 Lovington, 
 Roswell, N. 
 Carlsbad, N 
 Roswell, N. 
 ...do 
 
 N.Mex 
 
 F. McCoy 
 
 Mex 
 
 Cattle. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Do. 
 
 W. T.White : 
 
 ...do 
 
 Sheep and cattle. 
 
 
 Carlsbad, N 
 Roswell, N. 
 . ...do 
 
 
 
 
 Do. 
 
 JohnC. Peck 
 
 
 Do. 
 
 W. L. Sears 
 
 Kenna, N. 1 
 Lovington, 
 
 tfex 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 N. Mex 
 
 
 
 
 Do. 
 
 J.R.Holt 
 
 Carlsbad, N 
 
 
 Do. 
 
 W. J. Barber 
 
 
 Do. 
 
 E. H. Price 
 
 . do ' 
 
 Do. 
 
 S. 0. Love 
 
 Lovington, 
 
 N. Mex 
 
 
 M. E. Sewalt 
 
 
 
 W.J. Ellar 
 
 Knowles, N 
 Lovington, 
 
 
 Do. 
 
 W. M. Wilks 
 
 N.Mex 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 
 Bookkeeper. 
 
 
 . do 
 
 
 ...do 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 ...do 
 
 
 E. E. Lee 
 
 Kenna, N. 
 Carlsbad, N 
 do 
 
 Hex 
 
 
 W. E. Thayer 
 
 
 
 
 
 Do. 
 
 
 . .do... 
 
 
 J. A. May 
 
 .. do... 
 
 Bookkeeper. 
 
 Sam B. Smith 
 
 do 
 
 
 do : 
 
 Druggist. 
 
 0. M. Richards 
 
 . do .. 
 
 
 . .do 
 
 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 do 
 
 Bookkeeper. 
 Druggist. 
 
 R. E. Dick 
 
 . .do .. 
 
 R. L. Hallen 
 
 do 
 
 E. Purdy 
 
 do 
 
 Do. - 
 
 
 do 
 
 
 W. H. Woodwell 
 
 ...do .. 
 
 Lawyer. 
 
 
 do 
 
 R. L. Bates 
 
 do 
 
 Hotel proprietor. 
 
 A. L. Pratt 
 
 do 
 
 A.C.Shelby 
 
 ...do... 
 
 
 
 do 
 
 Farming. 
 
 G. E. Benson 
 
 do 
 
 
 do 
 
 
 C. S. Hamilton 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 . .do... 
 
 
 
 . .do... 
 
 Do. 
 
 A. E.Bailey 
 
 do... 
 
 Do. 
 
 C. D. Rickman 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 . do 
 
 
 S.T.Williams 
 
 Artesia, N. 
 Carlsbad, N 
 ....'do .. 
 
 
 Do 
 
 
 . Mex 
 
 
 
 
 Do 
 
 
 
 
DISPOSITION OF GBAZING LANDS. 315 
 
 Statement presented by K De Graftenbeid, of Uuchanon, N. Mex. 
 
 I have lived in New Mexico since 18S2. I came there from northwest Texas 
 where I have been engaged in the cattle business all my life. When I come 
 to the place I now ranch at, about 30 years ago, I was able to run stock without 
 any loss and never had to feed anything but work stock and milk cows Now 
 I have to feed about 20 per cent of my stock in the wintertime— alfalfa which 
 I raise at Fort Sumner on irrigated land, cotton-seed cake shipped in from 
 Texas, and grain from Superior, Nebr., these places being the nearest places 
 I J !:11 ii"? y SUCn feed - J have believed f or the last 10 years that the Government 
 should lease the semiarid open range to the stockmen at prices which they 
 could afford to pay. The dry farmers came into my section of the country in 
 1907 and 1908 and settled along the Santa Fe Railroad, Belen Cut-off, and the 
 valley over south of me. They used the water I had developed and other 
 neighboring ranchmen, sheepmen, and cattlemen, almost entirely. The altitude, 
 if the country is 5,800 feet, the nights are cold, and I have seen the leaves on 
 the Cottonwood trees color in May. In my opinion corn can not be raised iu 
 that country because of the cold nights and none of the farmers have ever 
 raised anything since they have been there; I have never been able to buy any 
 feed that they may have raised. The dry farmer has made his living by work- 
 ing for the Santa Fe Railroad as section foremen and so-called snipes, and also 
 working for the ranchmen and going to Roswell when they could and working 
 in the irrigated sections, in the alfalfa fields and picking fruit. Others go to 
 Oklahoma and pick cotton and doing any other work they can find to do. 
 
 I heartily indorse the Kent bill as being the only salvation by which we 
 can protect the range and continue to produce mutton, wool, and beef. I would 
 say that 75 per cent of the cattle have gone out of New Mexico in the last 10 
 years, and 25 per cent of the sheep. I cut my own holdings from 12,500 sheep 
 to 4,000 head. I was compelled to close out all my cattle in 190S because of 
 the intolerable range conditions, and I continued to run sheep only until 1913, 
 when I bought 710 yearling heifers, and commenced to play the old game again! 
 I believe if we could lease the lands and fence them we would soon have as 
 many cattle and sheep in New Mexico and could get along very nicely in the 
 stock-raising business. 
 
 I own about 1,200 acres of patented land on the Arroya El Yeso. In 1913. I 
 leased from the State 22,000 acres for which I paid 5 cents per acre annually. 
 The land I leased is not worth 5 cents per acre, but I paid that much in order 
 to measurably control some of the open- range around it. We have to go for 
 water from three to five hundred feet. No water has been found at the present 
 time except on the Arroya El Yeso and Arroya Salado rising back in the plains 
 further west and flowing into the Pecos River. In my section it takes 40 acres 
 to carry a steer, or 16 head per section. We can run 50 sheep on a section. 
 
 My experience of a lifetime in the stock-raising business convinces me that 
 one of our greatest needs is some way to control the range. If we could control 
 our ranges we could buy better bulls, we could wean our calves and feed them 
 and thus prevent a great deal of loss. We could also control and stamp out 
 infectious diseases so prevalent on the open range. I oppose the turning over 
 of the arid grazing lands of the West to the various Western States. My 
 experience with the Federal Government officials in the stamping out of dis- 
 eases and in other ways has been most satisfactory. I find them to be fair 
 and reasonable to all. I feel certain that we could not expect as equitable 
 treatment from the State officials as would be accorded us by the Federal 
 Government. The stockmen want a square deal, and we believe we could get it 
 under Federal administration, somewhat similar to the grazing on the national 
 forest. 
 
 I came to Washington at the request of the signers of the petition which 
 has been presented by Mr. Walker, and I desire to say that I thoroughly indorse 
 the same in every respect. It fairly reflects the actual conditions in south- 
 eastern New Mexico, and I wish to adopt all that is said therein as my own 
 evidence. 
 
 R. De Geaftenreid. 
 
 The Chairman. Let me inquire of you, Mr. Fergusson, would it 
 be agreeable to you to recess the committee until Monday at 10 
 o'clock ? 
 
316 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I think it would be unreasonable not to consent 
 
 to that. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. There are several of us, Mr. Chairman, who have to 
 be at the Irrigation of Arid Lands Committee on Monday— Judge 
 Raker, Mr. Fergusson, Mr. Sinnott, and myself — and we want to be 
 here when Mr. Fergusson's bill is discussed. 
 
 The Chairman. There is no disposition, of course, Mr. Fergusson, 
 to put you off, but in view of the statement of Mr. Hayden, involving 
 four or five members of the committee, would 10 o'clock next Tues- 
 day be an agreeable time for you to appear before the committee? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. That will be agreeable to me, gentlemen. I am in 
 the hands of the committee. 
 
 The Chairman. I have been requested to insert in the record cer- 
 tain communications bearing on this subject. One is from Mr. I. S. 
 Barlett, of Cheyenne, Wyo., who is a very fluent writer and a man 
 who has given much study to public-land matters. The other com- 
 munications to which I refer come from certain woolgrowers' associa- 
 tions. Without objection these documents will be printed at length. 
 
 They are as follows: 
 
 Our National Land Legislation — The Problem of Settling Oub Abid 
 Lands — Plea for a 640-Acbe Grazing Homestead Act. 
 
 On the beautiful railroad station in Washington, carved on its marble facades, 
 are several inscriptions chosen by ex-President Eliot, of Harvard University. 
 One of them reads as follows: 
 
 The Farm 
 
 Best Home of the Family 
 
 Main Source of National Wealth 
 
 Foundation of Civilized Society 
 
 The Natural Providence 
 
 In impressive contrast to this picture is Markham's characterization of city 
 life, when he says: 
 
 " Out of the whirlwind of cities rise lean hunger and the worm of misery, the 
 heartbreak, and the cry of mortal tears." 
 
 The future character of our American citizenship, as well as our future ma- 
 terial development, prosperity, and general welfare, are so dependent on the 
 farmer and his crops, including the human crop, that our national land legisla- 
 tion presents the most important problem of our civilization. 
 
 In this article I propose to show that we are in the stagecoach period of land 
 legislation; that we have no sensible, practical laws for the settlement of our 
 arid lands, which are now the only public lands we have subject to settlement 
 and congressional action. 
 
 Congress has gone on plugging away trying to make homestead laws on the 
 old plan of half a century ago, with no comprehension of the needs, conditions, 
 and environment of the arid-land States. 
 
 A natural, practical, and beneficial act for the settlement of our public lands 
 is a grazing homestead act. Bills for such an act are already prepared and pre- 
 sented to Congress. 
 
 President Taft, at the National Conservation Congress held at Kansas City, 
 September 25, 1911, referring to our national land policies, said : " It is reason- 
 ably certain that substantially all the virgin soil of a character to produce 
 crops has been taken up." 
 
 In an address at Jamestown, Va., speaking of the vacant, unoccupied lands 
 of the public domain, he said : 
 
 "These vast stretches of the public domain are unfit for cultivation by 
 present methods and are valuable only for the forage they produce." 
 
 Exclusive of Alaska, there remains in the western land States about 
 870,000,000 acres of public land open for settlement. This is practically all arid 
 or range lands, and so far there are no laws enacted to provide for the settle- 
 ment or occupation of this area, except possibly 10 or 12 per cent which may be 
 reclaimed by irrigation and a small percentage suitable for dry farming. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GBAZING LANDS. 817 
 
 Here, then, is presented what seems to be a difficult problem to those unac- 
 quainted with the farming and live-stock resources of this so-called desert 
 land. In reality the proposition is a very simple one and easily solved. 
 
 Practically every acre of what used to be called the " Great American 
 Desert" can be settled up and made into homes and prosperous communities 
 under a sensible grazing homestead act. 
 
 With our constantly increasing population and constantly diminishing land 
 area open for settlement, we are facing a national crisis, which seems to 
 have but two possible solutions if we would maintain the proper balance 
 in the matter of food production — we must either settle up, develop, and make 
 productive the unoccupied lands of our country or increase the productiveness 
 of the lands now under cultivation. We should do both. 
 
 All history shows that in the natural order of progress we must first settle up 
 our vacant public lands. When that is done, and it is found in half a century 
 or more that the population has multiplied faster than our natural crop pro- 
 duction has increased, then we shall have intensive farming. Then more ex- 
 tended use of fertilizers and a more carefully and scientifically conducted sys- 
 tem of farming will be inaugurated which will add 50 per cent, in many cases 
 100 per cent, to our crop production. 
 
 This period will not be reached until the food demands of our population 
 become more insistent and when the increased cost of fertilization and im- 
 proved methods of cultivation will assure the farmer such returns as to make 
 farming as profitable as under the old system. 
 
 In the meantime the settlement of new lands in other countries will have an 
 economic relation to the general range of prices, as we are only one of a family 
 of nations, and with more liberal tariff laws a greater freedom of international 
 exchange of commodities will prevail, making world prices more uniform. 
 
 No question, therefore, so greatly concerns our future national development 
 and the welfare of the millions who are to come after us as the use and settle- 
 ment of our so-called desert lands or grass ranges. 
 
 From the Canadian dry-farming sections of the North to the desert mesas of 
 Old Mexico on the south there lies a great empire 1,200 miles long by 1.300 
 miles wide, comprising an area equal to more than one-third of the whole United 
 States, exclusive of Alaska. Over five-sixths of this region is unsettled and un- 
 developed, although in addition to its grazing wealth it has marvelous mineral 
 and industrial resources sufficient to maintain a population of over 100,000,000 
 souls. 
 
 This region has every variety of climate, soil, and scenery, extending, as it 
 does, from the tropical valleys of the South to regions of perpetual snow and 
 ice in the North. Its wondrous topography is varied by huge mountain uplifts 
 and vast plains, stretching into table-lands and into foothills and billowy emi- 
 nences. It has 200,000,000 acres of magnificent forest lands. It has its grand 
 canyons, its spouting geysers, its great mountain glaciers. It has enormous 
 undeveloped deposits of coal, iron, oil, natural gas, asphaltum, and phosphates, 
 and every variety of mineral deposits known to the world. 
 
 All this environment enhances the value of the unoccupied ranges within this 
 remarkable area of mineral and industrial wealth, and gives the farming and 
 stock-raising settler the advantages of living in the midst of and adjacent to 
 rapidly growing mining and industrial communities, affording a ready and 
 valuable home market as well as social and educational privileges. 
 
 Few people of the country have any adequate conception of the marvelous 
 resources of the arid lands. Not one in twenty of our Congressmen has the 
 knowledge necessary to act intelligently in devising the proper land legislation 
 to aid in settling uy and developing this western empire of mountains and 
 plains. 
 
 For instance, take Wyoming, one of the 10 arid and seiniarid States. Taking 
 the United States Geological Survey's State official reports, and expert exami- 
 nations, this one State has over $60,000,000,000 in undeveloped resources, 
 with a population that averages only one and a half persons to the square mile. 
 The other arid States are similarly endowed. 
 
 Again, on no other subject of national importance is there so much ignorance 
 and misinformation as in regard to the range lands of the public domain, which 
 most Americans regard as merely desert wastes of no interest except as pic- 
 turesque settings of a cowboy story on a moving-picture film. 
 
 With the exception of an occasional sand desert like the Jornado del Meurto 
 in New Mexico, or Death's Valley in Nevada, all these ranges are carpeted with 
 the nutritious grama or buffalo grass, interspersed with sagebrush, mesqulte, 
 
318 DISPOSITION OF GBAZING LANDS. 
 
 cactus, etc. Wild flowers of brilliant hues abound everywhere in spring and 
 summer. The rich buffalo grass is good the year round, as it naturally cures 
 in the arid. region and retains its nutriment the year round so that stock are 
 often fattened upon it in the fall and winter months. 
 
 The value of this pasturage was a revelation to the Mormons and forty- 
 niners who crossed the plains over 60 years ago, mostly with trains of ox teams. 
 In those long journeys of 2,000 miles or more, many of their animals became 
 weak and sick and were turned loose to die. At least they were given up as a 
 dead loss. As all the overland trails were water trails, or from water to water, 
 the animals so turned out with a natural instinct grazed along these old trails, 
 and greatly to the astonishment of the returning trains were found sleek and 
 fat a few months later. From these experiences the great range cattle business 
 originated and grew until millions of capital of this country and Europe were 
 invested in the adventurous and facinating industry. 
 
 The rich agricultural lands of the Middle West and Mississippi Valley were 
 settled up under homestead laws very properly requiring plowing and cultiva- 
 tion. These lands were watered by abundant rainfall and were suitable for 
 the production of wheat, oats, rye, corn, fruit, and all the principal agricultural 
 crops then most needed by the Nation and the world. 
 
 Then meat was cheap and plentiful, wild game of every kind was so abun- 
 dant in the new settlements that there was little demand for marketed meats. 
 Fifty years ago the meat question was nothing to consider. To-day it is one 
 of the great economic problems in the science of living. 
 
 For instance, the Associated Press market report of January 24, 1913, at 
 Chicago, has the following statement : 
 
 " Sky-high prices for meats in the near future, prices higher than ever known, 
 can only be averted by a renewal of interest among farmers in marketing their 
 crops in the form of cattle, hogs, and sheep, instead of grain, milk, and fodder, 
 say reports from the agricultural colleges, which confirm the belief general at 
 the Chicago stockyards. For beef in the future the farms of the Middle West 
 as well as the ranges must be looked to. 
 
 " There is no relief seen in the cattle raised either in Mexico or Canada, for 
 the live-stock scarcity is general in Europe, Australia, and the Argentine, as 
 well as in the United States." 
 
 Continuing this review of the meat situation, the article goes on to say: 
 
 " Rex Beresford, the beef-cattle expert of Ames College, gave the beef situa- 
 tion as follows : ' In 1900 the population of the country was approximately 
 75,000,000 and the number of beef cattle 50,000,000 head. In 1912 the popula- 
 tion had reached 95,000,000, and the number of beef cattle had shrunk to 
 ;iT,25O,000 head. The population has grown 25 per cent in the past 12 years, 
 and the beef supply has shrunk 28 per cent.' " 
 
 Gov. Amnions, of Colorado, referring to the approaching cattle famine, 
 recently said : 
 
 " The people of the United States have been so busy discussing the high cost 
 of living that they have overlooked the most startling fact of all — our popula- 
 tion is increasing more rapidly than our meat-food production. Our beef sup- 
 ply has already fallen far below the normal demand." 
 
 A grazing homestead bill giving 0-10 acres, or even 2 sections, to each settler 
 would soon add 200 per cent to^ the live-stock production of the public-land 
 States and solve the beef problem for the next half century. Not only that, 
 it would break down the high prices of beef, pork, and mutton, as well as dairy 
 products. 
 
 Better than all. it would settle up the vast area of waste lands in the Nation 
 with a hardy, intelligent, and progressive American citizenship. 
 
 Think for a moment what our desert or grass ranges will produce, situated, 
 as they are, in an environment of mountains and plains and flooded with 
 sunshine. 
 
 Here are some purely range products: Cattle, sheep, horses, hogs, goats, 
 hides, wool, butter, cheese, milk and dairy products, poultry, and eggs. All these 
 can be produced in our native grass regions without any plowing or land culti- 
 vation. 
 
 The irrigated and dry farms in the same section will supplement all the 
 needed fattening and forage crops, and both the farming and stock-raising 
 interests will be mutually and correspondingly benefited. 
 
 The range homestead proposition can be easily worked out. Instead of the 
 requirements of plowing up the land and crop cultivation, the law should re- 
 quire expenditure for sinking wells, building of sheds and corrals, the posses- 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 319 
 
 sion of a certain number of' animals, etc. The residence requirements should 
 be the same as in other homestead acts. 
 
 In nearly every section of the grass ranges water can be found at depths 
 varying from 20 to 500 feet, In many cases artesian water and flowing wells 
 are obtained, giving a sufficient supply of water for irrigating many acres and 
 raising fine crops. With the passage of a grazing homestead bill the so-called 
 desert lands would be penetrated with wells and the whole landscape dotted 
 with wind mills and improvements in the form of houses, barns, corrals, and 
 fences. 
 
 In a very few years a wonderful transformation scene would be enacted in 
 the vast cattle ranges of the West, now practically uninhabited by settlers. 
 That^this is no dream has already been demonstrated by the results of the 
 Kinkead 640-acre homestead act, which applied to the deseit wastes of western 
 Nebraska. That entire section is now settled up with a high r-lass of prosper- 
 ous and successful farmers. Five million acres of arid lands have been re- 
 claimed there, and the wave of incoming settlers has overflowed into Wyoming 
 in the search for dry farming lands. 
 
 Even under the late repressive land administration the Commissioner of the 
 General Land Office advocated the 640-acre homestead for the semiarid West, 
 and in so doing stated that "the largest part of the unappropriated public, 
 domain would never pass to private ownership under smaller allotments." 
 
 Local bills are good enough so far as they go, but the whole subject should 
 be treated from a national point of view and a bill passed applicable to all the 
 States having public lands. 
 
 The only opposition to such a beneficent measure will come from some 
 Eastern representatives who have no conception of the land conditions of the 
 West and from the Beef Trust and western range barons who desire to pass 
 a leasing bill which will give them control of the great ranges and shut out 
 all further settlement. 
 
 A land-leasing bill which would take away the sovereignty of each of the 
 public-land States over one-half to three-fourts of their own territory :;ncl 
 make Uncle Sam a great government landlord, with the people as tenants, has 
 been pushed by powerful influences in Congress. It should be entitled "A bill 
 for an act to prevent the settlement of the public-land States." Such a meas- 
 ure would practically include all the unoccupied public lands of the Nation, as 
 they must all now be classified as range lands. 
 
 So far as settling up a State is concerned, land leasing has been the curse of 
 Wyoming and of all the arid States. This State has over 4,000,000 acres of 
 land under various cessions of the General Government. These lauds can not 
 be homesteaded. Under this policy the finest homesteading areas of Wyoming 
 are scenes of desolation so far as human habitations are visible. The Cbug- 
 water Valley, one of the lichest and most favored sections of "Wyoming, for its 
 entire distance of 60 miles is destitute of settlers and to-day has less inhabi- 
 tants than it had 40 years ago. It is owned, leased, and controlled by one 
 company of Scotland people. This company also has leases on immense areas 
 on the Laramie plains. Their holdings to-day would support 20,000 people, 
 citizens and taxpayers, if they were allowed to settle there. This condition 
 holds true of the enormous land leases of Senator Warren near Cheyenne, as 
 well as of the scores of large cattle, companies located in every county in the 
 
 The only principle upon which a laud-leasing bill can be justified in argu- 
 ment is that enunciated by u former secretary of the Wyoming Cattle (iiowers 
 Association, who said, in a press-report interview: "What Wyoming needs 
 is more cattle and less men." . 
 
 This frank statement is no longer advanced, because a study of present condi- 
 tions shows conclusively that a 640-acre homestead grazing bill would not only 
 increase the production of all kinds of livestock a hundredfold, but would settle 
 up all our vacant land with a hardy, intelligent, and enterprising people ; build 
 up cities, towns, and villages; promote the establishment of large industrial 
 enterprises, and become the greatest factor in the rapid development of till* 
 western empire, which has so far made it the marvel of modern civilization. 
 
 Let us not forget that the most splendid civilizations of the ancient woild 
 were founded in desert regions, and that those arid lands had nothing at all 
 compaS to The f varied !nd wonderful resources of our Arn^can semiarid 
 regions, which, in addition to all forms of plant life, have a wealth of nmiei, 1 
 deposits, such as coal, iron, oil, gold, silver, and copper, and other prime factois 
 of modern industrial and commercial development. 
 
320 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Let us not forget that the future arena of our national expansion must be 
 found in the new-land States, and that here will be developed the highest type 
 of American citizenship, and that our legislation should be so shaped that all 
 over this western empire the desert shall be made to rejoice and blossom as the 
 rose and our waste places be made glad with the homes of a progressive, pros- 
 perous, and happy people. 
 
 National Wool Gbowebs' Association, 
 
 Salt Lake City, Utah, March 8, 1914. 
 Mr. Scott Fekbis, Washington, D. 0. 
 
 Dear Sir: I inclose herewith a telegram received from New Mexico Wool 
 Growers' Association, as well as a resolution passed at the last annual con- 
 vention of the National Wool Growers, both bearing on the public-land question. 
 May I ask that they be incorporated in the record as a part of the hearing on 
 the Kent leasing bill? 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 S. W. McClure. 
 
 Albuquerque, N. Mex., March 2, 191Jf. 
 Hon. S. W. McClure, 
 
 Care Pvoie Lands Committee, House of Representatives, 
 
 Washington, D. C: 
 New Mexico unable to send delegate to hearing before Lands Committee to- 
 morrow. Please file protest for New Mexico sheep growers against passage of 
 Kent land-leasing bill. It would be fatal to sheep industry here, forcing out of 
 business over half of our small sheep owners and increase cost meat production. 
 
 New Mexico Wool Growers' Association, 
 By Chas. Chadwick, Secretary. 
 
 Rawlins, Wyo., March 9, 1911\. 
 Hon. F. E. Warren, 
 
 Senator, Washington, D. C: 
 Carbon County woolgrowers, in meeting assembeld to-day, are opposed to 
 leasing of public domain for the reason that their livelihood is at stake. The 
 range now used by the sheep in Carbon and Sweetwater Counties, and a large 
 portion of Fremont and Natrona Counties, is absolutely fit for nothing else, and 
 a large percentage of the public domain can only be used when snow is on the 
 ground. The sheep have to be trailed great distances to the ranges for the 
 various seasons. As you know, we feel that it would be a simple matter to 
 convince a congressional business committee that it is not feasible to lease 
 these ranges and still maintain the business. The increased cost of running 
 sheep on account of forest-reserve fees, compulsory winter feeding, etc., have 
 already made the business one of questionable profit. Letter follows. 
 
 J. H. Clause. L. E. Vivian. 
 
 Wm. Daley. R. H. Hopkins. 
 
 H. Rasmussen. F. A. Hadsell. 
 
 E. M. Tierney. R. H. Middlewood. 
 
 John A. Donnell. Louis Seaverson. 
 
 A. F. Thode. Wm. A. McKay. 
 
 John J. Cullen. J. M. Rumsey. 
 
 Ernest Sundin. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Mr. Chairman, under the permission given me by the 
 committee, I ask to have printed in the hearings extracts from a 
 number of letters relating to this bill. 
 
 The Chairman. Without objection, they will appear at this point. 
 
 (There was no objection, and the communications are as follows:) 
 
DISPOSITION OF GKAZING LANDS. 321 
 
 [Hon. C. B. KeltoD, Courtland, Ariz.] 
 
 I have looked over the proposed bills you have sent me, the 640-acre enlarged 
 homestead and the leasing proposition. I can see danger lurking in both of these 
 propositions to the small stockman. I opposed this leasing system during the 
 last session of the legislature, and I oppose it now. The larger stock raisers of 
 Arizona are anxious to appropriate under lease all the grazing land of the State 
 acquired from the Government under the enabling act. 
 
 [Mr. B. L. McKtaney, Gleeson, Ariz.] 
 
 If there is no limitation placed on the amount of land leased or some protec- 
 tion given the " little man " the " big man " will freeze him out. Take myself 
 as an example. I am both farmer and cattleman; have only about 200 head 
 of cattle and a nice home that I have made myself, nice farm, fine orchard, and a 
 very small pasture; but what good will it be to me when the big outfits lease 
 up all the land around me? I need a little more land for pasture, if there was 
 only some way to get it, and that is all the land is good for that joins me. 
 It is the small owner who will have to settle the country, and they pay more 
 taxes in proportion to their finances than the " big man." The more real homes 
 that we can get established the better will we get our great Arizona advertised 
 and the larger will be our tax roll. 
 
 [Hon. C. M. Roberts, Willcox, Ariz.] 
 
 I read the Kent bill with interest. If we would look back 10 or 20 years we 
 must realize that the passage of such a bill would have greatly retarded the 
 growth of the West. 
 
 While I believe such a measure would be to the interest of the cattlemen who 
 are engaged in business at this time, I think it would be a heavy blow and 
 would greatly hinder the natural growth of our country. And the sentiment 
 here, outside of a few men who see personal gain in it, is almost unanimously 
 against the passage of this bill. 
 
 [C. B. Boyce, Williams, Ariz.] 
 
 I take the liberty to Write you and let you know how the situation stands here 
 in regard to the leasing bill with the stockmen. I have belonged to the cattle 
 association in both Phoenix and Flagstaff; since they organized, and I know 
 the only object in view is to stop homesteaders from settling on this land, and 
 also to get rid of the small stockman. 
 
 Now, there is at least 75 per cent of the stockmen against the leasing bill, 
 and if you will look over the list of men advocating it you will find a great 
 many of them only have a working interest in the stock they represent. 
 
 Now, if the bill is passed and the land is leased in large tracts it will be only 
 a short time until the beef packers of Chicago and Kansas City will have all 
 this country. 
 
 [Mr. Ed Hamilton, Williams, Ariz.] 
 
 The proposed lease law is wrong in every principle 1 , and should it become a 
 law will forever forestall the homesteader, for more than all else, the oppor- 
 tunity for free grazing lands, in conjunction with the farm, has been the one 
 great inducement for settlers to come to the great semiarid West. Take away 
 this opportunity (and the Kent bill takes it away) and you stop the 
 legitimate homesteader forever, and offer a premium for the dummy entryman, 
 who never builds a home or improves a piece of land except enough to 
 acquire title, and then turns said title to his employer and moves on. As 
 to the Kent bill, I find in section 2, page 3, lines 4 to 8, a clause that places all 
 grazing forever beyond the reach of the homesteader and you and I have lived 
 too long in Arizona to ever think that this State can ever prosper and attain 
 the full measure of growth by confining all future settlers to a strict farming 
 basis whilst the great aggregations of capital pasture all public domain to the 
 farmers' very doorsill. 
 
 35074— pt 1—14 21 
 
322 DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 [Mr. C. E. Owens, Snowflake, Ariz.] 
 
 If the bill to regulate grazing becomes a law there will be a good many ol 
 us put out of commission. I for one am opposed to it because it will be a bur- 
 den upon us. This part of the country, in my opinion, could not be redistricted 
 off successfully. I do not think it a good thing for men to be placed here to 
 run it who know nothing about grazing of stock, and who care less. 
 
 [Hon. F. W. Perkins, Flagstaff, Ariz.] 
 
 If the public lands are to be leased and fenced, I don't see how either the 
 cattlemen or sheepmen are to do it to any great extent. The sheepmen can not 
 afford to fence the lands in the south for the time they stay there, and besides 
 they all do not go to the same part of the country every season, and can not on 
 account for the differences in the seasons. While the cattlemen do not have 
 such a distance between summer and winter grazing, yet most of them will 
 find it impracticable to fence. 
 
 [Mr. Ed. Sawyer, Winslow, Ariz.] 
 
 Owing to lambing and shearing season now on', it is impossible for repre- 
 sentative Arizona sheepmen to be present to object in person to Kent lease 
 bill. I ask you to, in our behalf, express objections to same. Its passage 
 will have effect of putting great many sheepmen out of business, as well as 
 small cattle owners, and will work great hardship on stockmen generally. 
 
 [Hon. Albert M. Jones, Seligman, Ariz.] 
 
 As a stbckman who is already established in business, a lease law will not 
 hurt me, except in the way of putting an extra burden of taxation on me, but 
 as to the future development of the country and its settlement by actual set- 
 tlers who expect to make their home here it will practically stop them, except 
 in the irrigated districts. The settlement of the arid sections of our State de- 
 pends to a great extent upon the providing of the use of the public domain as 
 range for stock in connection with dry farming. Under this law a new begin- 
 ner will be practically barred from engaging in the stock business. The only 
 way he can get in is to buy an old permit as now on the forest reserves. The 
 only ones to benefit by this law is the very large stock owner, who will get 
 special privileges', and the patrons of the pap counter, who will get the jobs, 
 and the stockmen direct will pay the bills. 
 
 [Mrs. L. L. Fike, Naco, Ariz.] 
 
 We hope that the Kent bill will be passed. I wish to lease the land that 
 lies between my land and the Mexican line and joining my place on the San 
 Pedro River. This would cover about 10 sections of land. This land is where 
 I now range my cattle, but some years other stockmen turn in their cattle and 
 have caused me great loss by overstocking the range. These cattle which have 
 been thrown on the range have generally been brought across the line and 
 turned loose. 
 
 [B. S. Gosney, Flagstaff, Ariz.] 
 
 The clamor for " lease law " was started by large cattle companies and owners 
 about 12 years ago. Some of the bills they have introduced have been drawn, 
 undoubtedly, for the purpose of enabling such men and companies to control 
 the public ranges. Recent bills have been more reasonable and have combined 
 the range permit with the more flexible per capita element, which is the only 
 method at all practical in the greater part of Arizona. These measures have 
 received the earnest support of many department officials and scientific the- 
 orists, who honestly believe they can apply all their theories in" a practical way, 
 and can, if such a law was passed, protect the home builder, protect the range, 
 and increase its capacity, and prevent the monopoly sought by the big stock 
 companies and individual owners who seek to monopolize these ranges. In my 
 judgment, the bill should provide for a board or council to act with the Secre- 
 tary of Agriculture in important matters, chosen for their known ability, 
 familiarity with western range conditions, men of experience, but not person- 
 ally interested in questions to be decided, and men of unquestioned integrity, 
 courage, and honesty, in its broadest sense. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 323 
 
 [Mr. Charles H. Corey, Flagstaff, Ariz.] 
 
 I wish to protest against the so-called lease law as indorsed by the cattle 
 growers' association of this country. Only those men that are wealthy and 
 control the water in northern Arizona are in favor of the law. In my opinion, 
 it would financially ruin all small stockmen and ranchers. 
 
 [J. Clary, Canille, Ariz.] 
 
 I have read the Fergusson bill very carefully and with great pleasure, as 
 I noted how absolutely perfect and fair it is. It is hard for you or anyone 
 else to fully realize the great blessing to Arizona and the Western States the 
 enactment of that bill into law would be. It gives all a fair chance. Six hun- 
 dred and forty acres is just right; in fact, the bill is absolutely perfect and 
 complete in all respects. I couldn't have done it near so well myself. 
 
 [Mr. M. T. Lavelle, Elgin, Ariz.] 
 
 I have carefully read the Fergusson bill, and approve of it in all respects but 
 that it does not provide for the taking of noncontiguous land. As I have told 
 you before, this gives me and a good many others relief, but restricts at least 
 half of this community to quarter-section claims. The relinquishing of the land 
 to the Government is not sufficient, for in some instances the settlers have 
 erected adobe houses ; many have sunk wells' that have cost as much as $250 ; 
 and while the water supply is limited, it is enough for domestic purposes ; about 
 all have fenced and plowed 20 acres. The fence could be sold, but the house, 
 wells, and plowing would be lost. I hope that this bill will be amended so it will 
 provide for the leasing of noncontiguous land and still protect the land lying 
 adjacent to a claim. 
 
 [O. J. Rothrock, Elgin, Ariz.] 
 
 The citizens of this part of Arizona are much pleased that they can takii 
 the enlarged homestead. Now, we would like to see a little change made 
 allowing those that can not get land adjacent to theirs to give them the privi- 
 lege to get a piece somewhere else, say within 10 miles of the original. home- 
 stead. This is not an agricultural country, and we must raise some stock if 
 we want to live here. If we can't grow stock, we will have to leave the country 
 to make a living. Since we have our all invested here, we want to make a 
 success and help to build up this part of the State. 
 
 [Mr. Chas. Green, Elgin, Ariz.] 
 
 In writing your honorable body I do so at request of 10 or 12 citizens as 
 well as myself, and could send you a hundred names, if necessary, that we hope 
 you can see you way to aid Congressman Fergusson, of New Mexico, in passing 
 grazing land homestead bill. It will be a great benefit to this State, particu* 
 larly so to this vicinity, as there is a large portion that can not be cultivated. 
 
 [Miss Ethel Harrison, Elgin, Ariz.] 
 
 There are in this vicinity about 300 homesteaders who would be greatly 
 benefited by the passage of the bill by Congressman Fergusson, of New Mexico. 
 The average homesteader has not at command sufficient means to bring to the 
 highest development a claim in these arid regions without the combination of 
 live-stock farming. For this a greater acreage is necessary. Hence, while the 
 homesteader is bringing an orchard into profitable bearing, necessitating some 
 years, or getting a claim to the most productive stage of cultivation, some live 
 stock increase for the market would immeasurably aid him or her. 
 
 Then, a second reason is that not only would such a law benefit locally* 
 but other sections of the United States as well, since all the waste, rough* 
 isolated tracts would be utilized that, after the ranges have been cut up, are 
 neither useful to the Government, cattleman, or homesteader. From this we 
 could deduce that it would enhance the development of the country. 
 
 A third reason can be given that the day of the big, open range is past and 
 cattle and hogs must be raised for our meat supply within confined limits. 
 
824 DISPOSITION OF GEAZING LANDS. 
 
 [Mr. B. K. Wilson, Canille, Ariz.] 
 
 No bill In my memory promises so much for Arizona farmers and cattle 
 growers as H. R. 9582. It offers a square deal to every home owner upon the 
 public lands. I fear faults of administration of H. R. 10539 would almost 
 destroy the small cattleman. 
 
 [Mr. J. W. McDonald, Elgin, Ariz.] 
 
 The bill to provide for stock-raising homestead is just what we need in this 
 district; but it has one or two bud provisions. The worst is where it was 
 changed from the original bill which gave the locater the right to file additional 
 flling within 10 miles of his original location. This does not affect my case, but 
 it affects many in this vicinity. The most of us have been in here two years, 
 and some have made extensive improvements — myself, for instance. I have put 
 at least 52,500 permanent improvements on my quarter section, and it would 
 be impossible for me to relinquish same and take up a section somewhere else 
 without a great loss to me. So it is with some others who can not stand the 
 loss of moving and, consequently, can not get any more land. 
 
 Stock raising is, in my opinion, the only road to success in this section of the 
 country ; and I speak from experience, having tried farming two years and 
 seeing others. There is not one dry farmer in this district who has made half 
 his expenses in the last two years. I have been trying to get the most in this 
 neighborhood to take to stock, but they have not enough land to pasture any 
 stock, and don't know how to work range stock; so what they need is more 
 land that they can fence and pasture. 
 
 The bill introduced by Mr. Kent is bad in many ways. It will not only be 
 bad for the small stockman who has stock, but will be a bar to others who 
 might become stock farmers. There are lots of us who are not able to lease 
 and fence a pasture at the present time; and to allow those who can lease to 
 lease all the grazing land around us would surely prevent us from ever getting 
 a start, as the most of us are men of small capital, who are here to try and 
 make a home for ourselves and family. 
 
 A careful study of the lease law convinces me that its adoption would give 
 the big stockman a tighter grip on the land that has already feathered his nest. 
 
 [E. II. Matney, Ponrce, Ariz.] 
 
 I think that the general idea and plans, as outlined by Mr. Jones, are all 
 right, and I would especially recommend that those who have entered land 
 previous — and I know of a large number of good settlers who have proved up, 
 and some of them have patents to their lands — should be placed on an equal 
 footing with those who make their entries later, and should be conditioned on 
 their residence on their homesteads. With reference to those who have filed 
 In forest reserves before the enlarged-homestead act was applied to this land, 
 should be allowed to enter the same amount of land as those outside the reserve. 
 It looks as though it would be fair to me and to those who are situated as I 
 am to permit us to enter adjoining land, or, if all the land has been taken up 
 around us, to allow us to enter land in the same township or adjoining town- 
 ship. That would place ns on equal footing with our neighbors and save us the 
 loss of years of hard work and hardships. 
 
 There is another class of settlers here, and that is those who have ex- 
 hausted their homestead rights in Oklahoma and other States, who have filed 
 on desert claims, and, on account of great depth to water, it is impossible for 
 them to make satisfactory proof and obtain a title. They should not be for- 
 gotten. 
 
 [Mr. J. C. Bobbins, Tempe, Ariz.] 
 
 I am in the cattle business in the eastern part of Maricopa County. I am 
 thoroughly convinced that this will be a great thing for the stock interests of 
 the State of Arizona, and can assure you that every cattleman and especially 
 the small men, need this protection. 
 
 [Mr. Fen S. Hlldretb., Phoenix, Ariz.] 
 
 I have gone over the Kent bill and I think it is an excellent measure, and the 
 only thing I could suggest as a change thereto would be the minimum charge 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 325; 
 
 of one-half cent per acre. There is a great lot of lands in Arizona of which it 
 would take more than 100 acres to take care of one cow, and upon this basis 
 it would be pretty expensive for the little cattleman. If the minimum charge 
 was eliminated, I believe the measure should receive the consideration of 
 Congress. There has also been introduced House bill 6637, which proposes to 
 provide for a grazing homestead of not less than 640 and not to exceed 1,280 
 acres in area. This bill, as I understand, is to provide for the entry of land 
 suitable only for grazing, and there is also a bill to allow the purchasing of 
 10 sections at not less than $1.25 per acre and which, as I understand, reserves, 
 the mineral to the Government. Either bill would be good and they could he 
 used in conjunction; for instance, if a party having a lease of five or six 
 townships desired to avail himself of the 640-acre homestead law and then at 
 the same time buy for cash 10 sections, it would not hurt him. On the other 
 hand, if the small holder came in, it would allow him the rigfht to lease lands, 
 to take an entry of 640 acres, buy 10 sections at $1.25 per acre, and have a 
 number of years to pay for same at 3 per cent interest ; this would protect the 
 small holder I believe ; this measure should have your consideration ; it is the 
 small man that needs protection more than the large one and, should the lease 
 law go into effect, it might have a tendency to keep out the small man, while 
 under the 640-acre homestead law, with the right to purchase 10 sections, the 
 small man would be helped, and I believe the small holder is the one we should 
 look after. 
 
 [J. W. MuriCtas, Wdckenburg, Ariz.] 
 
 The woolgrowers from the northern part of our State and from New Mexico 
 have almost ruined our part of the State. We have thousands and thousands 
 of sheep now here from the northern part of the State and New Mexico taking 
 the right of using the whole State. I have no ill will against the sheepmen, 
 but there should be a law to have stockmen to establish a range and made to 
 stay on it. The. sheepmen with their flocks are here fall and winter and spring. 
 Grass in Arizona only grows once a year, and should be protected during that 
 period, and you well know how sheep protect the growth of grass. 
 
 [Mr. F. P. Moore, Courtland, Ariz.] 
 
 I read very carefully the grazing homestead bills, and I do not believe that 
 there is any one section in this country that could support a family, or even 
 half support one person. Both bills are good and may work in some States, 
 but I do not believe they would do us any good ; only where there is open range, 
 and one could fence the section for reserve purposes and pasture for saddle 
 horses. Mr. Kent's bill seems to fit the situation better than anything I have 
 read. He seems to realize the condition and needs of this western country, 
 and if his bill was passed into law the stockmen's prayers of many years would 
 be answered. -I have lived in Arizona since 1875, and have been a property 
 owner for more than 25 years, and I truly say that I have the best interestB 
 of this State at heart. 
 
 [J. D. Carter, Phoenix, Ariz.] 
 
 I am not over strong for " Federal regulation of grazing on the public do- 
 main." The term " regulation " implies a lot of rules to be complied with and 
 a lot of policemen to see that they are enforced at a cost entirely out of pro- 
 portion to the benefits. To be more definite about it, I think it would cost about 
 $150,000 per year to carry out the so-termed " regulation " of grazing in Arizona, 
 and the stockmen would not be benefited by the " regulation " at all. What 
 they need is a lease law, just a simple lease without any restrictions except 
 such as are necessary to prevent too large an area falling into the hands of 
 one outfit. There is no more sense in telling a man how he shall pasture on his 
 leased land than there could be in telling a farmer how many horses, cattle, 
 pigs etc he shall have on his farm. If the cattle grazer knows definitely that 
 he has just so much land to graze, that he is safe from encroachment, that he 
 can not acquire more land, and that he can not encroach on his neighbor with- 
 out a lawsuit, he will preserve what he has and endeavor to make it more 
 productive without any rules or regulations, or any policeman to stand over 
 him and tell him what not to do. The only thing I would be careful about 
 is to guard against monopoly, while seeing that the term of lease is long enough 
 to encourage improvements. For example, I do not think 10 years is long 
 
326 DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 enough to warrant any man in fencing and developing water in Arizona range 
 land. The term should not be less than 20 years. Do you know of any Arizona 
 range land that you would be willing to fence and water on a 10-year lease? 
 I don't. But 20 years would be different. It would take nearly the first 10 
 years to bring the feed up to a point where the fencing would seem justified. 
 Now, just a thought about monopoly. One outfit in Arizona is grazing, ac- 
 cording to their own estimate, 50,000 head of cattle. I believe, and think that 
 you agree with me, that this requires on the average at least 30 acres per 
 animal, or 1,500,000 acres. Nobody is entitled to make use of that many acres 
 of the public domain. And still some of our eastern men, not living in a public- 
 land State, so jealous to guard the public domain from those who actually live 
 upon it, are permitting this monopoly, while, I suppose, they think a half a 
 township or a township would be a large area to lease some poor devil trying 
 to support a family. 
 
 [James Petersen, Pinedale, Ariz.] 
 
 We wish to suggest that amendments to the bill leasing the public domain 
 be made as follows : 
 
 First. That no one person can lease more than a quarter township, or 9 square 
 miles, or, If allowed to lease more, that it only be leased for one year at a time, 
 and always give the small applicant the preference. This would give home- 
 steaders who wished to settle upon such leased tracts the chance to lease near 
 homesteads, if they so desired, and would be a great inducement to settlers. 
 
 Second. That the Government furnish the wire to fence leased lands. This 
 would put the poor man on an equal with the rich man and would leave the 
 Government free from any obligations on account of persons or companies 
 owning fences on public grazing lands. 
 
 [Executive committee, Navajo-Apache Cattle Growers' Association.] 
 
 Wishes of Navajo and Apache Cattle Growers' Association that you support 
 Kent bill, H. E. 10539. 
 
 [Mr. W. O. Tuttle, Port Thomas, Ariz.] 
 
 I am in favor of the leasing bill now pending in Congress in all of its details, 
 known as the Kent bill, and I want to say to you that practically all the people, 
 »nd especially all of the cattlemen in our part of the country, which is In the 
 vicinity of the Globe, are in favor of this bill, or some similar bill, devising 
 ways and means of leasing the public domain. 
 
 [Mr. Prank Pogal, Tempe, Ariz.] 
 
 I am in the cattle business in the western part of Yavapai County. I am 
 thoroughly convinced that the Kent bill will be a great thing to the stock 
 Interests of the State of Arizona, and can assure you that every cattleman, and 
 especially small men, need this protection. 
 
 [Mr. M. B. Perkins, Puntenney, Ariz.] 
 
 I find that most all of the cattlemen are very much in favor of the lease 
 tew. We want some way of controlling the open ranges so that the cattle busi- 
 ness will be on a safer basis for the cattle industry. 
 
 [Mr. Ralph Murphy, Phoenix, Ariz.] 
 
 I am interested in the bill now pending before the House of Representa- 
 tives relating to the handling of the public grazing range, with a view to con- 
 serving these ranges and making them carry the maximum amount of stock. 
 The House bill is now, I understand, before the Public Lands Committee, and 
 I would consider it a personal favor if you would do whatever you can to aid 
 the passage of this bill. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 327 
 
 [Mr. J. C. Hancock, Paradise, Ariz.] 
 
 I have lived in Arizona for 34 years, and was engaged in the cattle business 
 for a considerable portion of this time, although at present I am interested 
 in stock only to a slight extent; yet I still have the welfare of the cattle 
 industry at heart and take the liberty of addressing a few remarks to you 
 on the subject under discussion, which I understand will come up for consid- 
 eration in Congress on March 3. 
 
 While from time to time expressions from the stockmen favoring a lease law 
 have been heard, I doubt very much that it is generally realized how anxious 
 the large majority of them is to receive protection for their industry that will 
 result from regulated grazing on public lands. Ever since the early measures 
 for the inauguration of some sort of range control were under consideration 
 stockmen in this section have been interested in securing passage of some bill 
 regulating grazing on the public domain. Time and again have I heard re- 
 marks like this : " What is the latest about the lease law? " " Do you think 
 such and such a bill stands any chance of passing? " " Lease law is the only 
 salvation of the cattlemen." " I do not like this or that about the bill, but it 
 sure beats no bill at all," etc. 
 
 Very rarely have I heard unfavorable remarks; in fact, I do not recall any, 
 and feel safe in saying that fully nine-tenths of the stockmen in this region, 
 and perhaps a much larger percentage, are very strongly in favor of regu- 
 lated grazing on the public lands. 
 
 There is a universal cry in the United States about the shortage of beef at 
 present. I firmly believe that with a system of range control the production 
 of beef in Arizona, though already very considerable, would increase one- 
 fourth to one-third, perhaps more. 
 
 So far as fears of the small stockmen as to injury to their interests are con- 
 cerned, it seems to me they are unwarranted, because as a matter of fact, these 
 men will be the principal gainers, and the difficulties resulting from trailing 
 sheep over cattle ranges could be adjusted without trouble. The Forest Serv- 
 ice had precisely the same problem some years ago, which was handled by 
 the establishment of driveways for sheep through areas not regularly occupied 
 by this class of stock. 
 
 While it may be unsafe to place much reliance in figures, a fair idea as to 
 the increase in cattle production which may be expected can be gained from 
 the grazing records of the Chiricahua National Forest, in which I reside. 
 
 The grazing conditions here before creation of the forest were practically 
 the same as those on the public domain. In 1908 on this forest there was a 
 total of 6,864 head of cattle and horses under permit. For the present season 
 this figure is 11,107 head. These statistics were furnished me through courtesy 
 of the local supervisor. 
 
 While it is possible that to some extent the low figure for 1908 results from 
 the fact that grazing fees were not paid on all stock which used forest 
 range, the increase principally resulted from improved range conditions, partly 
 because the range under regulated grazing carries more stock acre for acre, 
 and partly because areas which were little or not at all used in the past are 
 now fully occupied by cattle, because water for them could be provided. 
 
 Precisely the same may reasonably be looked for on the public domain. 
 Vast areas of excellent grass land have been ruined through the presence of 
 excessive numbers of stock, and this destruction continues and perhaps in- 
 creases from year to year. 
 
 A great loss results annually from the fact that in this county alone thou- 
 sands upon thousands of acres are practically unutilized, because water is 
 lacking or the range is such that cattle can not be easily controlled thereon. 
 No one dares to construct wells or stock tanks, because it would be an induce- 
 ment for somebody to jump the land and claim it as a homestead. If badly 
 needed drift fences to properly control the cattle are constructed, trespass pro- 
 ceedings by the Land Office are promptly instituted. As a result the range 
 goes to waste each year without benefitting anybody. This very unsatisfactory 
 condition on the national forests was relieved when the range was placed under 
 control. Stockmen then were permitted and encouraged, as far as practicable, 
 to construct whatever improvements they needed for the proper handling of 
 their cattle, and this work in increasing at a constantly and rapidly growing 
 ratio. The supervisor of this forest informs me that on the area under his 
 
328 
 
 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 control the construction of improvements used in connection with stock running 
 increased over 100 per cent in three years. From 1910 to 1913 the figures are 
 as follows: 
 
 
 1910 
 
 1913 
 
 • 
 
 Num- 
 ber. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Miles. 
 
 Num- 
 ber. 
 
 Acres. 
 
 Miles. 
 
 
 16 
 5 
 8 
 
 22 
 1 
 1 
 6 
 
 5,525 
 5 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 4.5 
 
 32.50 
 1.75 
 
 37 
 16 
 12 
 52 
 6 
 5 
 7 
 
 10,302 
 34 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 105.00 
 
 
 3.35 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 59 
 
 
 
 135 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Lack of water in this region is the greatest drawback to the cattle industry. 
 It should be remembered that in practically every case each watering tank 
 or stock trough opened a certain area which was not hitherto accessible to stock. 
 The number of cattle benefitted may vary from a few head to a hundred and 
 often more. All these improvements are located on nRtional forest land. Prior 
 to their construction the stockmen usually had a permanent watermg place 
 at their headquarters and depended on whatever natural water might be avail- 
 able on their range, which was usually insufficient. It would have been folly 
 to attempt to develop water on public land, which often involved a considerable 
 outlay, for reasons already mentioned. 
 
 The Chiricahua forest contains a little less than half a million acres, which 
 is by no means all grazing land. It is not at all unreasonable to assume that 
 improvements for increasing the carrying capacity of the range and the better 
 handling of stock will be constructed on a similar scale on public lands, and it 
 stands to reason that the output of beef will increase correspondingly* 
 
 With the exception of mining, stock raising has been, is, and will be for many 
 years to come the dominant industry of this region, and no other single factor 
 could be of greater benefit to the stockmen than the enactment of an efficient 
 law of range control. While the law now under consideration may not be 
 perfect in all details, it will go a long ways toward improving the present un- 
 satisfactory conditions, and if actual practice shows that parts of it should be 
 revised, no doubt this can and will be done. 
 
 J. C. Hancock. 
 
 Benson, Abiz., February 25, 191-$. 
 Hon. Carl Hayden, 
 
 Washington, D. G. 
 Deab Sib: We have received the two bills, known as H. R. 10539 and H. R. 
 9582, and in reference to them will say that we are opposed to the passage of the 
 bill known as H. R. 10539, for the reason that it will force the grower of small 
 stock out of business and keep men without much means, who would be suc- 
 cessful growers, from embarking in such an enterprise. 
 
 Poor men or men of small means can not afford to lease and fence enough 
 land in this arid country to support enough stock to keep a family. 
 
 The large stockman is able to do so, and is anxious to have the bill passed in 
 order that the small stockman will be forced off the range. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 J. R. Barney. 
 James R. Hiebeb. 
 Thomas Gabdneb 
 
 (And 34 others). 
 
 Williams, Ariz., February 28, 1914- 
 to the Public Lands Committee, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Deab Sibs : I beg to submit herewith a few facts relative to the status and 
 general merits of H. R. 10539 by the Hon. Mr. Kent, of California, being a 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 329 
 
 grazing bill, and H. R. 9582, a homestead bill. Having been a citizen of Arizona 
 for the last 40 years, and having been a pioneer in agricultural work, grazing, 
 and mining, and now being engaged in dry farming and ranging live stock — 
 having trailed live stock from California, Utah, and New Mexico into Arizona, 
 I profess to some knowledge of the matter at hand. 
 
 CONSERVATION OF PUBLfC UTILITIES. 
 
 Conservation of such utilities, including men and families and the public 
 wealth, without partiality or discrimination should be the chief aim of every 
 good citizen. There is no ability on the part of this Government to promote 
 a business and attend to the details in an economical manner, and in a grazing 
 scheme to protect itself and the public, as it is supposed to serve the actual 
 home builder upon its reserved domain. 
 
 There are about 350,000,000 acres of untimbered land included in the United 
 States forest reserves, and all requiring about 735,000 employees at a cost to 
 the Government of about $1,000 per annum for each employee, amounting to 
 the enormous sum of $735,000,000 per annum. To this add about $300,000,000 
 for other expenses and you have a grand total of over $1,000,000,000 expense 
 per annum. 
 
 The receipts from timber sales and all other sources, according to Chief 
 Forester Graves, amounts to about $250,000,000. Deducting this, we have 
 about $750,000,000 as a net balance of expenses. 
 
 With the elimination of this untimbered land and the organization of an 
 efficient fire service to serve six weeks during the fire liability in June and 
 July, in Arizona, the forests can be protected for less than 5 per cent of the 
 present cost. So, to characterize the present system as graft and " pork barrel " 
 is putting it too mild. One-half of the aforesaid sum goes to supervise and 
 control the 350,000,000 acres of untimbered grazing, farming land embraced in 
 the reserves, which in Arizona is not worth to exceed $2 per acre, assessed for 
 local taxation at 75 cents per acre. So that the Government expense for carry- 
 ing this class of land under this loose system amounts to more than twice its 
 actual value each year, and it has cost the Government the enormous sum of 
 $14,000,000,000 for such expense during the 14 years of the life of the service. 
 
 During this period the ranges have been overstocked and the vegetation 
 tfamped out and the surface of the land packed hard, until 90 per cent of all. 
 precipitation floods away, rendering the soil not 25 per cent efficient. There 
 are now 75 per cent more animals grazing upon the forest reserves in northern 
 Arizona than will subsist at a profit. The tax roll tells the whole secret in 
 comparison to the same 10 years ago. The contention of the Forest Service 
 that their wise, judicious,, paper management has worked miracles is an un- 
 mitigated falsehood ; that grazing has been restricted and beneficially controlled 
 is also just as glaringly untrue, when, in fact, large cattle and sheep companies 
 were given long-time leases to graze both winter and summer, unrestricted as 
 to time or locality of grazing during rains and during freezing and thawing 
 periods, thereby packing the surface of the land to cause practically all of the 
 water to flow off to the districts below, leaving a barren, unproductive surface- 
 damaging the forest growth in Arizona to at least $10,000,000 per annum. 
 
 The forest reserves of Arizona embrace practically all of the productive graz- 
 ing and best dry-farming lands in the State. The rainfall and snow makes 
 from 15 to 25 inches of water, while at Yuma, Ariz., and all of west and south- 
 west Arizona's precipitation amounts to from 1J to 4 inches during the season, 
 and practically no moisture at all during drought periods, which occur about 
 two years in five. 
 
 FOREST LAW, BOTH LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL. 
 
 The law creating forests delegated authority to both legislate and judge its 
 own acts and is its own court of last resort. Public moneys are received and 
 collected for various matters, timber sales, grazing, and from appropriations 
 from Congress. The service acts without bond ;. money is spent indiscriminately 
 as to general beneficial results, for roads and trails and drift fences of vague 
 and questionable value and of very little service to the community. Home- 
 steaders and actual settlers are subject to all manner of harrassment and dis- 
 couraging red tape methods, which hinder and delay, and are prevented from 
 locating lands which have any water, or have a prospect of getting water. 
 
330 DISPOSITION OF GBAZING LANDS. 
 
 Water which is located by settlers, which would flow to the outside of the 
 reserve, is diverted away and into sumps and reservoirs claimed by the 
 Government contrary to local laws governing water and water rights. Home- 
 steaders are prevented from grazing their few domestic stock upon the reserve, 
 and in more than one instance such stock has been driven from the reserve, 
 or the owner compelled to feed hay at $25 to $40 per ton. 
 
 Neither has provision been made for new beginners, or any room made for 
 the youth who is expecting a share in the opportunities afforded on the front, 
 i!S in all other countries, and some foreign countries, such as Canada, Australia, 
 New Zealand, etc. However, large herds of both cattle and sheep have had 
 long-time leases controlling hundreds of thousands of acres. The herds have 
 increased continually for all these years. 
 
 It requires 10,000 acres of our desert land to sustain an animal 12 months. 
 The cactus, Giatta grass, and oak brush constitutes the principal growth, in 
 consequence the live stock is never prepared for the shambles. 
 
 CATTLE AND GRAZING TEES. 
 
 Great discrimination in favor of the cattle interests. A grazing fee of 20 
 cents per head is exacted as against 7i cents pet head for the same period for 
 sheep. Now, considering in grazing capacity that one cow is equivalent to 
 eight sheep, it readily appears the cow pays only one-third the price charged on 
 sheep. In addition to this, the cattle are allowed to be turned loose on the 
 border of the reserve to drift onto the reserve with no account taken of them, 
 there being 2,000 miles of forest border in Arizona, which accounts for the. 
 present overstocking, and also accounts for the ready indorsement of the 
 forest service by the cow fraternity : " It pays." 
 
 A DOCTOBED PRINTING PRESS. 
 
 It is a lamentable fact that the public has to depend on private-owned 
 printing presses. Designing schemers, through the hired press, have brought 
 about very largely the present condition named herein. These great reforms in 
 conservation exist only on paper. Chief Forester Graves and Assistant Potter 
 have launched, at regular intervals, laborious articles enumerating the wonder- 
 ful benefits accruing to the people through their wise, judicious management 
 of these public resources. The Government itself is a mere myth in the hands 
 of people bidding for a prolongation of high salaries. Printing matter is cheap 
 when Uncle Sam pays for the music, and such as Clerk Potter, having failed in 
 conducting both cow and sheep ranches in Arizona in its palmy days, now is a 
 success in managing the Government, being perfectly safe from liability — as 
 clerks never go broke. 
 
 RAILROAD-GRANT LANDS. 
 
 Any grazing bill or reserve of public lands, which does not consider the 
 homesteader and his equitable rights in land. and grazing, should receive no 
 consideration. Any grazing bill or reserve which is so broad as to include 
 railroad-grant lands to be included in its provision, should be a source of 
 alarm to New Mexico, Arizona, and Southern California, as the Santa Fe owns 
 the alternate sections in Northern Arizona, 80 miles wide and 400 miles long, 
 or practically 10,000,000 acres, which, included in a Government reserve, 
 places these land-grant owners in a position to dictate terms to the Government 
 to gain control. This feat is accomplished by demanding and getting lien-land 
 scrip for 25-cent grazing land. 
 
 MAP OF ARIZONA. 
 
 The map of Arizona readily tenches that about nine-tenths of the lands of any 
 value are in some form of a reserve, either Indian, power site, forest grazing, 
 or in a railroad grant, until the land-office record of land filings shows a falling 
 off of 50 per cent in the last year. The entries from February 22, 1912, to 
 February 22, 1913, were 4,613, and from February 22, 1913, to February 22, 
 1914, 3,050. The State being interested in making selection of about 600,000 
 acres is forced to select desert, unwatered, and undesirable lands to satisfy her 
 claims. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 331 
 
 840-ACEE HOMESTEAD LAW. 
 
 With grazing privileges, both on and off the Forest Reserves, with a law 
 eliminating from the reserve all lands which do not carry timber capable of 
 making 100,000 feet of lumber to the quarter section, should be at once enacted, 
 and the land classified by a competent expert appointed by the Secretary of the 
 Interior, assisted by an appointee of the local land office. 
 
 BULL MOOSE POLITICAL ORGANIZATION. 
 
 The Forest Service, with its 735,000 employees, had its inception in political 
 intrigue, headed by one Pinchot, and organized into a political machine (but 
 failed to elect a Bull Moose president), and reared upon Eastern public pre- 
 judice, having been fanned into life by yellow journalism until at this moment 
 all the leading daily papers, as far as my experience goes, are having regular 
 pay from the Government for refusing to publish anything to the detriment of, 
 or contrary to the perpetuation of, this system. This is not all. The favored 
 few who are permitees in this game of grab, as might be expected, are loud in 
 their praise of the good fellows in the service. 
 
 GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATION AMOUNTS TO A FARCE. 
 
 It has been the practice of the Government under past administrations to 
 send out investigators of the service, who, when arriving here, were hob- 
 nobbed and wined and dined by the service and these favored permitees; con- 
 sequently the investigations amounted to nothing more nor less than a howling 
 farce. 
 
 J. F. Dagos. 
 
 Williams, Ariz, March 3, 191k- 
 To the Public Lands Committee, Washington, D. G. 
 
 Dear Sir : As a supplement to the petition submitted to your honorable body 
 recently, I wish to further - call your attention to several resolutions drawn up 
 by the Conservation Congress, composed of the governors of the Western 
 States, representing from 10 to 20 States, having convened in Salt Lake City 
 August 19, 1913 : 
 
 "Art. 3. That experience demonstrates that the disposition of the public prop- 
 erty made under existing national conservation laws and regulations have 
 tended to intrench monopolies and interests, menacing the common welfare; 
 that modification of such laws and regulations should be promoted by the Con- 
 servation Congress. 
 
 "Art. 4. That the elimination from the national forest reserves of all home- 
 stead and untimbered grazing lands is immediately expedient. 
 
 "Art. 7. That the idea of deriving Federal revenue from the physical re- 
 sources of the State is repugnant to that adjustment of constitutional powers 
 which guarantees the perpetuity of the Union." 
 
 These declarations come from the highest authority in our Western States — 
 from men high in the esteem of their fellows— men who are in close touch and 
 in thorough sympathy with the most progressive interests of the Common- 
 wealth, and as you can readily see are in no good humor at the treatment 
 accorded by our National Government regarding our western resources, 
 with kindest regards, I remain, yours, most obediently, 
 
 J. F. Daggs. 
 
 The Chairman. Unless there is objection the committee will stand 
 in recess until next Tuesday at 10 o'clock a. m. 
 
 (Thereupon, at 6 o'clock p. m., the committee took a recess until 
 the time named.) , 
 
332 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Committee on the Public Lands, 
 
 House of Representatives, 
 
 Tuesday, March 10, 1914. 
 
 The committee was called to order at 10.15 a. m., Hon. Scott Ferris 
 (chairman) presiding. 
 
 The Chairman. We will resume hearings on the bills that have 
 heretofore been pending, and more particularly now the Fergusson 
 bill (H. E. 9582), and, Mr. Fergusson, will you present your wit- 
 nesses and such records and such data as you desire to submit in 
 support of your measure? 
 
 Mr. Kent. I would like to ask Mr. Fergusson if this bilL intro- 
 duced by him, is the same as that, or practically the same, of Secre- 
 tary Jones ? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. There is practically no conflict between the Jones 
 bill and mine, and I am willing to leave it to the committee as to 
 which one they will adopt after the hearing is over. They only 
 differ as to details, not in the general principle. 
 
 The Chairman. The report on your bill has already been incor- 
 porated in the hearing when you made your opening statement at 
 the beginning of the hearing. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Before introducing such of the documentary evi- 
 dence that I have and as the committee will permit to be placed in 
 the record I desire to make a statement in view of the hearing al- 
 ready had on Mr. Kent's bill, it being understood by the committee 
 that this is a hearing on the two bills jointly, because it is up to the 
 committee to decide whether they will adopt the plan for handling 
 the remainder of the semiarid public domain of the United States 
 under the leasing system, as proposed in Mr. Kent's bill, or whether 
 they will adopt the plans outlined in the bill introduced by me, the 
 same plan being also adopted by the Department of the Interior as 
 embodied in the substitute bill proposed in the report from the 
 Department of the Interior — that suggested by the Department of 
 the Interior being identical on general principle and differing only 
 in minor details, which, of course, the committee can itself ad]ust. 
 
 Before going further, I see that Judge Kinkaid, of Nebraska, has 
 stepped into the room, at our request, and inasmuch as reference 
 has been had in the hearings so far to the operation of what is 
 known as the Kinkaid Act, which is the law applicable only to the 
 State represented by Judge Kinkaid — the State of Nebraska — I think 
 for his convenience and, perhaps, in view of the importance of the 
 question as brought out in the hearings so far, that I will defer any 
 further remarks until Judge Kinkaid can make a statement; and fol- 
 lowing that, I have been requested by a gentleman representing the 
 Central Pacific Railroad Co., who has been attending the hearings on 
 the Kent bill, that he be allowed to make one or two suggestions rela- 
 tive to the operation of this bill in connection with that part of the 
 country in question which may bear some relation to the Central 
 Pacific Railroad Co., and then I will briefly conclude my statement 
 and submit such documentary evidence as the committee will permit. 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Will the gentleman allow me a suggestion? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Certainly, Judge. 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. I am not informed yet just what the testimony or 
 statements were that I am expected to express myself with regard to 
 
DISPOSITION OF. GRAZING LANDS. 333 
 
 relative to the operation of the one-section act in Nebraska. Now, 
 it is not important to me that I appear right now. I can do so at any- 
 time convenient to Judge Fergusson, who can go ahead with his state- 
 ment That would suit me, and I could inform myself. I would like 
 to read what the statements are. I would like to know what has 
 been said in reference to this matter at these hearings. 
 
 Mr. Fergttsson. What the committee desires now, just at the 
 beginni n g of the hearing on my bill, is whether your bill has been a 
 success in its operation. 
 
 Mr. Kent. May I interrupt Mr. Fergusson a moment? I want it 
 specifically understood by the committee, and I want it to go in the 
 hearings, that in my opinion, as I said at the beginning, these two 
 bills are not necessarily antagonistic, in my view of the matter. 
 Charges of bad faith have been made against me. I have stood all 
 along for turning over every part of the agricultural section that 
 may be best devoted to agriculture, to agricultural uses. Where the 
 country is 99 per cent grazing country I believe it should be used for 
 grazing. I have always stood for a classification of the land, and 
 these measures are not antagonistic. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson You are arguing on your bill. I deny these bills 
 are similar. They are antagonistic. 
 
 Mr. Kent. I simply desired to state my views. Mr. Fergusson 
 may have a different view, as to whether "they are antagonistic. I 
 said in my view they are not antagonistic, and I do not desire to 
 have them antagonistic, and if we can have a classification of lands 
 I should like to have the lands classified so these bills could supple- 
 ment each other rather than interfere with each other. 
 
 The Chairman. You may proceed, Mr. Fergusson. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I would prefer, Judge Kinkaid, that the com- 
 mittee hear from you. Several statements were made, in behalf of 
 the big leasing bill, to the effect that your bill was a failure ; it was 
 criticised, and we would like to know what is the fact about that 
 now. We might want you later as to the questions of great public 
 policy. But if you will make that statement now, I think it is the 
 wish of the committee that you do so. 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. If it is the wish of the chairman and the committee, 
 I will try to accommodate you. 
 
 The Chairman. We should be very happy to hear from you, 
 Judge. The question is before us. I do not know how familiar you 
 are with the proceedings here, but some time ago the committee for- 
 mally set down for hearings two bills, one by Mr. Kent, which in- 
 volves a leasing of the remaining public lands, and one by Mr. Fer- 
 gusson which involves and provides for a grazing homestead of 640 
 acres, and the committee really has before it the proposition, which 
 of those two plans are preferable, or the question, can the two be 
 harmonized pursuant to classification, so that the agricultural land, 
 with agricultural possibilities, may be used for agricultural purposes 
 and the land which, from its topography and dry arid conditions, 
 can not be used for anything other than grazing, and knowing you 
 had been the author of the only 640-acre homestead bill that has been 
 so far in vogue, it was the thought of Judge Fergusson. and I may 
 add the wish of the committee, that you tell us how the 640-acre 
 homestead worked when it was passed and give us some history of 
 the way it is working out there. 
 
334 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Brown. Might 1 quote from memory a very distinct state- 
 ment made and left by various witnesses with regard to the operation 
 of the Kinkaid act in the State of Nebraska for the benefit of the 
 judge. My recollection is that various witnesses stated that between 
 50 and 90 per cent of all entries made under the Kinkaid Act in 
 Nebraska fell into the hands of the grazing people through the op- 
 eration of an economical law. In other words, that they could not 
 make good on those 640 acres, and they sold to anyone who would 
 buy and the only man who would buy was the man having sheep and 
 cattle and used "the land for stock purposes. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. MOSES P. KINKAID, A REPRESENTATIVE 
 IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA. 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
 am not informed upon this matter as a statistician. It would take 
 a great deal of work for one to inform himself accurately upon the 
 subject, but, broadsides, based upon just hearsay and personal ob- 
 servation, I can make a brief statement. I have been in Washington 
 most of the time since the new administration commenced, and for 
 some time before that. 
 
 Mr. French. You have been away most of the time since patents 
 were issued to those lands ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. No ; not so bad as that. The length of sessions, we 
 all know, has been increasing. We are here more than we were for- 
 merly. Much of what I say here must be based on hearsay on this 
 subject. Of course I have correspondence with homesteaders all the 
 time and meet them when I go over the district. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. I do not want to interrupt the continuity of your 
 statement, but do you know roughly how many acres have gone to 
 patent under this act? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. No, I do not ; but there were 9,000,000 acres shown 
 to be subject to entry on the records here in Washington when the 
 act took effect — a little over 9,000,000 acres — and I estimated there 
 was enough more canceled to aggregate 11,000,000 acres. Prob- 
 ably not over 600,000 acres remain subject to entry. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. Let me ask you: Has your act been a success in 
 settling up your State in this semiarid region ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Taking the judgment of the people who live in the 
 territory, it has proven to be a marked success. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. That was my information. That is all I want to 
 know. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I would like to ask the judge a couple of questions. 
 Some four months ago you appeared before the committee on behalf 
 of a bill to give the Secretary of the Interior the right to open up 
 and throw open for entry some 300,000 acres of land that was in the 
 reserve, and I understood from you at that time then that this land 
 was originally withdrawn in behalf of the cattlemen. 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. That bill was to provide an opening under the lot- 
 tery plan. The lands had been eliminated from the reserve by Ex- 
 ecutive order, and this bill provided that the opening be made on 
 the lottery plan. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 335 
 
 Mr. Raker. But I would like to know as to the lands being 
 included in the reserve. What did you say about that originally, 
 why were these lands included in the reserve ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. My statement made then was correct, that these 
 cattlemen asked to have this reserve created, and that was accom- 
 plished a day or two before I received information that the applica- 
 tion had been made, and there would have been much more set apart 
 for forest reserves had I not protested to Mr. Pinchot at the time. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Do you think the cattlemen were interested in creat- 
 ing that particular reserve? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes; because most everybody else in the same 
 locality were against that. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That is about how many acres? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. 344,000 acres. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That was for the purpose of opening it up to home- 
 stead entry of tracts of 640 acres ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Was the land under these drawings practically all 
 taken up as homestead claims? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes. I was informed by good authority last eve- 
 ning that there is nothing remaining but some forties, isolated. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That would then evidence the' fact that actual home- 
 steaders, heads of families, those capable of being heads of families, 
 sought and procured this land for homes ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Taking these tracts with 640 acres in them, are they 
 sufficiently properly handled in the way farms should be handled 
 to give a man a nice little home on one of these tracts for himself 
 and family ? Has it brought that result in your State ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. It has. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Now, Judge, I did not quite get the full purport of 
 your first statement. If, as a matter, of fact, the lands in your State 
 had been taken up under the Kinkaid Act of 640 acres for home- 
 steaders and had been sold and disposed of, the greater part of them, 
 say 50 per cent or more to large holders, and that this land had got- 
 ten into the hands of a monopoly, would your people have come here 
 and opened up another 640-acre tract to throw into the hands of the 
 few large men? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. No. The strongly predominating sentiment is 
 against large holdings. That is the sentiment of the business people 
 and the sentiment of the homesteaders and all others except possibly 
 actual owners of large tracts. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Is the sentiment of your people to open up these 
 344,000 acres sufficiently warranted in the fact that they want to 
 make homes on it? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Certainly; yes. - 
 
 Mr. Raker. Do they stick? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes; reasonably well. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Those who have been heretofore out there — those 
 already in your district? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Those already in my district? 
 
 Mr. Raker. You have been through it? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes, sir. 
 
336 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Raker. What I want to know is; do these homesteaders who 
 have filed on that land within the last eight years, do they stick? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes; in as great degree as has generally been the 
 case with one-quarter section entries where the lands were admittedly 
 good. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I assume that. 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Commissioner Dennett, of the General Land Office, 
 stated in his annual report a year or two ago that the act had proven 
 a success after he had gone over the territory personally in company 
 with the chief of Fiela Division. 
 
 Mr. Raker. One more question and I am through. In going over 
 your district, as undoubtedly you did last year or year before last 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid (interposing) . I was over the district but little last 
 year. 
 
 Mr. Raker. How long has it been ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. It has been four years since I was over it thor- 
 oughly. 
 
 Mr. Raker. From what information you have and from what you 
 have gained in going over your district, have you seen any of those 
 homesteaders on the land ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes, sir ; I attended one picnic three years ago, and 
 I think there were over perhaps 2,500 persons at the picnic, gen- 
 erally homesteaders with their families, and it was claimed the num- 
 ber in attendance had been twice as great before I reached the 
 grounds, as I was delayed a day. The homesteaders hold picnics an- 
 nually throughout the territory covered by the act and are very 
 enterprising as farmers and are bringing out to the best advantage 
 the agricultural possibilities of the sand-hill country. 
 
 Mr. Raker. These are practically all Kinkaid people? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes, sir; and they make these picnics kind of an 
 agricultural fair by showing their garden and farm products. 
 
 Mr. Fergttsson. You mean agricultural products? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes, sir; and it has been a constant surprise to me 
 how well they succeed — the fine products they produce on sandy 
 lands. 
 
 The Chairman. What was the date of the passage and approval 
 of your bill creating the 640-acre tract ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. It was passed and approved April 28, 1904. 
 
 The Chairman. So it has been in vogue about 10 years ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes ; 10 years. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, at the time that act was passed, approxi- 
 mately 9,000,000 acres came under the law? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. About 11,000,000. 
 
 The Chairman. You think 10,000,000 or 11,000,000, all told, with 
 relinquishments that were made? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. I mean with cancellations. The department did not 
 have special agents, as it does now, to look carefully about compli- 
 ance with the law, so a good many entries stood from 1 to 20 years 
 without any residence having been performed on the claims. The 
 consequence was there were a great many cancellations made by the 
 department in a short time on account of the increased demand for 
 entries caused by the fourfold increase of the homestead area. It is 
 just an offhand estimate of mine that it is likely as much as 2,000,000 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 337 
 
 acres were contained in these cancellations, which would make the 
 area subject to the 640-acre act aggregate 11,000,000 acres. 
 
 The Chairman. That is in the sand-hills country of Nebraska ? 
 
 •Mr. Kinkaid. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. That is a description of the country out there ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes; but good land is interspersed here and there 
 among the sandy lands. 
 
 The Chairman. North Platte is in your district? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. And it is the North Platte country, and your dis- 
 trict lies north of that? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Principally ; yes. 
 
 The Chairman. Of that 9,000,000 acres or perhaps 10,000,000 or 
 11,000,000 with those that were cancelled and relinquished and came 
 back. You say there are now remaining subject to entry of that 
 land about 600,000 acres? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. I would think that is about it. It is less than a 
 million, but I do not think over 600,000. 
 
 The Chairman. So that fair statement of the fact would be that 
 approximately 10,000,000 acres came under the law 10 years ago 
 and of that 10,000,000 or 11,000,000 acres only 600,000 acres remain? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes ; I think 600,000 would be as much as remains 
 not entered ; that consists largely of isolated tracts. 
 
 The Chairman. I understand you have never made a careful and 
 detailed estimate of the exact amount of that land still in the hands 
 of the original takers ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. No. 
 
 The Chairman. You would have to consult the register of deeds 
 records to get at that fact? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes ; or employ other reliable means. 
 
 The Chairman. And you do not know exactly what part of those 
 10,000,000 acres of land actually passed to patent ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. No. 
 
 The Chairman. You would have to consult the land office rec- 
 ords to get that exact ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. You did open these 344,000 acres of reserve. 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. 344,000. 
 
 The Chairman. Yes; 344,000 acres reserve under this same law 
 last year? 
 
 Mr. Kinkadd. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. What per cent of that has already been taken up ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. All of it but few forties, I was reliably informed 
 last evening. 
 
 The Chairman. Was that the actual taking? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. That is actually entered. 
 
 The Chairman. The allotment under the bill recently passed 
 shows that practically all of those 344,000 acres has been entered ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes, sir. A few forties have been left here and 
 there. 
 
 The Chairman. Let me ask you further. I think Judge Raker 
 developed pretty well your general knowledge of it. At the time the 
 Kinkaid bill was up for action here in Congress — and I will say, 
 
 35074— pt 1—14 22 
 
338 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 parenthetically, I was not here, and I suppose very few of us were — ■ 
 I would like to ask if the same controversy here present existed at 
 that time between the cattlemen and the homesteaders ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Well, it was much more intense in our district- at 
 that time, I think. 
 
 The Chairman. It was? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes; I think so. 
 
 The Chairman. The cattlemen were all opposed to this legislation ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. They did not come here and oppose it; but they 
 likely thought my bill could not be passed. The following summer 
 a cattlemen's association did ask me to explain why I should have 
 secured the enactment of such a law. 
 
 The Chairman. You were acquainted with the sentiment among 
 the big cattlemen at that time? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. And they were against it to a man? 
 
 Mr. Kinkadd. They preferred a leasing law to an enlarged home- 
 stead act. There is a little history about this. Leading cattlemen 
 came here years before and secured a favorable report of the House 
 committee on a leasing bill. 
 
 The Chairman. For a leasing bill? 
 
 Mr. Kinkadd. But they concluded they could not afford to pay the 
 price that the Secretary of the Interior in his discretion would prob- 
 ably impose. I think the maximum was 3 cents ; and they had had it 
 heretofore for nothing, and they concluded they did not want the 
 bill passed, and afterwards our State legislature passed a resolution 
 against it, and as a result the leasing bill was dropped here. That 
 resolution was forwarded here and the bill was abandoned. 
 
 The Chairman. The issues were then a good deal as now ? 
 
 Mr. KiNKAro. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, during the last 10 years there has been 
 9,000,000 or 10,000,000 acres of land entered in your State under this 
 act. So from necessity you must know how they handle the land 
 after the homesteader settles on it? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes; generally. 
 
 The Chairman. How does Mr. Jones, who entered 640 acres of 
 land under your bill 10 miles north of North Platte, handle it on an 
 average ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. They get cows, so far as they are able, and they go 
 into dairying — those who are able to buy cattle enough to go into 
 the stock business do so. 
 
 The Chairman. Do they plow up any of it? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. They plow what we call the valleys. They are not 
 regular valleys, because there are no streams, but there are depres- 
 sions between the higher points in the sand hills country. The low 
 places have more fertility than the higher grounds. 
 
 The Chairman. What do they raise in those little valleys? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Most everything that grows in our latitude. 
 
 The Chairman. Do they raise kaffir corn and cane ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. They raise cane a good deal for feeding, and in some 
 places alfalfa. We are too far north for kaffir corn. 
 
 The Chairman. But the country is too dry ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes ; part of the time. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 339 
 
 The Chairman. I would say I was out at North Platte for a short 
 time in 1905 and 1906, and 'through along that country over on the 
 Union Pacific from North Platte into Omaha, and had a chance for 
 personal observation of some of that country. How many cattle, 
 dairy or otherwise, can a man on a 640-acre homestead in western 
 Nebraska maintain? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. That varies greatly according to the estimates of 
 those who are well informed and those who are not very well in* 
 formed, and the actual conditions also vary greatly. All the way 
 from, say, 16 to 40 or 50 head on a section. 
 
 The Chairman. As to the average homesteader? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. That may be a little high. 
 
 The Chairman. The average homesteader by farming the little 
 valleys and the low places and using the sand hills for grazing on, 
 these 640-acre homestead tracts can raise from 15 to 40 head of cattle? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. And are they doing it pretty generally ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. And they are making a living and educating their 
 children ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Most of them are succeeding; some of them quite 
 well, others failing for different reasons which always must and 
 does occur in a new 'country. 
 
 The Chairman. Do they carry on some dairying? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Do they raise some sugar beets ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. They do farther west, near Wyoming, on the irri- 
 gated lands within the Government reclamation project. 
 
 The Chairman. Let me ask you another question. Could there 
 have been a classification made of the lands under the Kinkaid Act 
 so that certain of them could have been used for homestead purposes 
 and certain of them used to more advantage for grazing purposes? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Well, that was proposed. It was not proposed just 
 in that form, but it was proposed that they be classified. 
 
 The Chairman. What became of that ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Well, there was nothing done with it. I was 
 against it myself. One reason was the necessity of getting some- 
 thing done at once, and a classification would have deferred the 
 accomplishment, and that was a strong, practical reason with me, 
 to get the bill passed at once, besides I could hardly see how we 
 could classify. 
 
 The Chairman. Let me ask you right there: What is the annual 
 rainfall out in your district ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. After you get 150 miles west from the east end of 
 Nebraska, from that on you are getting into more arid or semiarid 
 country all the time, and there is less rainfall as a rule, and that 
 rainfall varies ; that is, west especially of the 100th meridian. After 
 passing that point if the rainfall is not more than 12 inches it is a 
 very dry season. Most of the time it is 16 or 18 or more inches. 
 
 The Chairman. West of the 100th meridian? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes, sir; 12 inches would be a very dry season. 
 
 The Chairman. You have more than that on an average? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Well, we have say 16 to 18 inches or more west of 
 the 100th meridian. 
 
340 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 The Chairman-. You think that is a fair average of the rain that 
 would fall on this area? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes; something like that. I could not pretend to 
 be accurate. 
 
 The Chairman. You do not have any mountain range in your 
 section ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. No. 
 
 The Chairman. You have sand hills instead? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes; but the northwest corner county seat is on an 
 altitude of 5,000 feet above sea level. 
 
 The Chairman. It gets high up in that corner? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Supposing you had a range of mountains and 
 rough, ragged, jagged hills through your section of the country 
 which rendered certain land totally unfit, so far as agriculture, is 
 concerned, what would you then say about the topographic classifica- 
 tion of the land so that certain lands might be used for agriculture 
 and certain of them for grazing, which seemed their only purpose? 
 What would you say about a condition of that sort ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. I do not pretend to be an expert about this. 
 
 The Chairman. You are about as near an expert as we can get. 
 You passed a law in regard to this and you operated under it and 
 you know more about it than we do. 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. I think it would be a physical proposition or prob- 
 lem. I do not know how practical it might be to segregate and draw 
 a uniform line. 
 
 The Chairman. I will let you know what I am driving at. It has 
 been stated that in Arizona there are certain areas of land that have 
 no agricultural possibility, but would do for grazing. Other States, 
 perhaps, like Mr. Fergusson's, do not have such lands at all. I am 
 asking you, where conditions of that sort prevail, if it would not be 
 feasibly to pass some sort of legislation which would exact from the 
 land department a classification designating class A, which was 
 feasible for agriculture; class B, which had no possibility whatever 
 for agriculture; and class C, put in the doubtful column. What 
 would your judgment be as to that? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. I think that might be feasible. 
 
 Mr. French. You said you were opposed to leasing provisions at 
 the time your bill was pending. In the light of the experience you 
 have learned touching the operation of that law for 10 years, would 
 you now believe it would have been advisable to have classified the 
 lands prior to the opening to settlement under the Kinkaid home- 
 stead law ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Not in our district. 
 
 The Chairman. Then, it has been stated to you, and it has been in 
 evidence here, that some small tracts of the land have passed to large 
 holdings. Has it come to you whether or not the areas that have 
 passed to large holdings are so segregated from the rest of the land 
 that they could be pretty largely grouped into one common area ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. I am not informed sufficiently about what has passed 
 into the hands of ranchmen. I am not informed as to that. 
 
 Mr. French. I wish to ask you another question, and that is if it 
 were possible to classify the lands so that the large tracts would not 
 
DISPOSITION OF GBAZING LANDS. 341 
 
 pass into private holdings, would you think that the policy of classi- 
 fication would be advisable? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. I do not know that I quite comprehend that. 
 
 Mr, French. Let me make it a little plainer : In your own State it 
 has been stated before the committee, and you have indicated that 
 y6u have heard rumors to that effect, that at least some of the land 
 has passed into large holdings that were originally acquired under 
 the 640-acre homestead provision. Now, I would like to ask you if 
 it were feasible to take the areas that would be apt to pass into con- 
 solidated holdings and segregate and lease them, would that obtain a 
 better policy for the Government to follow instead of permitting 
 them to pass into private holdings and then to be sold immediately 
 to the owners of large tracts ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkead. Perhaps I am a little biased about that. I have a 
 predilection for homesteading all the time and in favor of giving the 
 homesteader a chance to acquire title, and then it is for him to dis- 
 pose of it or not after acquiring title, so that I do not know that I 
 could give you any information that would be of benefit to you on 
 that. There is too much expertness about that. I would defer to 
 this honorable committee about that. 
 
 Mr. La Foulette. Do you think that out of 10,000,000 acres, if 
 there should be a few large tracts acquired by individuals, that it 
 would be anything out of the ordinary? Has it been your observa- 
 tion that there has been any amount of land of the United States 
 acquired under homesteading or in any other way but what there 
 was large tracts of it. bought by individuals? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Common observation shows that to be the case. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. Consequently it was no reason why we should 
 say the Kinkaid homestead act was a failure any more than we 
 should say the 160-acre homestead act was a failure ? 
 
 I know some small entries, owned in these larger tracts, that went 
 in under the 160-acre homestead provision, and it was not considered 
 the homestead act was a failure on that account. There are quite 
 a number of tracts that went into the 640-acre tract, and that would 
 not altogether be considered a failure, even though Mr. Kent was 
 offered 30,000 and 50,000 acres of it. That is not out of the ordinary. 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. I agree with you perfectly on that. I think it was 
 stated in' the annual report of the General Land Office a year or two 
 ago — maybe it is three years ago — that the law is a success. The 
 Commissioner of the General Land Office volunteered to speak to 
 me at the time about it, and he told me he was out there and looked 
 over the territory personally with his field agent, and he regarded 
 the act as a success, in substance that. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Mr. Kinkaid, you stated before that on these sec- 
 tions a homesteader could raise from 15 to 40 head of cattle. Now, 
 does that mean that he raises these cattle on his 640-acre tract, or 
 did he have some grazing privileges on adjoining lands? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. They do not fence there very much. But I meant 
 it would be feasible to sustain that many confined to a particular 
 section. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. The Committee on Appropriations, of which I am 
 a member, is holding hearings continuously now and it is difficult 
 for me to get away, and I would like to know, Mr. Chairman^ in 
 
342 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 advance when it would be agreeable for the committee to hear me, 
 so as to arrange to have some other member at the hearing. 
 
 The Chairman. I would state that matter has been left to Mr. 
 Fergusson, of the committee. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I want to accommodate Mr. Mondell all I can 
 and the committee. You are the chairman, Mr. Ferris. 
 
 The Chairman. We have had two bills before us and we allowed 
 Mr. Kent to conduct the order of proof, and I thought we would 
 extend to you the same courtesy. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. The committee is also considering the original 
 homestead bill introduced early in the session — the bill that I intro- 
 duced. 
 
 The Chairman. "We are considering the whole subject. We did 
 not order a special hearing on that at all. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. I understand that, but I did not assume the com- 
 mittee had cut that out. 
 
 The Chairman. We have been considering the whole subject, get- 
 ing all the light we can. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. The chairman suggested that we consider one home- 
 stead bill and one grazing bill. 
 
 The Chairman. The chair did not state it very technically. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. I would like to be heard at some entirely convenient 
 time, and I would like to know in advance. It is sometimes hard for 
 us to get a quorum at our hearings, and when I am not going to be 
 there I like to make preparation. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Fergusson stated he would like to present 
 some matter at this time, and if you will honor us with your presence 
 in the morning we will hear you then. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. That will be agreeable. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, Mr. Graham, you can proceed. 
 t Mr. Graham. Judge Kinkaid, I have great respect for your judg- 
 ment in these matters as well as others, and I would like to know 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid (interposing). I do not think I deserve the com- 
 pliment. 
 
 Mr. Graham. It is richly deserved. To what extent are you ac- 
 quainted with conditions in New Mexico and Arizona and others of 
 the mountain and intermountain States? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Very little, except by observation from railway 
 trains. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Are you sufficiently acquainted with them to tell us 
 whether they bear any considerable resemblance to the conditions in 
 Nebraska you have been telling us of, so that we might infer that 
 the same conditions you described .in Nebraska might be reasonably 
 expected in those other States under a similar law? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. The similarity of mountain ranges does not exist. 
 That is one feature in which we are unlike; and another feature, 
 this is a sand-hill region in Nebraska, more or less. It is spotted, 
 of course, with good land here and there. It is sand hills and dry 
 country, too. That was the basis upon which the enlarged homestead 
 act was passed— those defects, lack of rainfall and sandy surface, 
 generally. I have been over the mountain country of the West gen- 
 erally and you do not find sandy regions like that very much in the 
 mountain country. In the mountain country a uniformity of good 
 soil, what you call hard ground, is pretty general. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 343 
 
 Mr. Graham. Does one riding over the Union Pacific from Omaha 
 to Denver get to see any of the country you have been describing ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. You onLy catch a glimpse of it. After reaching 
 North Platte you get a little glimpse of the sandy country there. 
 Most of that along the Union Pacific is hard ground and it is only 
 for a short distance you see any sandy country. If you went over 
 the Burlington say from Grand Island via Alliance for Billings, 
 Mont., you would see the sand-hill country. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Have you been actually on any of those section 
 homesteads yourself? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Graham. What proportion of it would you say was cultivated 
 for any purpose? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Oh, I would say 40 acres up to quarter sections. 
 
 Mr. Geaham. Are the homesteads usually under fence? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. I would not say they are under fence; I would say 
 usually not. We have laws that protect the crops. The owner of 
 live stock keeps his stock on his own land at his own peril. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Only the cultivated portions are fenced? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. They do not have to fence that. It is for the 
 farmer's own convenience if he fences at all. 
 
 Mr. Graham. The duty of taking care of the cattle is put on the 
 owner of the land. 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Graham. On the route I referred to I saw large herds mostly 
 of horses. Would it not be very difficult for a homesteader, under 
 such circumstances, to raise anything and save it if he did not have 
 good fences? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. It depends upon the vicinity he is in. In some 
 places there is no difficulty at all, and there are other vicinities 
 where large herds prevail. That is where there are some big ranches 
 and holdings which were established before the one-section law was 
 enacted. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Could you give the committee any approximate 
 idea of the proportion of the 9,000,000 acres you referred to which 
 is in section homesteads and which is in large ranches ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Well, that would be just a guess. I would say there 
 is more of it in one-section homesteads than in large ranches and in 
 one-quarter section entries and farms where title had been acquired 
 under the homestead law, in the first place, and then the settlers 
 adding on to it. There was a time when they could acquire titles 
 very cheaply, by buying in on the foreclosure of tax-lien sales. 
 Many quarter sections were bought for as low as $100 at tax-lien 
 sales. Drought and industrial depression concurred to make values 
 very low for a time. Those who did not move back to their wife's 
 folks, but remained and acquired title to these cheap lands, have 
 prospered ever since, many of them becoming comparatively rich. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Would you express an opinion about the feasibility 
 of establishing one or two or three homesteads in a tract of 10,000 
 or(l5,000 or 20,000 acres, having all the rest of the area in pasture 
 land and grazing land — leased grazing land ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Well, that is a question of environment, or compati- 
 bility or incompatibility, which at times would be very palpable. 
 
344 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. This bill requires the designation of this land by the 
 Secretary of the Interior under the 640-acre plan. 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. On the contrary, it requires the Secretary to desig- 
 nate such as might possibly be irrigable and withdraw it from entry, 
 and that was a very small part. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. What is the average market value of this land you 
 referred to? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. The sand-hill land varies. It is all the way from 
 $3 — perhaps a very little would be sold at that, but not much — and' 
 from that up to $10 an acre; that is, without much improvement. 
 Some owners would not sell for $20 an acre, because they want to 
 retain their entries as their permanent homes. - 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. But the average is from $3 to $10 ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Where they sell; but those who are doing well want 
 to keep their lands permanently, or a good percentage of them do. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Mr. Kaker brought out the matter of fencing. You 
 say they fence from 40 to 160 acres ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. I say they fence for their own convenience. If he 
 wants to confine his own cattle to a certain portion of his section he 
 may fence the grazing lands, or he may fence the land he farms. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Do these raise enough for winter feed on those small 
 tracts ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes; there is more or less hay. They are pretty 
 sure of hay. There may be a quarter section of hay on a section, and 
 sometimes maybe a half section that you could mow to advantage. 
 
 Mr. French. Do you not have the opportunity of cutting hay on 
 lands that you do not even cultivate? I lived in Nebraska when a 
 boy and I know we used to do that. 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. They cut hay where they choose on public lands. 
 
 Mr. French. But we used to cut hay on areas we did not culti- 
 vate at all, and we fenced against our own stock and not against our 
 neighbor, because the neighbor had to fence against his own stock. 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. You are entirely right about that. 
 
 Mr. French. And our fields would have no fences, and our pas- 
 tures would be fenced. 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. That is right. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Does the farmer segregate his cattle or do they run 
 indiscriminately with their neighbor's? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Some places they run indiscriminately with their 
 neighbor's; not always. Herding depends upon circumstances. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Is there any outside stock running in that section? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Not much, except when you get near the large 
 ranches where they will stray off and get into communities where 
 there is more or less farming, or where homesteaders exclusively 
 live. 
 
 Mr. Raker. May I trespass for a couple of questions, Judge ? Has 
 your population, within the last 10 years, increased in the rural dis- 
 tricts and in the small towns? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. It has in my district ; yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Small towns have sprung up and school districts and 
 places where there are railroad stations? 
 
 Mr. Kinkah). The small towns have made perceptible growth since 
 this law was passed. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 345 
 
 Mr. Raker. I want to call your attention to the fact that during 
 he period from 1890 to 1900 Nebraska only increased in its popula 
 toon 6.W of 1 per cent. Now, during the period from 1900 to 1912 
 Nebraska increased m its population 11.8. Is it your opinion from 
 observation that the great part of that increase has been in the rural 
 districts' You practically answered it. 
 
 «i^ r " ?^- KAID - T es 5 a nd in my district, which comprises three- 
 h± ths of this area in the State, it is accounted for. 
 
 Mr Raker. And this increase in population has added to the 
 taxable property of the State ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Immensely. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Before this land was occupied by homesteaders and 
 some farms, say for the last 15 years, was it occupied by large herds 
 of cattle— a great deal of it by cattle and sheep men ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Principally by cattlemen. We have very little sheep 
 growing in proportion. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Large cattlemen ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Over large territories of range ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I observe in these statistics for 1900 that in your State 
 as to the cattle country you have decreased but a small amount. In 
 1900 you had 3,176,243 head of cattle in your State; in 1910 you had 
 2,931,350 head. In other words, a little less than 150,000 decrease, 
 but an increase in all other matters. Is that your understanding 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Now, in horses and mules you raise more. 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. More horses than mules. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Horses, mules, and asses and burros in your State in 
 1900 were 851,874. The statistics show in 1910 there were 1,093,901. 
 
 Mr. Browne. I have before me your 640-acre act, and notice it 
 was made to apply to only certain lands which had been very care- 
 fully classified. Do you think any 640-acre act should apply to any 
 of the lands that had not been previously carefully classified, both 
 to protect the settler and to protect the public domain ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. I think there must be a misapprehension there. 
 The territory was bounded. A boundary line was stated, and the 
 only exceptions made was as to irrigable lands. The Secretary of the 
 Interior was to designate and withdraw from entry such as might be 
 deemed to be irrigable. There was no classification made. 
 
 Mr. Browne. Your country is about the same, which is included in 
 the boundary set forth in this act ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. In a very general way, only. There are sand hills 
 and what we call hard ground interspersed, but generally the sand 
 hills or sandy soil prevails. 
 
 Mr. Browne. Does that not in effect equal the classification ? Were 
 not those facts well known to the Department of Agriculture when 
 they adopted them? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. The Department of the Interior understood the 
 conditions. 
 
 Mr. Browne. Another question. The cattle and sheep men who 
 were here last week stated that, owing to the fact that entrymen had 
 gone on land that was not fit for profitable agricultural use; that in 
 acquiring land these entrymen had mistakenly entered, their capital 
 
346 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 investment amounted to sometimes as high as $30 capital investment 
 per steer or $14 capital investment per sheep that were grazing on 
 these very small lands. Would it not be well to have some pretty- 
 good classification so that lands which are obviously not susceptible to 
 agricultural development could be used under the leasing system 
 instead of through fee ownership for the grazing of stock ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. That involves a very broad policy — a public policy — 
 that these distinguished legislators can consider and determine. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. How remote is some of this land from transporta- 
 tion lines? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. I guess 30 miles would be the limit. It might be 
 40 in one county, which is 100 miles long. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. The general average is closer than that ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. What is the general average? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. It is hard to say about an average. There is very 
 little of it over 20 miles, and a great deal of it 12 miles, and then a 
 less area would be 5 miles away, and there is considerable area right 
 up to the railroad and right up to the stations. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Do the sandy regions support any vegetation fit for 
 grazing? 
 
 Mr v Kinkaid. Yes ; the grasses make good beef cattle. As you go 
 farther West, the grasses are more nutritious, and where the grasses 
 are not so nutritious — where the short-season grasses prevail — there 
 is plenty of hay, and hay is saved for winter feed. It is very fine for 
 the growing of live stock. 
 
 Mr. Church. Do you have forest reserves in your State ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. We have two units now of the Nebraska National 
 Forest Eeserve. 
 
 Mr. Church. Some years ago they established rules with reference 
 to homesteading in the forest reserves; that is, they had to get the 
 consent of the Secretary of Agriculture or the forester. I want to 
 ask you, in your judgment, whether the establishment of those rules 
 and the establishment of this forest reserve had a tendency to limit 
 homesteading, or did it have a tendency to cause more homesteading 
 in these forest reserves ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. It caused less homesteading in Nebraska, but, to be 
 perfectly fair to the committee, this may be due to the peculiar con- 
 dition and the peculiarity of our section. 
 
 Mr. Church. I think that is the general assumption through the 
 forest reserve and those rules prevail in the various forest reserves. 
 The point is that you think it has restricted instead of increased in 
 your section of the country homesteading? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. It did with us. 
 
 Mr. Church. Then there were a good many of these applications 
 for homesteads in the forest reserves ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes; but the bureau was conservative about recom- 
 mending any. 
 
 Mr. Church. It is the same in my section Of the country. I only 
 brought that out because Mr. Pinchot stated here before the commit- 
 tee a few days ago that he thought the restriction of homesteading 
 in the forest reserves stimulated homesteading instead of preventing 
 homesteading ; that the regulations had a tendency to stimulate home- 
 steading instead of retiring homesteading. That is his testimony. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 347 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Those sections have been entered since ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. All this North Platte Eeserve has been entered. 
 
 The Chairman. Have you anything else to add, Judge ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. There is just one matter. My idea is, where you 
 find a large holding, it will be composed only of a small portion of 
 one-section homesteads added to a large holding acquired previous 
 to the enactment of the one-section law. 
 
 Mr. Feegtjsson. Whenever they get these large holdings by buy- 
 ing out the small patents, they then have to pay taxes, whoever gets 
 them? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Is not the tendency in view of that fact to sub- 
 divide them and sell them off rather than to hold them just for graz- 
 ing and paying taxes? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. Well, the large holdings are not on the increase. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. On the decrease, rather ? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. The small holdings are gaining very rapidly. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Suppose that section to which your 640-acre home- 
 stead law applied had been withdrawn for a grazing reserve and had 
 been divided up into other grazing sections, we will say 50,000 acres 
 or 100,000 acres, and then had been leased under the control of an 
 advisory board, comprising so many grazing men in it, say four graz- 
 ing men in the district and one appointed by the Secretary of Agri- 
 culture at Washington, making the board five; and suppose it had 
 been provided in the bill creating that system that the homesteader 
 may have a perfect right to go on that grazing reserve and inaugu- 
 rate him homestead, subject to the control of this advisory board as 
 to how many cattle he should have and regulating his grazing, I 
 would like to ask you whether, under such a system — the grazing dis- 
 tricts and the advisory boards' and all having been established by 
 law — whether that section of country would have filled up with these 
 grazing homestead farmers, farming where possible and grazing their 
 heards on the balance of each entry, as rapidly as it has been? 
 
 Mr. Kinkaid. I would not hesitate to say it would not. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. A. A. H0EHLING, JR. 
 
 Mr. Hoehling. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
 am an attorney at law located in Washington, and was requested on 
 behalf of the Central Pacific Eailroad Co. to submit to this com- 
 mittee a few suggestions in connection with the operative features 
 of the so-called Kent bill. I might say that the Central Pacific Eail- 
 road Co. is a grantee of a large body of lands under the acts of 1862 
 and 1864 to aid in railroad construction, and would state that in 
 Nevada alone the company has over 3,000,000 acres of land, a part of 
 which it has sold, some of which it has leased for grazing purposes, 
 and some of it is retained by the company. I mention this to show 
 the interest the railroad company itself has with respect to its own 
 land in this proposed legislation. 
 
 Passing by the first part of this Kent bill, I might say it is not my 
 purpose to make any statement or suggestion as to the policy of pass- 
 ing a grazing bill. Passing by the first part of the bill, which ex- 
 
348 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 tends the preferential lease permit to the homesteader, I want to call 
 your attention to page 3, lines 4 to 8, of the so-called Kent bill : 
 
 Provided, That after the establishment of any such grazing district no form 
 of location, settlement, or entry thereon shall give a right to grazing privileges 
 on public lands except when made under laws requiring cultivation or agri- 
 cultural use of the land. 
 
 Pausing right there, the committee understands that the title to 
 this land granted to the railroad is not founded on law requiring 
 its cultivation or agricultural uses, but to aid in the construction 
 of a railroad. Whether it is so intended or not, that provision would 
 exclude, if it passed in that form, the man who has bought lands 
 from the railroad company and has established his home there; it 
 would exclude the man who would lease a piece of railroad land, 
 because he is not holding under any law requiring agricultural use, 
 and it would exclude the possibility of permitting a man who had 
 filed additional rights. 
 
 The Chairman. You would scarcely want to contend that the 
 grantee under the Central Pacific Railroad, or even the patentee 
 under the Government itself, had any vested right in the land other 
 than those acquired ? 
 
 Mr. Hoehling. No, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. But it would interfere with him to that extent. 
 
 Mr. Browne. This bill only applies to any one who would locate 
 and who would enter on lands that are public lands. 
 
 Mr. Hoehling. It is not so expressed. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. The bill says : 
 
 Provided, That after the establishment of any such grazing d' strict no form 
 of location, settlement, or entry thereon shall give a right to grazing privileges 
 on public lands except when made under laws requiring cultivation or agricul- 
 tural use of the land. 
 
 " When made," refers to a location that is made thereon ; that i°, 
 on some of the public land included in the grazing district, and 
 that language could not possibly affect anybody who has acquired 
 or may in the future acquire any lands granted to the railroad com- 
 pany. 
 
 Mr. Hoehling. It seems to me it should not be left to any possible 
 doubt. If it is subject to that construction it would be better to 
 make it perfectly clear that it is not intended to apply to certain 
 occupants of land out there. v 
 
 Mr. Thomson. This land that has been granted to the railroad 
 in the past and that is now in the hands of some of its grantees, or 
 may in the future go into the hands of grantees, is not comprehended 
 in any manner, because that affects only somebody who may locate 
 on the public lands which is public land to-day, and it says that any- 
 one who does locate on public land, if he goes into the grazing 
 business, after the establishment of that grazing business shall not 
 acquire a right to grazing privileges except where his location is 
 such a one that requires cultivation. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Where do you find anything in this language that 
 he must be a locator or settler on Government land ? 
 
 The Chairman. I doubt whether we had better supersede the 
 witness with a set argument. I think we had better let him pro- 
 ceed as we did the other day, and we can take it afterward for 
 what it is worth. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 349 
 
 . Mr. Hoehling. I wanted to submit that proviso to the consider- 
 ation of. the committee because it seemed there was danger there 
 that that would absolutely preclude the possibility of a railroad 
 grantee or lessee from receiving a permit if a bill of this kind was 
 passed, and in that connection there is the further section which I 
 wish to submit to your consideration, and that is that after the 
 establishment of a grazing district it is to be made a misdemeanor to 
 permit the pasturing of live stock upon land included within the 
 grazing district. 
 
 Now, if that be so, if what I said before is correct, that that lan- 
 guage is susceptible of excluding from any benefits the railroad 
 lessee or grantee, then it would inevitably result that the man occupy- 
 ing that situation would either have to close-herd his stock; or fence 
 his land, and treating it in the matter of fencing would doubtless 
 run counter to the act of 1885, which prohibits the fencing of the 
 public domain, and the Supreme Court of the United States has held 
 that the railroad company may not even fence its odd-numbered 
 sections in such a way as to include the intervening even-numbered 
 section of the public domain, so that if my construction of this is 
 correct the railroad grantee or lessee would be in the embarrassing 
 position of not being permitted to receive a Government permit, 
 and he would have to see at all times that his live stock may not 
 stray out on the intervening even section and pasture thereon as 
 prescribed by this act. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. The railroads in Oregon and Washington work that 
 rule the other way. 
 
 Mr. Hoehling. You mean about fencing? 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Hoehling. To arrest people going on their lands. I had in 
 mind a case in which the Union Pacific was involved in Colorado. 
 There the railroad company had placed the fence on its own land 
 back a little bit from its intervening numbered section, and the 
 Supreme Court said that was a violation of the spirit of the act of 
 1885, which prohibited the fencing. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. May I direct your attention to the language in lines 
 
 5 and 6 : 
 
 Provided, That after the establishment of any such grazing district no form 
 of location, settlement, or entry thereon shall give a right to grazing privileges. 
 
 I understand it to be the point of the railroad company they fear 
 that may refer to somebody who may be on their property or who may 
 buy their property. 
 
 Mr. Hoehling. That it might exclude one of their grantees or 
 lessees. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. What possible form of location or entry could 
 occur on railroad land? 
 
 Mr. Hoehling. You mean on the part of the lessee or grantee ? 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Hoehling. There is no form of location under that. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Or settlement or entry. That language compre- 
 hends the public domain. 
 
 Mr. Hoehling. Yes; originally. 
 
350 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Let me suggest that the word " except " below 
 there should be taken in connection with what you are reading. The 
 railroad lands would not come under that. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. The railroad lands do not come within the language 
 that goes before. 
 
 " Mr. Fergusson. But it says that no form of location, settlement, or 
 entry thereon shall give a right to grazing privileges. A man to get 
 the privilege of grazing has to come under the category of having 
 made an entry for agricultural purposes. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. What kind of entry can a man make on railroad 
 land ? This does not affect railroad lands. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. When the man makes an agricultural entry on 
 public lands he is allowed to graze. If he is the only man who can 
 have grazing privileges, the railroad company is not in that category. 
 
 Mr. Hoehling. That is the danger the railroad company see. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I thought you did not give sufficient importance 
 to the word " except " in the construction of that proviso. 
 
 Mr. Lenroot. Are your lands surveyed? 
 
 Mr. Hoehling. Of course, the patented lease lands are all sur- 
 veyed. There are large bodies of railroad land that are not. 
 
 Mr. Lenroot. Do you survey the unleased lands ? 
 
 Mr. Hoehling. Tney have been doing it, but at the present time 
 there is some question as to their right to do that. There is a decision 
 on the part of the Department of Agriculture that will curtail if not 
 prevent the leasing of the unsurveyed land. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. What steps have you taken to present trespassing on 
 your leased lands? 
 
 Mr. Hoehling. I am not sufficiently posted in the details of those 
 matters, as I am located here in Washington, but in a telegram I 
 recently received I understand the railroad had a large area free from 
 lease for the purpose of having a trail for the stock between the sum- 
 mer and winter ranges and also to the points of railroad shipment.. 
 
 Mr. Browne. Do you care to submit to the committee any sugges- 
 tions with regard to changing the. wording of those four lines you 
 referred to? 
 
 Mr. Hoehling. In the telegram I have they suggested that that 
 proviso might be stricken out and in that way obviate any kind of 
 construction that I mentioned. 
 
 The Chairman. Have you had any protest from the grantees 
 with respect to. this legislation ? 
 
 Mr. Hoehling. That I can not answer. 
 
 The Chairman. You do not know what move the railroad people 
 in their activitives have taken? 
 
 Mr. Hoehling. No, sir; I do not. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. HARVEY B. FERGUSSON, A REPRESENTA- 
 TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
 I am somewhat embarrassed how to select from the great mass of 
 letters that come to me in every mail those that I would like the 
 committee to have access to as a basis for the position I take in this 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 351 
 
 matter. Of course, my evidence relates only to New Mexico, and 
 before reading such as the committee's patience will stand, I would, 
 like to remind the committee that my testimony all relates to New 
 Mexico only and that New Mexico even is very different from Ne- 
 braska, that Judge Kinkaid has talked about, in many respects. 
 We are not trying to settle a country like these sand hills. The part 
 of the country most affected by this leasing bill would be that slope 
 going down after you leave the mountain range running north and 
 south through New Mexico, an immense slope of prairie country, 
 with a slight rise to the mountains as you go west from the east line 
 of New Mexico. 
 
 The letters I will read will be from men speaking of their personal 
 experience, and those the committee will permit me to print will be 
 of the same kind. I am speaking of New Mexico. It is different 
 from Arizona. Arizona is nearer the Great Desert. A large part 
 of New Mexico is like western Kansas. The early settlers in western 
 Kansas had a hard time to stick there. Good old Gov. Ross, of my 
 State, told me when he located in Lawrence, Kans. — he was after- 
 wards the famous Senator who voted against the impeachment of 
 Andrew Johnson — that Topeka, 60 miles farther west, was looked 
 upon as the western limit of possible agricultural development ; that 
 they looked at the country west of the longitude of Topeka as the 
 Great American Desert. Now, everyone knows that western Kansas 
 was settled first by a great army of people seeking homes in good 
 faith — many of whom failed — and this slander about men trying 
 to get homes in the West, to refer to them as tramps is not justified. 
 Of the great mass of homeseekers, 99 out of 100 are honestly seeking 
 a place to get some land to make a home for himself and family, 
 and I say that from an experience of 30 years in the West. Of the 
 first settlers of Kansas, about 1 out of every 4 has stuck; and 
 Kansas to-day is one of the greatest agricultural States in the Union. 
 If this hard and fast rule of classification had been applied to Kansas 
 it would have been a grazing country and condemned to have been 
 such to this day. 
 
 But I want to give you some of the ideas that these men express, 
 themselves, and I will ask the committee to allow me to print some 
 of these petitions that are well expressed, without giving the names, 
 and to print some of these letters in full and others only in part that 
 contain in part, only, the evidence you will be interested in, so as 
 not to encumber the record, and that I can arrange between myself 
 and the reporter. 
 
 Here is a letter from Roy, N. Mex. Roy is about 50 miles from the 
 northern line of New Mexico in what is known as the Rocky Moun- 
 tain Plateau, about 6,000 feet above the sea level. The surrounding 
 country is the most magnificent in the world. It is a country that 
 has great possibilities for agreculture of a certain kind. You can 
 not raise cotton there or corn, Indian corn I mean, or wheat, at all 
 successfully. They do raise some oats, and they are producing these 
 so-called forage crops and broom corn, which is a growing industry. 
 There have been some sugar beets raised around in the neighborhood, 
 and the men who are now making a success of the sugar beet industry 
 
352 DISPOSITION OF GKAZING LANDS. 
 
 elsewhere are overflowing into this section. The letters from Koy 
 are as follows : 
 
 Koy, N. Mex., February 16, 191^. 
 Hon. H. B. Fergtjsson, 
 
 Congressman at Large, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sir : I write you to urge that the 640-acre-homestead law which you 
 have under consideration by Congress at the present session be made the 
 supreme measure of the New Mexico delegation. I fully appreciate the effort 
 you are making in behalf of the homesteader in New Mexico, and as one who 
 has lived here and endured the hardships of a homesteader I can say that such 
 a measure as you propose is necessary to the development of this country as 
 a home for the people, rather than as a range for the few who can lease large 
 tracts of land. 
 
 A half section, as now allowed to a homesteader, will not when the land is 
 all occupied furnish him pasture enough for the amount of stock necessary to 
 make a decent living for a family. With 640 acres at his command a man can 
 keep dairy cows and horses to raise feed with and with reasonable economy 
 and prudence support his family in comfort. 
 
 The State land already set apart has been grabbed by men of means who do 
 not need it save to become richer, and many men of limited means have been 
 deprived of a chance for a home thereby. Already too much of the public 
 domain is held by stock men, and the conditions which hindered the develop- 
 ment of Kansas Oklahoma, and all other Plains States are here present in New 
 Mexico to retard her settlement. It has been for 50 years the policy of stockmen 
 to retard by every means possible the encroachments of the settlers, and here is 
 their last stand. If the United States Government withholds the public land 
 from the settler who aspires to make a home on the land and develop it, and 
 give to the stockman who has made such a colossal failure and wasted the pub- 
 lic land as well as the means which nature has placed here for his use. Many 
 stockmen have been bankrupted this winter because of their stock perishing 
 in the snow, although it has been a winter of only ordinary severity ; and many 
 others have lost heavily, while the dumb brutes have suffered untold misery 
 from neglect and starvation. These conditions have obtained for th^ past 50 
 years here and the stockmen have profited nothing by their losses, but con- 
 tinue in the same old heathenish manner to run stock on the open range and 
 lose them with each recurring winter. 
 
 The homesteader has come to all the Plains States and brought modern meth- 
 ods of farming and caring for stock and transformed arid plains into successful 
 farming communities. He will do the same for New Mexico. 
 
 Why should the Government land be placed in the hands of a few wealthy 
 men who will hinder the progress of the country? Why should not the men 
 who have already semicivilized this country be allowed to share in the benefit 
 to accrue from owning land — at least enough to support himself and family? 
 Are not a thousand men, with 50 cattle apiece and a family on each section, 
 better for the State than 10 men with 50,000 head of cattle occupying the ter- 
 ritory that would support the thousand and depriving other men of homes? 
 
 I shall be glad to do my best to aid you in your efforts for the people against 
 the land grabbers and wish you success in your efforts. 
 Very truly, 
 
 John F. Shambles. 
 
 The Spanish-American, 
 Eoy, N. Mex., February 8, 19H. 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, 
 
 Congressman at Large, Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Sir: * * * The proposition of substituting 1,000 men with 100 
 head of cattle each and a modern home with each man for 1 man with 100,000 
 head of cattle and a few " rough necks," leading a nomadic life on the open 
 prarie, does not admit of even discussion from an economic viewpoint ; and who 
 is to work this change if it not the settlers who have braved the hardships of 
 pioneering to make this open country inhabitable? 
 
 ******* 
 
 ■ With kind personal regards, I am, sincerely, yours, 
 
 Irwin Ogden, Sr. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 353 
 
 In July, August, and September we have sometimes an immense 
 rainy season, when the rich, native grasses nourish ; but now and then 
 there comes a spell when it does not rain at all, and that cripples the 
 small farmer. He has to go out then and hunt work until he has a 
 good season the next year ; but the native grasses will grow when his 
 other crops will die entirely. You will see in New Mexico that it is 
 all important that he should have the right to fence his own range 
 and conserve it and raise enough to feed his cattle in the winter. 
 The system that this 640-acre grazing homestead proposition will 
 promote will be a system which will provide for the winter feeding 
 as well as farming when the rains are abundant. 
 
 The next letter I will only read a part of. It is from a county 
 in the northwest bounded on the west by Arizona and on the north 
 by Colorado. The four jurisdictions of New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, 
 and Colorado meet at a pin point, and this is from the northwestern 
 corner of that section. The slope down from the mountains in that 
 country is a well-watered section and the lands lie well, and there 
 are vast plains in it. The part of the letter I want to read is dated 
 Farmington, N. Mex., February 25, 1914, and is signed by Walter 
 M. Danburg, for many years a resident of that county. It is in part 
 as follows: 
 
 It is true the man of large means can advance some few reasons why they 
 should be permitted to lease and fence the public lands, but these reasons are 
 not well taken. They do not promote production, neither do they stimulate 
 settlement, much less add taxable property to the tax roll. 
 
 Give the man of small means an opportunity and we are bound to have 
 greater production and added prosperity and wealth. 
 
 Just as an instance, take the great State of IOwa. It ranks second, I believe, 
 in the number of cattle, has thousands of sheep, and all this without a vast 
 public domain in the hands of a few. The public domain passed into the hands 
 of many. They have not vast areas of wild, unsettled land, as we have in the 
 West, yet through the small producer — and there are thousands and thousands 
 of them — Iowa holds no mean position in the cattle and sheep industry. 
 
 We need to give the man of "small means an opportunity. 
 
 We need a greater production — the cost of living is high enough. 
 
 We need to add to our taxable property list. 
 
 Through these settlements will come, greater prosperity and wealth and rev- 
 enue, that we may in a measure develop our resources and build up our edu- 
 cational institutions, make good roads, and a hundred things that we can not 
 now do for the lack of money. 
 
 We need this 640-acre grazing bill, and I know that you will do your best to 
 get it through, 
 
 Here is a letter from the northeastern corner, next to the panhandle 
 of Texas and Kansas on the north, dated February 24, 1914, and 
 signed by G. H. Buxton, as follows : 
 
 This bill of yours, it is exactly what we have long prayed for; just what we 
 need and what the settlers before us ought to have had, and had they had it 
 in their time, it would have enabled them to stay, and to-day many of them 
 who are out working by the month to maintain- their little families would have 
 had a happy, comfortable little home of their own. No cattle companies who 
 might seek to get possession of this and other grazing, semiarid lands, could 
 or would ever produce one-half the amount of cattle or sheep on the land if set 
 aside in tracts subject to their lease of from five to fifty thousand acres, as the 
 settler would if allowed to have 640 acres ; and the settler with his 640 acres, 
 together with what roughness the climate will at times enable him to raise, not 
 
 35074— pt 1—14 23 
 
354 DISPOSITION OF GKAZING LANDS. 
 
 only produce more stock but better stock, and pay more tax, and at the same 
 time make for himself and family a happy, comfortable little home, where, on 
 the other hand, he would be forced out into the world to work for about $30 
 per month as a line rider for the other fellow. I know these things for I am 
 here and see these things every day. You know it, for your home is among 
 us, and you, too, have seen these things; and we know that you know our 
 needs (your bill shows that), and you know, also, what is best for this country, 
 for the upbuilding of it. No doubt large cattle companies and corporations 
 would like to get this country cut up just to suit them and get in possession 
 of it, live easy on the other fellow's hard work and pay no tax, and deprive 
 the honest, hard-working, home-loving claimant of any chance to ever get for 
 himself and family a little home. Hoping that your efforts prove fruitful and 
 that your bill in the interest of the worthy masses meets with success, I am 
 ever, yours sincerely. 
 
 I will now read a petition at this point .signed by 31 names, but, 
 as suggested, will not burden the record with the names, merely 
 giving the body of the petition : 
 Hon. H. B. Fergtjsson, Congressman at Large. 
 
 Sir: We, your constituents and citizens of Roy, X. Wex., find vicinity, desire 
 hereby to express our appreciation of your efforts in behalf of the " 640-acre 
 grazing homestead " proposed by you in Congress, and to urge you and your 
 colleagues to put forth every laudable effort to secure its early passage. 
 
 Our common experience in homesteading in New Mexico proves that 320 
 acres of laud is not enough for a man to keep stock on and provide for bis 
 family m a manner suitable for an American citizen. 
 
 With 640 acres of land a man can with reasonable economy raise enough 
 stock to support his family, after the open range has all been fenced. Fifty 
 head of cattle and the other necessary stock for a modern farm can be kept 
 and feed raised for them on 640 acres, and a less amount of stock will not 
 properly support a family. For this reason we demand the passage of the 
 " 640-acre homestead " bill. 
 
 We further protest against the withdrawal of Government land for the purpose 
 of " grazing reserves " as against public policy — as discriminating against the 
 pioneer and homesteader of the class which has made the States of the Middle 
 West what they now are — who have transformed them from waste and desert 
 plains into prosperous agricultural communities. We assert that the same class 
 of men are necessary to develop the States wherein there is still Government 
 land, and especially New Mexico. 
 
 We assert that the method of ranging stock on land which is adapted for 
 farming purposes is profligate, wasteful, and should be made obsolete. That 
 the men who run cattle on the range are depriving the many of homes that 
 the few may enjoy special privileges. That the development of this country 
 demands that it shall be occupied by thousands of men with a few cattle each 
 rather than a few men with thousands of cattle each. 
 
 For these reasons we protest ag;iinst despoiling the common people by with- 
 drawing land from homestead and leasing to the wealthy for grazing purposes. 
 
 Mr. Eaker. Are these papers and letters signed by these people 
 who want homesteaders? 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. Yes, sir; almost all. Where it is otherwise, I 
 will so state. They are from the men actually on the farm, and I 
 would like to add at this point that I agree generally with the case 
 of the large stockmen up to this point : That the system of the graz- 
 ing of the public lands in the past has been a failure where there 
 was no leasing bill and no grazing homestead law allowing the 
 settlement to be made by the farmer, who is also to be a small stock- 
 man. That has been the testimony of almost every letter I have 
 received. 
 
 The cattlemen made a much stronger case in the last Congress 
 than they did in this, to the effect that the meat-producing capacity 
 of the arid West has been cut in half in the last 20 or 30 years by 
 overgrazing. We have arrived at the point where we must adopt 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 355 
 
 either one of the two systems now proposed in order to restore the 
 meat producing capacity of the West— the one as proposed in the 
 Kent bill for the cattlemen, whom you heard last wees; the other 
 as proposed by my humble correspondence here — to combine farming 
 with cattle raising on one fenced homestead. 
 Mr .'Thomson. May I ask you a question right there ? 
 Mr. Feegusson. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. In your judgment, is there any of this remaining 
 public domain on which it would be practicable to graze cattle under 
 some kind of a leasing bill and where it would not be practicable to * 
 combine the farming and the cattle raising under a 640- acre home- 
 stead ? 
 Mr. Fbegusson. Speaking generally, yes. 
 Mr. Thomson. How much? 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. It would be a poor guess, for this reason, Mr. 
 Thomson, that in my judgment any arbitrary selection would not 
 be judicious. That is shown by the petitions I read to you and others 
 I have here. It is also shown by one illustration I will mention: 
 Around Demming, N. Mex., it was admitted by one of these cattle- 
 men, and it is true, that 15 years ago such an arbitrary selection or 
 classification as is attempted in the Kent bill would have put all of 
 that now valuable farming section absolutely out of the reach of 
 farmers and held it under great grazing leases or pastures. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Do you understand that if there is a segregation made 
 tentatively that segregation would become permanent? 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. No; not in the sense you mean, because your bill 
 attempts to limit it to 10 years. But it will be 10 years before the 
 farmer will, be allowed to come in there ; and in the meanwhile he has 
 to wait, and while he is waiting he will starve to death or hunt some 
 more- favorable place. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Would it be your judgment that this system of 
 grazing that has been in vogue in the public domain for some time 
 and is now in vogue, and which you say cattlemen are correct in 
 contending has been a failure and is, should be allowed to continue 
 for some time pending the taking up of such land as would be taken 
 up under a 640-acre homestead bill ? 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. Something of that kind, along that line. As I 
 illustrated in speaking of the early settlement of western Kansas, the 
 difficulty is in settling up the Middle West. I remember an instance 
 that occurred 15 years ago, where a man put down a windmill and got 
 water, and he found he could pump enough to raise a garden, andTie 
 started one, and there are now hundreds of farmers in his locality 
 prosperous and selling all the alfalfa and stuff they can raise by 
 pumping water for irrigation, and they have plenty of water. That 
 is just an instance. The point I am making is that by natural se- 
 lection, so to speak, we will find left all over the West, ultimately, 
 lands that can not be farmed at all, and that may be made subject 
 to a big scheme of grazing exclusively, such as Mr. Kent contem- 
 plates. 
 
 Mr. Kent. The natural selection should be confined to those who 
 wish to select homesteads. 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. It will be impossible, in my judgment. Let me 
 give you my idea, Mr. Kent. Your bill provides that all the balance 
 of the public domain shall now, at once, be withdrawn from agri- 
 
356 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 cultural entry except under the impossible provisions of the Kent 
 bill ; that that should be divided up in grazing sections, leaving cor- 
 porations to control hundreds of thousands of acres, and establishing 
 a grazing district which shall be controlled as to any further opera- 
 tions under it by this law ; and the control of it shall be put into the 
 hands of an advisory board of five persons, consisting of four of these 
 men interested in grazing — it does not say anything about the 
 farmer — but these four to be selected by the stockmen within said 
 district, to provide for overgrazing and restore the grazing capacity 
 of the land, and that the fifth shall be selected by the Department of 
 Agriculture, and that is ominous to me, because there may be some 
 young fellow just out of college selected, and he may do as one such 
 man did when he came down there and fined a goat man because his 
 goats roamed back on the land in a forest reserve where his ancestors 
 had lived for centuries. 
 
 But that is off the question. The point I am coming to is that, in 
 my opinion, under this Kent bill, it is a practical denial of any 
 further development of my State in an agricultural way. It is a 
 denial of the possibility of establishing homes and schools and 
 churches and have taxable land values in the grazing reserves; and 
 I think any one of you who will analyze that bill will say that it is 
 practically a mockery to say to these men who are overcrowding our 
 cities that they should come out into this country and make homes 
 under such conditions. A man can not come out there, under the 
 Kent bill, and make an entry except under the direction of this pro- 
 posed advisory board. A man wants to make an entry and run his 
 business as he pleases. Schools and churches can not spring up in a 
 grazing district under the Kent bill. A man can come in, but he 
 can graze his cattle only under direction of that advisory board. My 
 bill provides that in lieu of cultivation he shall be allowed to improve 
 his entry by certain expenditures. He is allowed to spend as much 
 as $1.25 an acre on his 640 acres in improvements that will tend to 
 increase the capacity of his 640 acres for either farming or stock 
 raising. That may include a windmill or fence or a gasoline engine, 
 and gasoline is very cheap in this country and the pumping appa- 
 ratus is vastly improved as well as cheapened. But what chance will 
 he have in a great grazing reserve controlled by this advisory board 
 with the help of a graduate from some eastern college, without 
 experience — and some of them are not always considerate of the 
 small stockman's interests in the forest reserves in our State. 
 
 Mr. Church. You have lived in New Mexico for a great many 
 years ? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Yes, sir; 31. 
 
 Mr. Church. Living there such a long time you observed, I pre- 
 sume, the tracts of territory which are now in the forest reserve 
 before they were set aside as forest reserves ? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Church. I would like to ask you whether the rules and re- 
 strictions that prevail now in the forest reserves have had a tendency 
 to increase homesteading or a tendency to decrease it? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Precisely the contrary, for the reason that the 
 homes were made in these forest reserves before they were created. 
 
 Mr. Church. Will you make a direct statement on that ? 
 
 Mr. Thomson. You say the regulations would increase it? 
 
DISPOSITION OF GKAZING LANDS. 357 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I say it is quite the contrary ; that it has deterred 
 those not rich, so far as my observation goes. 
 
 Mr. Church. The reason I asked that is that Mr. Pinchot stated it 
 had stimulated homesteading and that there was more homesteading 
 by reason of the restrictions. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Mr. Pinchot made a statement, which is true, that many 
 people have located homesteads for the purpose of securing timber 
 and not for home building and agriculture, and that such "home- 
 steaders" were discouraged by the forest-reserve policies, but not 
 agricultural homesteaders. 
 
 Mr. Church. In order to get that straight, I will say legitimate 
 homesteaders. Have these rules stimulated legitimate homesteading, 
 or have they been a bar to legitimate homesteading ? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. It has certainly not stimulated it, and has had 
 the contrary effect, in my judgment. 
 
 Mr. Lenboot. I understood you to say that under the Kent bill a 
 man could not enter without the permission of this executive board. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. No ; I perhaps did not state that accurately. He 
 can go by law and select his 640 acres and file on it and make an 
 entry. I mean it in a little different sense from what I first stated. 
 I mean an entryman can go in there under the 640-acre plan and do 
 what he can do on the public land, with any cattle he had to graze ; 
 but he would have to graze under the regulations of this advisory 
 board, and if he undertook to fence it, it would be a very expensive 
 fence he would have to make, and I think it is an open question 
 whether the matter of his fencing would not be subject to this ad- 
 visory board. 
 
 Mr. Lenroot. Does this bill give the 640-acre entryman any rights 
 under the public domain outside of his 640 acres ? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. No, sir. Mr. Mondell's bill, providing 1,280 acres, 
 gives to each entryman the privilege to graze on any of the public 
 sections around him. My judgment is that my bill will tend — and 
 I am speaking now with reference to that eastern slope of New 
 Mexico — that my bill will result in having a family on every 640 
 acres ; that everyone will fence, and by fencing he pays the Govern- 
 ment for his land under the terms of my bill, and we will do just 
 as they do in Iowa, where they have 160-acre farms, where the dairy 
 interest will flourish and where you can raise wheat and corn and 
 such things, and on those 160 acres in Iowa they produce cattle, as 
 my correspondent says, and I am quoting from him. Iowa is the 
 'greatest farming State in the Union, and is second in raising meat, 
 and my State will be settled up like Iowa, except instead of 160 we 
 will have 640 acre farms. Before I leave the question of homestead- 
 ing in the forest reserves, I would like to ask what chance would 
 there be to. establish schools and churches when it is admitted that 
 the whole country is under the control of big cattlemen ? 
 
 Mr. Kent. This Iowa analogy is utterly fallacious. It is well 
 known where agriculture is possible, where you get tremendous 
 yields, of course you can raise much live stock, but you do not sup- 
 pose the production in Iowa can be duplicated in the territory you 
 are talking about. The conditions in Iowa and the conditions in 
 New Mexico are absolutely different. That is not any argument in 
 favor of your proposition. 
 
358 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Were you to ask a question? You are making 
 an argument. 
 
 Mr. Kent. I beg your pardon. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I mentioned Iowa because I believe there are large 
 sections in New Mexico similar to those in Iowa, except that we 
 would not have the 160-acre farms, but the 640-acre farms. In New 
 Mexico we have even now a large dairy product. I have several 
 letters here that show there is a large amount of cheese and cream 
 and butter shipped out from New Mexico now. Through the parcel- 
 post system they ship it when they are located a long ways from the 
 railroad, and many of my correspondents call attention to the fact 
 that in many sections of New Mexico they can produce great dairy 
 products, and I compare New Mexico with Iowa because I believe 
 my State under proper homestead laws would resemble Iowa in that 
 product. It was great statesmanship that created the homestead 
 laws under which such a State as Iowa developed, and it is going 
 to take statesmanship and self-denial and hard work to establish 
 happy homes in this great section of our country, known as the 
 semiarid region. 
 
 The Chairman. I would Hke to put to you a hypothetical case. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Very well. 
 
 The Chairman. I think you are thinking along the lines a ma- 
 jority of the members are thinking. Supposing that Secretary Lane, 
 who is a California man and a western man and knows some of the 
 West, and supposing Assistant Secretary Jones, who is from your 
 own State and knows much of the West, and Mr. Tallman, the Com- 
 missioner of the General Land Office, a western man, and who knows 
 much of the West, and George Otis Smith, Director of the Geological 
 Survey, who knows a great deal of the topography of the country, 
 should come before this committee and say that they had plats and 
 data and topographical maps showing the elevation, showing the 
 rainfall, showing the slopes, the indentures and impressions, and that 
 they were of the opinion that it was in their power to intelligently 
 divide the 323,000,000 acres remaining into three classes : First, class 
 A, which, with the lights and the information that we have as to 
 dry farming and irrigation, we could say clearly had agricultural 
 possibilities; and, second, that in class B the topography was such, 
 the elevation was. such, as being fairly above the crop-growing line, 
 and had no possibility whatever for agriculture ; and that they could 
 establish a third class C which which would embody an area about 
 which there was no doubt at all. Then following that, granted that 
 this showing can be made, which I think it can within a very short 
 time, so that no delay would be necessitated for your bill or the Kent 
 bill, then would you not say it was the intelligent thing for this 
 committee to do to perhaps apply a large-homestead proposition to 
 Class A, apply something like Mr. Kent's bill to class B, and prob- 
 ably something like Mr. Mondell's bill to class C, which was for 
 the present in doubt, with a rigid provision attached to class C that 
 a more detailed class and intelligent classification would soon be made 
 looking toward the reclassification of class C ? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. That is a long question, but it has been answered 
 already to a large extent. In the first place, it was stated here last 
 week by these men advocating a leasing bill that it would take from 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 359 
 
 ten million to fifteen million dollars and from 10 to 15 years to 
 make such classification of any value whatever. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you agree with that? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I am only stating that as part of the reason. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Was not their statements directed to a scientific 
 classification ? 
 
 Mr. Feegtisson. I do not know any more than you do. I refer 
 first to the difficulty of that, to the length of time it will take. If it 
 is to be scientific, I can answer the question in a nutshell: It has to 
 be accurate or it will retard the development of the West. 
 
 Mr. Baker. In regard to the question of scientific investigation 
 and classification, I want to call to your attention something that 
 occurred in California. At one place the Agricultural Department 
 classed the land as not having enough vitality in it to raise a crop 
 of rye; and they so told the people, and its development was, of 
 course, retarded. Finally, a man got in there who had considerable 
 pluck and he developed the land on his own hook, and that land 
 to-day is selling all the way from $10 to $75 an acre. It is occupied 
 by as fine a community as exists in the West or any other place in 
 the world, with all the benefits of the home, with orchards and 
 gardens and all those things, and if that is true a scientific investi- 
 gation -would not be of very much advantage to the West. 
 
 Mr. Fergttsson. I think not. I was going to answer the chair- 
 man. That is the first objection. These gentlemen last week testi- 
 fied it would take years and millions of money to make a classifica- 
 tion that would not defeat development. That is the first answer I 
 would make. The second is, that with the experience I have already 
 shown was had in western Kansas in her early history and in sec- 
 tions of my own State, it is impossible to anticipate what can be 
 done in the way of agricultural development unless the people have 
 a chance to try. We have had no chance to try under the small 
 homesteads allowed. In my own State, men tell me that if they 
 only had had 640 acres they could have succeeded, and they say, 
 " For God's sake, let us have the balance, the 640 acres, and we will 
 make it." 
 
 Mr. Thomson. A while ago you stated that there was a considerable 
 portion of this public domain that would not be fit for agriculture. 
 
 Mr. Fergttsson. In the main, I believe that, but I might be mis- 
 taken as to that. I do not know what can be done, in the light of 
 scientific progress, with what Dr. Galloway is doing, with the 
 experiments with dry grasses, who can tell what the result will be? 
 
 Mr. Thomson. The logical outcome of your proposition would be 
 not to attempt to make any improvement in the matter of grazing 
 until there had been scientific effort made to create agricultural land 
 out of every acre of this public domain. 
 
 Mr. Fergttsson. I did not say scientific effort. I said the efforts 
 made through the hard knocks of the pioneer. 
 
 The Chairman. I would say to the gentleman I agree with him as 
 to many of his views, but I want to divert for a moment on the hypo- 
 thetical case I put to you. The case I put to you was one that did 
 not contemplate this ten or fifteen million dollar expenditure and 
 did not contemplate a detailed examination, but the question I put 
 was one predicated upon the fact that the Secretary came here and 
 said they had plats and information sufficient now to make a rough 
 
360 DISPOSITIOH OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 classification which would not, of course, be accurate, but which 
 would be better than the present method of handling the public 
 grazing part and even the homestead part. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. As I said in the beginning, the Department of the 
 Interior should be heard fully, and this committee should not take 
 action until it heard from them. 
 
 The Chairman. You heard the statement of the attorney general 
 of Arizona the other day? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. You head the statement of Mr. Page. Their 
 statement in substance was that the remaining portion of their State 
 was land of a character that never could be used for agriculture at 
 all. Now, with a statement like that, does it not appeal to your 
 sense of judgment that it is the duty of Congress to use each and 
 every acre of the public to the highest possible purpose? And- if 
 their statements are true that practically all that remaining undis- 
 posed-of land down there is unfit for agriculture, then might it not 
 be advisable to adopt some sort of regulation and give these cattle 
 men the right to construct pastures that would allow them to retain 
 their poor stuff and separate it from the rest of the cattle without 
 their being classed as criminals? The present United States 
 statutes provide that if a man constructs any fence on the public 
 domain for any purpose is a criminal, and that seems more rigid 
 than you and I ought to exact, although we both are in favor of the 
 homesteaders. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. In these 330,000,000 acres of land there is an im- 
 mense variety of climate. I do not know Arizona, except that I 
 traveled across the northern and southern parts and in the mountains 
 around Flagstaff. I know the desert. Never a blade of grass grew 
 there. The further east you get the better it gets, and New Mexico is 
 bordered on the east by Texas. It is bordered on the north by Col- 
 orado, and eastern Colorado is like Kansas. As I said before to 
 this committee, I will be more than willing if you apply this bill 
 only to my own State. This is a great question, gentlemen, that this 
 committee has before it, what to do with 330,000,000 of acres that are 
 left upon which men could make happy homes if you gave them a 
 little more of the land. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. I do not think any of the committee object to giving 
 them the opportunity to make their homes on 640 acres wherever 
 there is a slight chance to do it, but the question that keeps coming up 
 in my mind is, in order to do that, is it essential to refrain from 
 doing anything with the large part of this domain that you admit is 
 unfit, and never will be fit, for anything except grazing ? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I believe it to be so for the reason I told you. 
 That Kansas was at first considered hopeless from an agricultural 
 standpoint, and now it is the greatest agricultural State in the 
 Union, perhaps. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Would you object if the committee made an effort to 
 open up sections as they are in your State to 640-acre homesteads, 
 and at the same time try to improve the grazing proposition that 
 you say is a failure under 10-year leasing periods on the part of this 
 public domain that can probably be best used for grazing ? Can not 
 they both go on together ? 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 361 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Admitted you can select the public domain in 
 sections, I am heartily in favor of making every acre in these 
 330,000,000 acres conserve the highest purpose for humanity and for 
 our country. I admit all that, and I am as anxious as anyone to 
 do it, and I believe that sometime by practical experience or by the 
 expenditure of enough money there can be such selection of this 
 land as to make it of the highest productive value; but if you pass 
 a leasing bill like the Kent bill, which by its terms will retard every 
 homesteader, this will not come true. It is easy to say we are not 
 
 interfering with the development of the West by this Kent bill 
 
 Mr. French (interposing). Do you think that your bill and Mr. 
 Kent's bill are absolutely irreconcilable ; that you can not apply both 
 of them to the conditions ? That were we to pass both of these bills 
 there would be absolute conflict? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I can not say. It is beyond the range of absolute 
 statement ; but I do say that the passage of the Kent bill will stop 
 the use of my State for homes. 
 Mr. French. Provided your bill is passed, too ? 
 Mr. Fergusson. The rural communities will practically be de- 
 prived of homes. 
 
 Mr. Lenroot. Would it not be better to have embodied in the law 
 a certain class of land, comprising a very large area, which would 
 be what your people want, and another class with a combination of 
 the homesteading and leasing privileges ? Would you not be better 
 off with the chairman's proposition, so as to get a certain area just 
 as you want it, than you are under the present conditions ? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Anything is better than the present conditions for 
 the development of New Mexico. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Would you not be better off if your rough area, in- 
 capable of agriculture, were better controlled, and the people had a 
 better knowledge as to whether they could get their feed ? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Let me add this: That if classification were pos- 
 sible to be made now I would be heartily in favor of it, because I do 
 believe that ultimately we will find great grazing sections most 
 appropriate for grazing exclusively, and we need meat in this 
 country whether we get it from the small stockmen or from an ex- 
 clusive system of grazing. 
 
 Mr. Lenroot. So far as classification is concerned ,of the land that 
 came within your lines, the classification would be just as perfect 
 as it ever could be ? 
 Mr. Fergusson. Granting that ; yes. 
 Mr. Lenroot. Within this class. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I referred to what this classification would have 
 been to western Kansas. . 
 
 Mr Lenroot. Say class A covers all the land you are asking tor 
 homesteading, all the lands the department might now put into 
 class A. To apply all the lands in that class would be just as com- 
 plete as is your proposition as to those lands ? 
 Mr. Fergusson. Granted the classification was correct. 
 Mr. Lenroot. Whether it was correct or not, you would have all 
 the benefits of it as to those lands ? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Yes ; whether you get in that class A all the land 
 that could be claimed. 
 
362 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 The Chairman. In reference to this land described as class A, 
 your whole State would probably be put in that class. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. If such a classification was attempted by the de- 
 partment, in your judgment, how much of the public domain remain- 
 ing in your State would probably go into class A — meaning such 
 lands as you think would be successful under this 640-acre propo- 
 sition ? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Part of my State is mountainous, and there are 
 immense valleys. The eastern slope is plain. I believe a large part 
 of this eastern slope might be put in class A, but I fear there will be 
 shut out of class A places where thousands of acres might be re- 
 claimed in the midst of the mountains, where the ranges are, say, 50 
 miles apart, with agricultural valleys between ; that that might be 
 put in some other class and that would shut out these valleys from 
 nomesteading. In other words, there are possibilities of farming 
 in the little areas, where farms might be located, that ought to be in 
 class A, and which might be mistakenly put in class B. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. Suppose, Judge, that classification was attempted, 
 and that lands on this slope you describe should come in class A, and 
 some of this land in the mountains up there that you think would be 
 excluded and thrown into the grazing class, do you not think, for the 
 first grazing period, that might be allowed under some kind of a 
 leasing bill ; that class B might be established without any harm, and 
 such people who wanted to take up the 640-acre homesteads could find 
 plenty of room to take them up in the slope ; and possibly at the end 
 of that grazing period the parts of those valleys that could support 
 agricultural operations might be shifted over into the other class? 
 
 Mr. Feegtjsson. I suppose the law could be fixed that way; not 
 admitting it is done in the present Kent bill. 
 
 Mr. Thomson. I do not suppose Mr. Kent would vote to adopt his 
 bill in the language in which it is now before us ? 
 
 Mr. Kent. I have said I was not individually responsible for this 
 bill in all its detail and that it did not meet my entire approval. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I want to submit to the committee that the ques- 
 tion is one of great importance, and I want you to help me provide 
 for homes in my State. 
 
 Mr. Raker. In 1885 it was lawful for any man, citizen or other- 
 wise, to fence any part of the public domain for his purposes. Now 
 Congress^ in behalf of relieving the homesteader and putting the 
 land on the market, passed the act of 1885 making it unlawful to 
 fence any of the public domain. Do you remember at the time and 
 following that it was the conviction of the cattlemen that would ruin 
 their business? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I do not remember specifically. I went to New 
 Mexico in 1882. I did not know much about the land laws there 
 then, but I guess the records show. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Is it not a fact that a great many of the sheep and 
 cattle men, by virtue of having the territory to use, made no provision 
 for their stock in the winter and simply kept increasing their herds 
 because of the money they were able to make out of it ? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. That I know. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Is it not a fact that those men are each year there cur- 
 tailing their herds and providing winter feed for them so that they 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 368 
 
 may use other produce used on the farm and provide for the cattle 
 in the winter ? 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. I think that is so, especially since the development 
 of agriculture. They are raising an immense lot of alfalfa, and tliey 
 find a ready , market for it. 
 
 Mr. Raker. It is an advantage to the stockmen, is it not, to have 
 hay and other necessary feed to fatten the cattle before thev ship 
 them off? , 
 
 Mr. Feegtjsson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Eakee. Take your State, as well as many western States, is 
 not the want of transportation one of the great drawbacks to the 
 homesteader in the building up of the West ? 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. Yes, sir ; no doubt about that. 
 
 Mr. Eakee. And even in the localities where they have the rail- 
 roads they fix the price so high, with one road under one control, that 
 even then those who get their stock to the market have all the profit 
 taken away from them by virtue of the freights they are compelled 
 to pay? 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. Yes. Those things are known to everybody. 
 
 Mr. Eakee. That is being changed right along? 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Eakee. With that change coming along, is it not giving the 
 homesteader the opportunity to make more off his land? 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. There is no doubt about the value of the farming 
 community. It brings more railroads and it brings competition 
 when the trust business is curbed a little more. My general feeling 
 is that I think it is worthy of the attention of the highest thought to 
 determine what to do with these millions of acres left. We might, as 
 Mr. Lenroot suggested, divide up the West and classify the land so 
 as to promote agriculture and stock raising at the same time. Of 
 course, there may be no higher object to attain than that, and to do 
 that is where statesmanship is required. Mr. Mondell, who will 
 appear to-morrow morning, has a proposition similar to mine, to 
 try to make homes where it is possible on these 330,000,000 acres. 
 In my State they are satisfied with 640 acres. Take the eastern 
 slope, it is very fertile, and they are not only sinking wells, but also 
 conserving their water with dams, to catch the sometimes immense 
 rainfall, and they are working on the 160 and 320 acre tracts; but 
 what they want is 640 acres, and they claim they can not succeed 
 without that amount. 
 
 Mr. Geaham. I am in strong sympathy with you in this matter, 
 but the hearings we have had have demonstrated to both of us, who 
 know little about the actual conditions, that the conditions are very 
 varied, and if we are going to cover all these differences in a single 
 bill the terms must be very general. In the absence of an accurate 
 survey, would it not be quite satisfactory and eminently practical 
 to leave the matter of classification to the heads of departments and 
 such others, as the chairman of the committee suggested awhile ago, 
 not being arbitrary about who they were? Is that not the only prac- 
 tical thing to do ? And one other point : From your statement and 
 the statements of others who addressed the committee, it is quite 
 clear in many States that there are some people adapted to home- 
 steading in a small way and right around them are large enterprises 
 adapted to grazing. The line will have to be drawn somewhere be- 
 
364 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 tween the two. For instance, if there were very few 640-acre tracts 
 susceptible of homesteading in a particular neighborhood and a 
 very large area of grazing land about them, it seems to me the 
 highest use of all that land might require that the limited area of 
 homesteading land should be sacrificed and thrown into the grazing 
 land. Somewhere you would have to draw the line and see how 
 small and how large an area would have to be sacrificed in that way 
 to get the greatest benefit from all the land for the highest purpose 
 it would conserve, and would not the commission, or whatever you 
 please to call it, suggested by the chairman in the absence of specific 
 information, be the very best way to segregate the lands and classify 
 them in such a way as he indicated, and can not all those provisions 
 be incorporated in a single measure? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. That is a long question, and I will answer it 
 later on. 
 
 The Chairman. As it is now 1.30 o'clock, the committee will take 
 a recess until 2.30 p. m. 
 
 AFTER RECESS. 
 
 At the expiration of the recess the committee assembled. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Fergusson, you may proceed. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. My answer to Judge Graham's question, which 
 he asked just before recess, would be generally, first, that the Kent 
 bill proposes to combine in one bill all of the remaining land of the 
 character described, and require those who desired homes to seek 
 them, hampered, as I claim, by the fencing and regulations of a 
 great grazing reserve; that it is possible to ascertain large areas; 
 that it is possible to make farms on, or recognize as suitable for 
 farms and segregate those, letting the farmers have the exclusive 
 rights to them, and not include them in grazing reserves, and in 
 another class to put those that are assumed or classified as being 
 suitable only for grazing purposes; that that might be a solution 
 that would suffice, say, for from 5 to 10 years. For illustration^ 
 those seeking homes or farms would be satisfied with that restriction, 
 as long as the lands classified as appropriate for homes, on which 
 farming and grazing was to be combined, would seek only and be 
 satisfied until they were gone ; and that possibly we would hope by 
 that time, whether 5 or 10 years, there would be a reclassification so 
 as to give them a chance at the land that had for the time been 
 put into exclusive grazing reserve. Some such outline as that, I 
 think, Mr. Lenroot and Mr. Sinnott have had in mind. It might be 
 clone in some way coincidently by legislation in this Congress. So 
 that is the best answer I can make to that. I think it will be impos- 
 sible, so far as my State is concerned, so far as my intimate acquaint- 
 ance with the character of the land goes, to combine the two in one 
 bill, allowing grazing to go on under the leasing system over the 
 whole of the remaining public domain, and subject the homesteaders 
 to the hazards of trying to make homes in the midst of such grazing 
 reserves. I do not think that is practicable, and I believe it would 
 operate as a practical forbidding of further homesteading, except 
 in a spasmodic way here and there by some hardy man. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 365 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Will you excuse me for a minute. I was called out 
 when you were introducing your letters, and I wanted to know 
 what was the general consensus of opinion of the people from whom 
 you received these letters as to the number of head of cattle they 
 could run on these 640 acres, and whether they intended to combine 
 those 640 acres or have that as a nucleus and use the outside range. 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson. I am exceedingly obliged to you for asking" that 
 question. I brought up here as much of this correspondence as I 
 could possibly hope to get in the record, but I have brought only 
 half of what I have. I have cut out more than half of the letters 
 and petitions. 
 
 Your question is appropriate, because I realize I will not be able 
 to read what I have here, and must be content with getting it in the 
 record. The consensus of opinion — in fact, every one has told me 
 they can graze on 640 acres from 20 to 50 head of beeves, and they 
 generally put about four times as many sheep to the 640 acres. I 
 would state,. in connection with the same thing, that the almost uni- 
 versal verdict of the vast number of letters, telegrams, and petitions 
 I have got is that if they had had this 640-acre privilege New Mexico 
 would have been filled with successful farmers, with stock raising in 
 3onnection with farming. 
 
 The practically unanimous statement in all of these documents 
 is, further, to this effect, that the salvation of New Mexico is, as 
 Dr. Galloway stated to me the other day, that he is gravitating 
 to the conclusion that the ultimate solution was to restore the grazing 
 capacity or the meat-producing capacity of the semiarid sections 
 through some system of combining stock raising with agriculture, as 
 I understood him — to give enough land to allow every man who tried 
 to farm to supplement his efforts by having sufficient grazing acreage 
 to make a living in dry years, we will say. All of these things con- 
 verge in that direction. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Do you have much of a winter there? 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. Not a great deal, sir. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. You do not have to put up much winter feed? 
 
 Mr. Fergttsson. I will answer that. That is a very appropriate 
 question. When I first went to New Mexico nobody ever thought, 
 even in the higher altitudes — I mean up to 6,000 or 7,000 feet above 
 the sea, and where it snows more and is colder — of feeding, or pro- 
 viding any feed, for the winter. There was very little even of this 
 done, as Mr. Johnson, of Utah, mentioned the other day, of driving 
 from certain sections, where they grazed in the summer, to the 
 lower sections to graze in the winter, for this reason, that, especially 
 in the eastern slope of New Mexico, as I have described so often to 
 you, when it rains heavily in July and August — those are the two 
 rainy months, when they do have a rainy season — the grama grass 
 grows until the middle of October, and then it cures by the dry 
 autumn winds and the very dry atmosphere on the ground, on the 
 stalk, and affords the richest feed in the world for the whole of the 
 •winter season. Until it was overgrazed, cattle became rolling fat 
 on that cured hay, you might call it, on the plains, and even yet, 
 except right lately, for instance, in Mimbres Valley, and in the 
 Pecos country, where they have irrigation from the river to some 
 extent, and largely by having discovered a valuable artesian belt, 
 
366 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 that they are raising very great quantities of alfalfa, and of later 
 years the custom is growing up of feeding during the winter the 
 stuff that is raised by the farmers during the summer, especially as 
 it is difficult for them to ship it out in some of these sections. 
 
 I would be glad to go right ahead. Shall I read some more of 
 these letters? 
 
 The Chairman. Proceed in your own way. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I realize I am taking a great deal of time. 
 
 Mr. Brown. Was there any other reason except overgrazing which 
 caused the change in your methods of production or industry? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Yes, sir; settlers trying to make homes on only 
 160 acres, the limit allowed. I illustrated it first by a big cattle 
 ranch that was in full blast when I went to New Mexico in 1882 or 
 1883. Soon people came in hunting homes. They began to get on 
 the edges of this big cattle range, which was supplied with its water 
 for the cattle from 40- acre patented tracts, surrounding valuable 
 streams, springs seeps in the mountains, where they had cleaned 
 them out and made little reservoirs, perhaps, and also got some 
 moisture from rain. That is the way the big cattle company sus- 
 tained itself in that country. Then, the little farmer came in around 
 the foothills of the mountains, where it rained more than it did in 
 the plains, and would find indications of water. He would locate 
 there, and around his water he would enter 40 or 80 or 160 acres in 
 some instances, with a view to trying to farm and graze a few cattle 
 on the near-by public range. And to make a long story short, in 
 addition to a fellow who would have some cattle, another one would 
 come in and think he could make a fine success from the way this 
 grama grass grew last season. He would say, " I will take 160 
 acres in the middle of this man's grazing domain," and in that way 
 that cattle ranch became cut to pieces, so many of the farmers came 
 in, and while they suffered in the dry years they would make a 
 pretty good crop in the other years. That led to the utmost bitter- 
 ness between the little men and big men engaged in the business. 
 The little stockman would say, " Your cowboys are ruining my busi- 
 ness," and the big stockman would reply, " You came into this range 
 to brand and steal my cattle." 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. Was there any trouble about slitting ears? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Yes; various ways of marking stock. 
 
 In addition to that, and in further answer to your question, every 
 now and then an immense herd of sheep of 20,000 or 30,000 or 5,000 
 would come in there and finish up the grazing on the public range, 
 if it got short where they had been grazing before, and that led to 
 big cattle and sheep wars. In one instance, when I was prosecuting 
 attorney, there were several thousand sheep killed in one night in 
 a region of 15 or 20 miles around. The sheep herd had been at- 
 tacked by a combination of all the cowboys who were employed by 
 the cattle companies in that region, and they had just ridden through 
 those sheep on their ponies, and had a bushel of fun murdering the 
 sheep. You have heard of that in other States besides New Mexico. 
 The result of that is that the grazing capacity in the West has been 
 greatly cut down, and the demand of all now is to have legislation 
 that will prevent overcrowding and the consequent disorder, and re- 
 store the productiveness of the semiarid West. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 367 
 
 One of my correspondents mentions the State of Iowa. He says 
 it is about second as a cattle and meat producing State, because the 
 grazing industry of Iowa is a wonderful source of wealth, and be- 
 sides that they conserve the range by having it owned and fenced. 
 They feed their cattle in the winter. They improve their stock 
 whenever they own their land, and my idea is that my State will 
 after awhile, without any big grazing reserves at all, become not as 
 populous as Iowa, because there 160 acres or less is enough for one 
 man, down to 40 on the richer sections ; but it will become a farming 
 State, so far as it is ever possible to reclaim the "West in farms, and 
 coincidentally and as part of the development with it, there will be 
 a restoring of the grazing capacity, and therefore the meat-producing 
 capacity of my State. Under the system proposed in my bill the 
 farms will be larger than in Iowa, but the tendency will be the same 
 as it has been in Iowa, viz, to create homes owned by the people, 
 where farming, stock raising, and producing dairy products will be 
 the business of the rural communities. 
 
 The proposition has been put to me here by Mr. Thompson, and 
 as pointed out by my friend Judge Graham, and I see it in the in- 
 quiry here generally that, if it is possible to so classify the land, these 
 330,000,000 acres which are left, as that both the grazing industry 
 and the farming industry can be fostered and developed. Then 
 comes the other question: Is it not possible to so classify or isolate' 
 different appropriate sections for grazing alone or farming alone, 
 as the case may be, as that both industries may grow coincidently in 
 that way ; and that we can, with our present knowledge, now find 
 a region that is so certainly appropriate for farming that it may be 
 segregated for that purpose, and one where the combined idea of 
 farming and raising meat can be carried out under one farmer ; an- 
 other where it is admitted nothing can be done but grazing proper. 
 I am bound to say " yes " to that, if possible, to so classify. As to the 
 stock-raising industry in my State, we have been raising less and 
 less. We used to take astonishing numbers of beeves to market. But 
 the idea of the Kent bill— and I beg of you thinking men listen to 
 me — that the whole business can be now put into grazing reserves, 
 with agricultural land included, and held from agricultural entry, 
 is a proposition between the entrymen and the Government, I utterly 
 deny. 
 
 Mr. Eakee. Under the homestead laws during the year 1913 there 
 were 138,871 entries made on the public domain, and covering, as 
 original entries, 15,321,926.86 acres of land, which was taken up 
 under original entries last year alone; and final entries, that went to 
 final approval, there were 1,450,681.03 acres, and patented there were 
 12,678,076.80 patented last year. If that thing continues on for the 
 next 10 years there will not be much public land remaining. 
 
 Mr. Fehgusson. It would be very largely taken, of course, in the 
 same proportion. If I may interpolate, I want you to take a certain 
 area, representing a certain section, independently. There is one 
 other idea in connection with developing this immense semiarid 
 area for grazing and farming at the same time. My general bill, I 
 know, raises in your minds a question — and this is why the cattle- 
 men antagonize me — the proposition of looking after the farming 
 industry first, and let the cattleman hustle until such of the "Western 
 
368 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 countries can be taken for farms, or farming and grazing coin- 
 cidently have been taken. I wish to make this answer to a question 
 that occurs to some of your minds : That if matters are left as they 
 are now as to Mr. Kent's bill, and my bill should be enacted now as 
 applying to the whole West, you will find that there will be an im- 
 mense revival of the movement West of the people to get these 
 larger farms. You will find that, in the first place — and yotf will 
 find that none is going into such sections as there have been described 
 here, as are known not to be fit for farming, but first to the sections 
 where they think they can make homes on 640 acres. You will not 
 have long to wait; and I have vaguely in my mind a process of 
 natural selection which has gone on and resulted in driving the graz- 
 ing men out of Kansas and devoting the land to farms and cattle 
 raising. In Iowa, also, where cattle and hogs are produced on 160 
 acres and farm products enough to feed all winter, and enormous sur- 
 plus to sell besides, you will find that this process of natural selection 
 is what has solved the question up to the present time, and, in my hon- 
 est opinion, to enact my bill now will not infringe on the cattlemen 
 at all. There are still sections of the grazing country where, without 
 fencing and apportioning it exclusively to them, they are raising an 
 immense amount of meat yet, and they will have the exclusive use for 
 a long time of such lands as will be classified in proposed Class C. 
 It is obvious that that is going on now rapidly. 
 
 Another consideration that has been raised against my bill is 
 this — and it is true in my States — that many of these men who tried 
 to make a combined farm and stock farm on 160 or 320 acres have 
 failed and sold to the big men. That is true, but alleged danger 
 from that is flying in the face of history. Let the big cattleman buy 
 50,000 acres, as intimated has been done in Nebraska. He has in his 
 hands 50,000 acres, and patent for that has been obtained from the 
 Government and he has a right to fence it, but he also has to pay 
 taxes on it, and one of the keynotes in this thing of leasing is that it 
 is going to keep these lands from the lists of taxable property for the 
 benefit of the States in which they lie, and relieve the cattlemen 
 from paying taxes, which they will not have to pay if they can 
 lease the aforesaid 50,000 acres. That will not apply after my bill 
 providing for 640 acres is effective in New Mexico, but I admit it 
 will apply under the present homestead laws. Fifty miles from my 
 town there was an immense area owned by two big sheepmen, be- 
 cause they owned all the water holes or springs, from which water 
 could be procured for the sheep. After the 320-acre bill was passed, 
 and even 1bef ore, they were so eager for the land that it was all taken 
 up and those sheepmen driven out. I know a Mr. Mcintosh, an ex- 
 cellent man, who has made much money in grazing his sheep on that 
 land, where he owned 10 or 15 springs, and absolutely monopolized 
 the whole Government domain. He was driven out by the home- 
 seekers ; but I am told he is buying up the 160 patent tracts at $100 
 for 160 acres, trying to get that whole valley back into his hands. 
 Suppose he does ; he will have to pay taxes on it, and he will soon be 
 begging them to buy it in little tracts. At least he will have to pay 
 taxes, and you have heard these cattlemen say that if they have got 
 to own the land in sufficient area to run great herds of cattle and 
 sheep, they will have too much invested per capita of cow or sheep to 
 
DISPOSITION OF GKAZING LANDS. 369 
 
 enable them to float on that basis, and therefore they want the land- 
 leased. 
 
 The day for big men owning big tracts of land is past. If it is not 
 past, it will bring about the convulsions in our country which ruined 
 Eome as a republic. It will bring this country, if we do not keep 
 the lands divided up, to that condition. What is the bottom of the 
 trouble in Mexico to-day ? The agrarian trouble is what is ruining 
 Mexico. This man Terrazas owns almost the State of Chihuahua in 
 absolute fee. So, I am not afraid of the cattle and sheep men buy- 
 ing all the land. These poor fellows, who get 160 or 320 acres and 
 find they can not succeed, give them a better chance. 
 
 Here is something I ought to say, as I am firmly convinced that as 
 to all of the arid belt, all of these 330,000,000 acres, it is the highest 
 duty of the men who shape the policies and make the laws of this 
 great Republic to realize and study the question and find out whether 
 Dr. Galloway was not right the other day when, in response to a 
 question from me, whether this great question of the conflict between 
 the farmers, the small home seekers, and the large owners of stock, 
 the ultimate solution of that is not this: To restore the meat-pro- 
 ducing capacity of the West and at the same time develop it into 
 farms and homes for the people, as a combined proposition, by means 
 of fixing your homesteads so that if 640 acres is not enough to make 
 a home for a man to live safely and perhaps make a little money by 
 combining farming and raising beef and mutton on one farm or one 
 tract of land, the more important classification for you gentlemen to 
 be considering is this: As to whether the remaining land should not 
 be classified with reference to 160 acres, 320, 640, 1,280, or 2,560 
 acres to one, whether man or corporate body ; and whether this ques- 
 tion of reserving the land, holding the title in the Government, and 
 having.it managed, though in the confines of our respective local 
 States, from a bureau in Washington. Some have said that the ad- 
 visory board of four local stockmen, as provided in the leasing bill 
 of Mr. Kent, will be controlled by the fifth one at the Agricultural 
 Department, and if they are not satisfied, they can appeal to the 
 Secretary of Agriculture. But many will not be able to appeal. It 
 is possible for some young man who goes out from Washington to be 
 not just what he ought to be, and there will be abuses against the poor 
 devils trying to get homesteads on these great reserves — the influence 
 of -the big rich as against the poor man. We should consider these 
 things when we are about to adopt some permanent policy of our 
 Government with reference to those immense 330,000,000 acres, to 
 quote Mr. Pinchot's own words, and legislate in reference to that. 
 
 My friends, I do not want to take too much time. 
 
 I ask leave to put in the record my letters, etc. 
 
 The Chairman. Unless there is objection, you will have authority 
 to print such of those letters and quotations as you choose. 
 
 Before you pass to another subject, Mr. Fergusson, I want to 
 ask you a question that I think strikes at the economic side 
 of this problem : If a leasing bill was adopted, what, in all probabil- 
 ity, would they charge per acre, if on an acreage basis, for the land ? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I simply do not know. I am not in a position to 
 answer that question. 
 
 35074— pt 1—14 24 
 
370 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 The Chairman. It is in evidence that it would be 2 cents an acre. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I think that, sir, you would remember that better 
 than I would. I have simply been a lawyer, except I mined once a 
 little bit. 
 
 The Chairman. I think the statement was made that 2 cents would 
 be the maximum, if it was dealt with on an acreage basis, if not a 
 per head basis. Let me follow that a minute. If 640 acres of land 
 were leased at 2 cents an acre, that would only bring in a revenue of 
 $12.80 a year. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Yes, sir; I believe that is right. 
 
 The Chairman. What would in all probability be the increase in 
 30 head of cattle raised on one of these 640-acre homesteads within 
 a year — what would the growth be ? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I am unable to answer that question. 
 
 The Chairman. Could you estimate it? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I would be glad if you would help me out. I am 
 really not in an attitude to pretend to say. I never owned more than 
 a couple of Jersey cows. 
 
 The Chairman. I have some ideas about that, without making my- 
 self a witness. I have been a farmer all my life. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Put your idea in evidence in reply to your own 
 question, and I can say " yes." 
 
 The Chairman. Would you say that the annual increase on 30 head 
 of calves six months old, in value, until they are grown, would be $5 
 apiece? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I really am unable to answer that. 
 
 The Chairman. My answer to that would be that it would be a 
 great deal more than that, if I may resolve myself into the role of a 
 witness; but let us assume that the increase on each head of cattle 
 would be $5 apiece, and that a 640-acre grazing homestead could 
 produce 30 cattle. I believe the proof is it runs 15 to 50 cattle, but 
 say 30 as an average. We could increase the value in beef by raising 
 a little Kaffir corn and Milo maize and a little Sedan grass, etc., and 
 we would increase the earning capacity of the section about $150 of 
 material wealth to somebody. That being true, if half of the home- 
 steaders do fail, and did not go on to patent at all, we would still be 
 ahead of the 2-cent proposition. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. There is not a bit of doubt about that, and I would 
 like to interpolate something. I want to be sure to impress myself 
 as believing and feeling very deeply in. this way : That under the 
 leasing proposition, the grazing capacity or meat-producing capacity 
 of this semiarid West will be restored only so far as it will naturally 
 restore itself if it is protected from overgrazing by the regulations; 
 that, in addition to that medium or means of restoring the grazing 
 or meat-producing. capacity of the West, under the system of giving 
 land, whether 640 or more acres, to enable a man to own his land, 
 that it will not only be restored, as under the leasing bill by the re- 
 growth of the native grasses, if left free from overfeeding and pull- 
 ing up the roots ; my bill will have, in addition to that, the advan- 
 tage that all sorts of experiments will be tried with the new seeds, 
 adapted to dry climates, that are being continually sought out by our 
 most efficient Agricultural Department, and especially under Dr. Gal- 
 loway, who has had exclusive charge of that; and I am convinced 
 that the small stockman, owning his land, will more certainly restore 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 371 
 
 and increase the meat-producing capacity of the West than will the 
 • leasing system proposed by Mr. Kent. 
 
 I have selected men in my' State and sent the names over, and Dr; 
 Galloway has sent them this seed, with instructions how to cultivate 
 it and to report back to him as to each little tract, whether 1 acre or 
 2, the results of their experiments, and those results have been com- 
 ing in ; and, incidentally, I get many communications indicating the 
 enormous increase of the demand on me from every section of New 
 Mexico for more dry-farming seeds. They say, in effect, " You 
 did not send me any last year though you sent my neighbor John 
 Smith some. I want to try it this year, because I watched his results 
 and it is a wonderful thing. It is going to enable us to graze more 
 of our country than ever before." They have not claimed in behalf 
 of this grazing system that it will be any more than the use and con- 
 servation of the native grasses. It stands to reason, and my experi- 
 ence confirms it, that if the stock farmers own their homes, and have 
 around them their wives and children, they will do more in the way 
 of experimenting with these grasses and conserving and increasing 
 the grazing capacity ; and on the side will be what I pointed out be- 
 fore, the possibility of discovering more sections where water comes 
 up near to the surface, and where they can do intensive farming as 
 they are doing in the Mimbres Valley by pumping the subsurface 
 water. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Bight there, what have you to say as to the number of 
 cattle in New Mexico within the last 10 years more than the range 
 could support? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. That would be a poor guess. I have no statis- 
 tics or figures to base a statement on at all. I can only say according 
 to general repute and give my general ideas about New Mexico, con- 
 cerning what the cattlemen advocating this leasing bill have stated, 
 that it has been cut down, one said, at least half — the number of 
 cattle being produced and beeves being sent out of New Mexico. 
 
 Mr. Raker. The statistics show in the last 10 years that the cattle 
 in New Mexico had increased. What I was getting at was what 
 were your ideas as to whether or not just simply running cattle at a 
 loss or whether those cattlemen are making money. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. In this correspondence I have here from my peo- 
 ple with reference to this hearing, writing me in reference to that, 
 they indicate to me, almost all of them, that on the 160 or 320 acres 
 that they could not have stayed at all, except that there was some 
 vacant public land near them, and they have been able to run a few 
 cattle or sheep on that to supplement what they had; and some of 
 these farmers on 320 or 160 acre homesteads have been still struggling 
 to supplement their efforts and to tide over by having a few stock. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I have not been able to understand from the testi- 
 mony whether or not if New Mexico was taken right now and all 
 the remaining public land was put under lease, as provided in the 
 pending bill, it would increase the number of cattle in New Mexico. 
 
 Mr. Fergttsson. I could not say that it would not, for this reason, 
 that it will deter men from coming in and trying to make homes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. If it would not increase it, would it conserve the 
 forage ? 
 
372 disposition Of grazing lands. 
 
 Mr. Lbnkoot. He has not said it would not increase it over what 
 it is now, but it would not increase it over what it would be in 
 another way. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. That is the distinction. 
 
 Mr. Raker. If the cattle have been increasing in New Mexico, 
 what I am getting at is, it must of necessity be they are being suc- 
 cessfully raised and successfully marketed. A man would not fool- 
 ishly go into that business at a loss. If that is the case, how are you 
 going to raise more cattle on the same ground with the same kind 
 of feed, unless you put it under cultivation for the purpose of rais- 
 ing hay and other products raised by virtue of farming? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I understand the position of the advocates of the 
 Kent bill to be this : That the cattle and the sheep will increase in 
 New Mexico because of' the grazing capacity to support them being 
 increased by their having fenced all the country and dividing up and 
 regulating how many cattle shall be put on an acre. They propose to 
 increase it in that way. My idea is that the same increase would 
 come from the small homesteader under grazing homestead propo- 
 sition, and even a greater one, as they procured better grades of 
 cattle. Some of my correspondents make that valuable suggestion. 
 They must find in the winter finer stock; stock of a higher grade will 
 come into New Mexico, and they will be able to maintain that which 
 can not be maintained on the open range without winter feed, because 
 the small man will bring the best stock he can get, and will raise 
 enough forage, and have a silo to feed from in the winter, and there- 
 fore he will produce more beef because he has produced more pounds 
 per head of the beef than the long-legged Texas steer. So, I think, 
 the advocates of the Kent bill expect to increase also, under their 
 system, the beef-producing capacity of the herd, and I think they 
 make a good case in that respect, for the reason that the capacity of 
 New Mexico now to produce meat has been, from all the testimony, 
 very vastly cut down below what it was 25 years ago ; and, as I said 
 in my opening statement, I think I ought to state candidly that I 
 believe, according to the testimony of the cattlemen, the leasing ad- 
 vocates, and of my small farmers, that we have got right up against 
 the proposition, certainly, that one system or the other has got to be 
 adopted for the great arid West, because in the past it has been over- 
 grazed as the open, general public domain. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Well, that is a matter of your statement; but, never- 
 theless, the cattle have been increasing in numbers, and they are in- 
 creasing in numbers to-day. Now, if you lease that land, and put 
 the same number of cattle on the same land, how are you going to 
 increase the number of cattle ? 
 
 The Chairman. Let me answer that question, with your permis- 
 sion, Mr. Fergusson. I think if New Mexico was settled up— if you 
 can get people to go there and settle up New Mexico — I don't think 
 there will be any question about it. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I agree with you on that point, fully, Mr. Chairman. 
 
 The Chairman. I would say that I have some farm land of my own 
 in my county, and the land in its original state was covered with 
 mesquite grass, which never grows as high as that pencil. It would 
 take a whole 160-acre farm to graze 10 or 15 head of cattle. I raise 
 enough cane on 2 or 3 acres, and enough alfalfa on 5 acres to feed 
 
DISPOSITION OF GBAZING LANDS. 373 
 
 six cattle the year around and keep them fat. A hundred and sixty 
 acres of wild-grass land in my county — which is not a parallel case 
 at all, but we will mention it for what it is worth — this Indian land 
 may be leased for from $60 to $125 a quarter section, whereas farm 
 land, that may be plowed and used for agricultural purposes and a 
 part for pasture, will lease for from $2 to $6 an acre. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I will agree with you on that, Mr. Chairman, but I 
 was having in view the provision of the leasing bill before the com- 
 mittee which provides that the stockman leases 1,000 acres, but the 
 homesteader is given free ingress and egress to his place to take up 
 such land as he wants, and this lessee under the Government is not 
 going to put that land in cultivation and therefore bring about the 
 result which the chairman has presented; but unless he does, how 
 can the same land keep more cattle than it does to-day ? 
 
 Mr. Kent. Simply and solely because you let the grass mature, 
 and keep the cattle off of it until it does, whereas now it is given no 
 chance to do that. 
 
 Mr. Raker. But Brother Kent, do you concede for a second that 
 a man who obtains a lease for 10,000 acres of land for his cattle is 
 going to fence it up and not use it? 
 
 Mr. Kent. He is going to do that if he has time. If he is only 
 going to be there a short time he will probably be as wasteful as men 
 are now of the grazing country out there ; but if he is going into the 
 business and expects to stay there for five years, say, he is going to 
 see that the land gets a chance. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Then that of necessity presupposes the question that 
 when you have leased that land the man has a right to fence it and 
 hold it as his own ? 
 
 Mr. Kent. No ; I don't think so ; the Forestry Service has not done 
 that. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And no man can show that there has been more cattle 
 or horses raised on the forest reserves than there was before. 
 
 Mr. Kent. I think everybody admits that the land in the forest 
 reserves is in better shape, and that there is more feed on it, and 
 generally more stock. 
 
 The Chairman. If you will pardon me, Mr. Fergusson, for ap- 
 pearing in the role of witness; but as to the proposition as to whether 
 you can raise more cattle in a settled State than you can in range 
 States, I take it that is hardly necessary of amplification ; it is ad- 
 mitted by any man who knows anything about it that that is a fact. 
 
 Mr. Kent.' It is certain that you can always have more stock to 
 the acre. 
 
 The Chairman. Undoubtedly, but even though that unanimous 
 agreement prevails, it does not in any way interfere with the idea 
 that land which has no agricultural possibilities — and it has been 
 shown here to my satisfaction in the hearings and, I believe, to the 
 satisfaction of the members of the committee — that land that never 
 can have any agricultural possibilities must be confined to grazing. 
 These cattlemen do have some rights with reference to the adminis- 
 tration of that land which has no possible agricultural value. 
 
 Mr. Lenroot. It won't be possible, will it, for the homesteader to 
 maintain a homestead on 640 acres, unless he can find sufficient water 
 for domestic purposes ? 
 
374 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. No; he has to have water for his wife and chil- 
 dren and himself. 
 
 Mr. Lenroot. So, in places where there is not sufficient water for 
 that purpose, he could not successfully maintain a homestead? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Oh, no. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. You mean on the tract of land itself ? 
 
 Mr. Lenroot. Yes ; that is what I asked him. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. There might be a community spring close by; 
 but, in answer to your question, I would say no, he could not main- 
 tain a homestead without water for domestic purposes. I would like 
 to supplement that, however, with this statement, that the places 
 where they can pump water, with windmills or cheap gasoline power, 
 are in valleys, in between the mountain ranges. Now, there is a 
 place in the Rio Grande Valley, 60 miles north of Albuquerque, 
 where the people of Albuquerque made a strenuous effort to have 
 the Reclamation Service build a dam, similar to the one on the Salt 
 River project. The department made an investigation and found 
 that on account of the volcanic character of the ground they could 
 not get a solid bedrock for their dam. They could have built the 
 dam there and made it tight enough, but they were afraid the water 
 would leak through underneath. There are many sections through- 
 out New Mexico where volcanic action has broken the bedrock and 
 left it full of crevices, and this particular section I am speaking of is 
 one of them ; and in every section, except the eastern slope of New 
 Mexico, the mountains are covered with snow, and that is melting 
 and seeping down all the time, going somewhere. 
 
 If I had a little more time I would relate an interesting faict, 
 and I will refer to it briefly. Near the town of Roswell there are 
 three springs which head streams that run less than a mile before 
 they empty into the Pecos River, and one of them is 12 feet across, 
 and hub deep on a wagon, within a hundred yards of where it comes 
 up out of the ground. A hundred miles northwest of that are old 
 Indian signs of acqueducts on top of the ground, showing that it is 
 almost certain that at one time water was on the surface in that 
 section. It is the theory of old Judge Bristow, the antiquarian, 
 that by volcanic action the surface of the earth was parted and 
 crevices several hundred feet deep opened up, and that these under- 
 ground rivers were formerly surface rivers up above the points 
 where they now come out. 
 
 Now, I believe, as I told you this morning, that every 640 acres 
 of that land will support a family, and I believe they will get water; 
 sometimes they have to get it from wells four or five hundred feet 
 deep, but they can get all the water they need for domestic purposes, 
 and most of them can get enough to water their cattle. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. I know a number of farmers in my section that have 
 to haul their water for quite a distance, from what they call " rain 
 cisterns," in which they collect the rain water and the water from 
 the melting snow. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Now, I get application after application from 
 little farmers who live in the foothills, and in these valleys between 
 the mountains, asking me to get the Reclamation Service to put a 
 little dam in there to save the water and use it for irrigating the soil, 
 but the Reclamation Service can not consider a little project like 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 375 
 
 that. They have considered the proposition of a community dam, 
 but they can not make a dam that will stand the heavy rainy season 
 down there; it would be washed away. When we do have our rainy 
 season down there in July and August it rains as hard as it does 
 anywhere else in the world. It is in the autumn, after these heavy 
 Tains, that we have grama grass belly high to the antelope. 
 
 Mr. Brown. It has occurred to me, Mr. Fergusson, that you might 
 find a possible way out of your troubles by having the cattleman 
 who had a lease on the Government domain spend, say, 25 per cent 
 of the rental under the direction of the Department of Agriculture 
 in boring wells and prospecting, or making soundings — whatever 
 you have to do to find water — in order that when his term of lease 
 shall have expired his whole area will be charted and mapped, 
 with water holes and borings and prospects, so at the end of the term 
 of the lease the department would know if any water had been 
 developed, and how close to the surface it was. Then the land could 
 be immediately withdrawn from further lease. Would not that be 
 a cheap and effective way to develop this country? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Let me supplement that with the statement which 
 I had intended to make. I have received many applications from 
 different people in different communities urging me to pass a bill, 
 as they express it, to sink a community well in our community. 
 They have no money to do it, but they say they have every reason 
 to believe that if they could get one of these wells sunk to water — 
 perhaps shallow — the balance of the people, knowing that water 
 could be gotten that way, would locate near and do the same thing. 
 Under my homestead bill there is going to be all sorts of experi- 
 menting in wells and in trying to develop water for domestic 
 purposes. 
 
 Mr. Brown. Would you object to the leasing bill — as to such land 
 coming in Class A — if a considerable portion of the rental should 
 be used in searching for water ? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I helieve if you try to combine the leasing bill 
 with the grazing bill you will find that you stop development. The 
 people will be afraid to go into leased pastures, and there would cer- 
 tainly be war between the homesteader and the cattleman. 
 
 Mr. Brown. What you need more than anything else is water, and 
 wouldn't it be worth while to segregate portions of the country, say, 
 for 10 years, with the assurance that water is going to.be developed 
 out of the rental the cattlemen had paid for the use of the grazing 
 land? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I think there is a provision in my bill that would 
 accomplish that in a better way. I provide that a man can pay his 
 $1.25 an acre for 640 acres by any expenditure on the land tending 
 to increase its value for either agricultural or grazing purposes. 
 Under that they will fence, and sink wells, and get credit for all that 
 as a payment on the land. 
 
 Mr. Brown. But that doesn't affect the country I had in mind. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Your question contemplates giving the homestead 
 and having the leasing bill operate at the same time? 
 
 Mr. Brown. No, sir ; you misunderstand me. I am talking about 
 land outside of your section. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Oh, of course, that is different, and I can see some 
 value to that. But I am opposed to any attempt to mix up the oper- 
 
376 DISPOSITION OF GEAZING LANDS. 
 
 ation of the lease law and the 640-acre homestead law on the same 
 land. 
 
 Mr. Brown. Exactly; but you think something along the line I 
 suggested could be worked out ? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Yes, sir. Of course, I don't like to antagonize, but 
 that proposition makes me fearful of the power and wealth of the 
 great cattlemen, and of the weakness of some men who manage to 
 get in high places here in Washington. 
 
 Mr. Brown. If this Congress enacts a statute providing that cer- 
 tain money shall be used under the direction of the Department of 
 Agriculture for the purposes I have indicated, I don't think there 
 is much danger of the money being misapplied. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I concede that. 
 
 Mr. Raker. It is a fact, is it not, that within the last three years 
 the number of cattle in the West has increased from 40 to 100 per 
 cent in value? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I will accept that as a fact, Judge, if you have 
 ascertained the figures. I have made no study of it. 
 
 Mr. Baker. Now, if the land — the balance of it — was turned over 
 for grazing purposes, it would reduce, we will assume, the number 
 of cattle raised. That would keep out of the market a great many of 
 the homesteaders, at least many of those of these 16 public land 
 States. Would that be the result ? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I think so. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Well, what are you going to do. You talk about 
 cheaper beef to the American people; is the cost of administering 
 this remaining public domain to come out of the stockman? If it 
 is, wouldn't he have to get more for his stock ? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. It would seem so. 
 
 Mr. Raker. There is no other conclusion to come to. If you are 
 going to raise revenue for the General Government out of the stock- 
 man that way, using the lease land, you then add another burden 
 to the cattleman, and they would have to raise the price of beef still 
 higher. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You would simply be piling up the price of beef a 
 mile high. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. But, if you put more homes in there you would be 
 able to get cheaper beef. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Didn't you understand the testimony of the people who 
 testified here in regard to the forestry service that they were glad 
 to pay these fees in order to get some assurance of peace? I think 
 that was the testimony. Don't you think it would be easier, and that 
 you would find it less expensive if you could take your cattle to a 
 place where you knew you could get feed ? 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I think that is obvious. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, I have a suggestion to make in order to relieve 
 these faithful gentlemen. I am afraid I have been a bore with this 
 thing, but it comes very close to me in my State; it is a very serious 
 matter to many of these poor fellows who tell me here that they will 
 have to borrow money to get out of the State if you are going to 
 lease the balance of it. 
 
 I don't think the committee needs to stay here any longer to-day; 
 there is no other person to appear except Mr. Mondell, and he is not 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 377 
 
 to come till 10 o'clock to-morrow, and since the chairman has given 
 me a little bit of discretion about inserting this matter in the record — 
 and I want to say that I will try and not abuse it — I want to go over 
 it now and get it prepared, and I don't see any necessity of you 
 gentlemen remaining any longer. 
 
 I would like to have it understood, Mr. Chairman, that I may call 
 on this gentleman (the stenographer) this evening or to-morrow 
 morning to go over these papers with me and get them ready for 
 printing in the record. 
 
 The Chairman. Unless there is objection, Mr. Fergusson may do 
 that. , 
 
 (Thereupon, at 4.15 p. m. the committee adjourned until 10 o'clock 
 a. m. to-morrow.) 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. I now submit the letters and petitions already ad- 
 mitted in evidence with the erasures of such matter as I deem super- 
 fluous. In addition to the letters introduced, which are representa- 
 tive of the sentiment of settlers in all sections of New Mexico, I 
 have withheld a large number which express generally the same 
 views, so that the record may not be unduly extended. 
 
 LETTERS FAVORING 640-ACRE GRAZING HOMESTEAD BILL. 
 
 MORE LIBERAL FOMESTEAD LAWS NECESSARY TO INSURE SETTLEMENT OF NEW 
 
 MEXICO. 
 
 [John A. Haley, Canlzozo, Lincoln County.] 
 
 I wish to commend you in your efforts to secure the passage of the section 
 homestead measure. 
 
 I have lived in this State and county for more than 20 years, and while I 
 recognize that this country is essentially a " cow country," yet I feel that if it 
 is ever to be settled up by men of small means the system of large ranchmen 
 and immense herds must give way to smaller stockmen. The result of this 
 change, in my opinion, would be to increase our population, permitting more 
 men to own stock, which would not mean lessening the, number, but would be 
 instrumental in creating a better citizenship, as each holder of land and stock 
 would thus have a greater interest in the welfare of the country. 
 
 In this arid region it is folly to think of homesteading 160 acres and secure 
 from it a sustenance, and the 320-acre law is but little better, as it requires so 
 much more work to perfect title to land, and when land is broken in order to 
 comply with the requirements of the law it is often the case that a greater 
 value has been destroyed than created, for it simply means that much destruc- 
 tion of grass with little hope of producing anything in its stead. 
 
 With the right to enter 640 acres, however, conditions would change, and 
 many entries could, and I believe would, be made by permanent settlers who 
 could afford to remain in the country and assist in its development. Forty to 
 fifty head of cattle could easily be taken care of on a section of land, and if 
 fenced and the forage given a chance to recuperate from the system of over- 
 grazing that has obtained in the past the number could be increased. 
 
 I have no fight to make on the big " cowman," as I recognize his benefits to 
 this country in the past ; but conditions have changed, and if we expect to see 
 this country settle up, become populous and thrifty, it is absolutely necessary 
 that our land laws be made more liberal in the way of increased area and the 
 elimination of cultivation. 
 
 We have millions of acres of land that is not suitable for anything but graz- 
 ing, and in the nature of things can never be useful for anything else, and the 
 quicker the Government realizes this condition, passes liberal' homestead laws, 
 and thus permits the settlement of the country, the sooner will our country be 
 filled with a desirable population and the valuation of property go upward 
 by leaps and bounds. 
 
 I trust that you will be successful in your efforts in securing the passage of 
 the 640-acre homestead, and assure you that the great majority of people of 
 this section, and I believe that of the entire rural portions of the State, ap- 
 prove your course in this matter. 
 
378 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 PROPOSED LEASING LAW AN INFAMOUS PROPOSITION. 
 [J. V. Quintana, Rosa, Bio Arriba County.] 
 
 My opinion is that a 640-acre grazing homestead is a very beneficial one 
 in this rough country. The country, you know, is principally composed of 
 high hills, rocky and covered very thick with pinous and cedar trees and sage- 
 brush, and 95 per cent is dry. This kind of country would be the one adapted 
 for the 640-acre homestead, as a settler can make a reservoir and have water 
 for his family and a little bunch of stock of any kind, and at the same time do 
 some dry farming. 
 
 This particular country is now serving the sheepmen to winter their sheep. 
 When this country is taken up in the way you propose, then it would be no more 
 a country for sheep in big bunches, but it will be for sheep or other stock owned 
 by many people, which is better than leasing the country to a few big men. 
 
 The national forest reserves just now are doing lots of injustice to a good 
 many people. I do not mean the real forests that were formed with the good 
 intent of those who first made the law which was intended for the mountains; 
 this kind of reserves has done good to the country. But it looks like the Gov- 
 ernment has formed reserves whether or not the land is fitted for forest re- 
 serves. For example, right here, 2 miles east from us, we have the Corson 
 Forest Reserve, some 34 miles, or nearly 6 townships long, and an average of 
 6i miles wide. This reserve in all has not a township of adapted forest reserve 
 land on it — that is to say, has not that much land that has a pine tree which 
 is commercial lumber — the rest is high hills, covered with cedar and pinous 
 trees, sagebrush, rock, and deep canyons. The Government is charging fees 
 to the people for grazing their stock there, and the citizens have to make the 
 water to lamb their sheep. It looks like a graft on the part of the Government 
 on the people. In a few days we are going to protest against this reserve. 
 
 My opinion in regard to the law which the National Association of Stock- 
 growers wants, for the leasing of the public domain, with the right to fence it, 
 is that it will be the most infamous law under the sun ; that law will show 
 more slavery than in Mexico or any other country under the sun, as that will 
 no doubt put the big rich men in control of our whole country, and will leave 
 no show for the middle men to get up, and much less for the poor man to 
 make a living; this will make the rich man richer and the poor man poorer 
 no doubt. 
 
 I hope that our Congressmen will realize the evils of such legislation and 
 stay with our national principles — Equal rights for all and special privileges 
 for none. 
 
 SAN JUAN WOOL GBOWEBS' ASSOCIATION ENTHUSIASTICALLY IN FAVOR OF BILL. 
 [A. M. Hubbard, president San Juan Wool Growers' Association.] 
 
 As president of the San Juan Wool Growers' Association, I wish to express 
 our sentiments on your 640-acre grazing-homestead bill. Our association is 
 composed of about 70 members located in six counties embracing the territory 
 lying in the northwest of New Mexico and southwest Colorado. The total num- 
 ber of sheep owned by our members is a little over 125,000. The individual 
 members own from a few hundred up to 2,500 sheep. There are hundreds of 
 other sheepmen who belong to other associations or to none whose holdings 
 are similar to ours and whose interests are the same as ours. Your bill would 
 be of great benefit to us. It would enable us small stockmen to get hold of 
 a body of land large enough to provide pasture and forage for our herds. 
 
 Our larger herds, from 2,000 to 4,000, are generally owned by several members 
 of the same family, sometimes by a father and sons, or by two or three broth- 
 ers, and in some cases by two or more partners. In such cases the three or 
 four partners could file on as many tracts as there are members, and have them 
 all in one body. This would give us all sufficient range to successfully grow 
 sheep, and would relieve us in a great measure of the suspense of knowing 
 from year to year just what is going to become of our industry. I have dis- 
 cussed your bill with the various members and officers of our association and 
 with other stockmen, and we are all enthusiastically in favor of it. 
 
 The millions of acres of arid lands will never be settled up by our present 
 homestead laws ; and any disposition of these public lands that will permit the 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 379 
 
 large stockgrowers to get possession of them will destroy the small stockman ; 
 it will be an»injury to thousands and a benefit to a very few rich stockmen. 
 
 I sincerely hope you may be able to get your bill through and that it will 
 become a law ; and I know that this is the wish of ninety-nine out of every one 
 hundred people in this section of the country, regardless of their^ politics or 
 occupation. 
 
 A 640-ACBE GRAZING HOMESTEAD AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY. 
 
 [W. F. Reber, Alamogordo, Otevo County.] 
 
 On 640 acres under fence one can raise from 20 to 30 head of cattle. I know 
 this from actual experience. Your 640-acre grazing-homestead bill is an abso- 
 lute necessity for the small man in New Mexico. I trust you will use every 
 effort at your command to make it possible for a poor man to exist in New 
 Mexico. 
 
 WILL STARVE ON 320 ACRES. 
 
 [Frank Wlsner, Los Tanos, Guadalupe County.] 
 
 I hope your 640-acre bill will pass, as that amount of land would furnish a 
 family a living, but one would starve out of this country if confined to 320 
 acres. If some of those eastern Congressemen and Representatives would try 
 living on frijoles, haul water from 2 to 4 miles, and farm it when it don't rain 
 from 6 to 12 months at a time, you would have no trouble to pass your bill. 
 
 BILL IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO SETTLE COUNTRY. 
 [F. E. Dent, St. Vrain, Curry County.] 
 
 I regret we did not have time to furnish you with petitions from this part 
 of Curry County. 
 
 Seven years of experience with a small bunch of cattle convinces me that 
 640 acres is small enough grazing land for one man to make a living on. I 
 don't think this country will settle up with homsteaders with any less amount. 
 Six hundred and forty acres under fence an average year will support from 
 20 to 25 head of cattle, with some feed during the storms. 
 
 Your bill is in the right direction to settle this country with homesteaders. 
 
 KENT LEASE BILL WOULD PUT SMALL SHEEPMEN OUT OF BUSINESS. 
 
 [Telegram from Sheep Sanitary Board, by E. H. Crews, secretary, Albuquerque, Berna- 
 lillo County.] 
 
 We ask that you use your best efforts toward defeating the Kent lease bill. 
 The passage of this bill would be a great injury to the sheep industry in New 
 Mexico and practically put the small sheepmen out of business. 
 
 KENT LEASE BILL WOULD MATERIALLY INCREASE COST OP MEAT PRODUCTION. 
 
 [Telegram from New Mexico Wool Growers' Association, by Chas. Chadwick, secretary, 
 Albuquerque, Bernalillo County.] 
 
 The Kent land-leasing bill would force out of business 60 per cent of small 
 sheep owners in New Mexico, working hardship on balance, and materially 
 increasing cost of meat production. Pata\ to industry here. Therefore we pro- 
 test against its passage, and trust you will use your influence against it. 
 
380 DISPOSITION OP GKAZING LANDS. 
 
 LEASING THE LAND WILL CBOWD OUT THE SMALL STOCKMAN. 
 [B. E. Prosser, Eoswell, Chaves County.] 
 
 As there is quite a stir among the cowmen in this locality in regard to the 
 lease law on Government land I thought I would write to you In the interest 
 of the dry farmer. I have been here 10 years, and I think I understand the 
 situation to a certain extent. 
 
 It is a known fact that the big cowmen only get from 40 to 60 per cent calf 
 crop on the same range that the man with a small bunch gets from 85 to 95 
 per cent; and the small rancher raises a better grade of cattle than do the 
 big ranchers. 
 
 I believe if the big outfits are allowed to fence Government land it will 
 crowd out we people with small bunches of stock. 
 
 I understand that the big interests claim that if the lease law Is put through 
 they will just fence in the dry farmer and give him free access to the range. I 
 am sorry to say that this system won't work in New Mexico. I believe I am in a 
 position to know that it won't work for the majority of the people directly 
 interested. I have had my own private stock driven off my own and Gov- 
 ernment land, and I have stock the I may never find on account of such acts. 
 
 I am bitterly opposed to a law that will give the big interests a right to 
 fence up the country. I think the problem could better be solved by allowing a 
 person that really wanted to go out and raise stock a right to file on enough 
 land to graze cattle to make a living for the average family. Then the little 
 man can afford to buy good bulls and produce a better grade of cattle. I 
 would suggest the eight-section law as they have in Texas. 
 
 I believe that if there could be some arrangement made with the United 
 States Government so that men with limited capital could borrow money from 
 the Government to dig wells and equip them it would increase the value of the 
 land and make it more productive. The rainfall is not sufficient here for a 
 man to support a family dry farming on 160 acres; but if we can get enough 
 land we can graze it and produce a living. 
 
 WILL MEAN THOUSANDS OF CITIZENS FOB NEW MEXICO. 
 [J. E. Wimberly, editor the Hagerman Messenger, Hagerman, Chaves County.] 
 
 I am prompted to write to urge you to do all within your power to compass 
 the passage of the 640-acre " grazing-land " homestead bill, now pending in 
 the Congress. I do not hesitate to say that, according to my candid opinion, this 
 is the most important legislation affecting New Mexico which has been under 
 consideration for a decade, not even excepting the Statehood bill. 
 
 The passage of such a law as this bill contemplates will mean an influx of thou- 
 sands of citizens to New Mexico, and virtually place within their hands the 
 means of livelihood. There are thousands, yes, tens of thousands, of 640-acre 
 tracts of land in New Mexico, which would be subject to entry under the terms 
 of this bill, and upon which the small stockman could pasture enough stock to 
 maintain a family in comfort. Under ordinary conditions which exist in New 
 Mexico, these tracts of land would afford opportunity for sufficient dry-farm- 
 ing operations to produce feed to keep 40 to 50 head of horses or cattle in a 
 thrifty condition the year round, and four times that many sheep could be 
 kept on the same size tract of grazing land. 
 
 I realize that this view is not in harmony with the expressed opinion of the 
 larger cattle raisers of New Mexico and other public-land States. And these 
 same interests are doing their utmost to secure the passage of a "drift fence" 
 and " lease law," which will give them a monopoly of the grazing privileges 
 in these States. If we are to believe statements in the public press, only re- 
 cently prominent New Mexicans have been to Washington urging the passage 
 of such a law. I am afraid no such delegation will appear before a con- 
 gressional committee or the Interior Department in behalf of this bill; but 
 knowing something of your zeal in behalf of the welfare of those of us who 
 are not able to send a delegation to' Washington, I am constrained to believe 
 that you are able to present the need of this legislation so forcibly to your 
 colleagues in Congress that ready assent will be given for the passage of 
 the law. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 381 
 
 OPINIONS FROM THE STATES. 
 
 [Wm. Greenberg, Newell, S. Dak.] 
 
 I like your new 640-acre grazing homestead bill, and hope you can make it 
 a law with all its good features retained. I hope it will in some manner help 
 people up here in my State. 
 
 [S. I. Woodslde, Cambridge Springs, Pa.] 
 
 I am interested very much in New Mexico and want to settle there after your 
 excellent 640-acre grazing homestead bill passes. Will you please do all you 
 can prevent its being spoiled by amendments. 
 
 [Glen R. Payne, Orwell, Ohio.] 
 
 I am interested in New Mexico and may settle there when your 640-acre 
 grazing homestead bill becomes a law. Please send me a copy of the measure 
 and fight to preserve its good features in toto. 
 
 WILL GIVE THE HOMESTEADER A CHANCE TO LIVE. 
 [D. W. Stiles, Tatum, Chaves County.] 
 
 I favor the bill for the reason that this is not a farming country; it is a 
 stock-farming country. I estimate one section to run 33 head of cattle, and a 
 man can't live on what one-half section will run. We also need more taxable 
 property in New Mexico ; the 640-acre bill if passed would double the taxable 
 land in three years. The State could then begin to lower the tax rate, and 
 capital will come in and invest ur different enterprises. I have known this 
 country for 20 years and I am in favor of giving the homeseeker enough land 
 to make a living on. I also favor a law forcing a man to prove up when his 
 three years' time is lived out on the land. Give a man that has already filed the 
 right to take additional land anywhere he can find it in the State, for it is 
 taxable property that the people need here. 
 
 I think everybody here in Chaves County is in favor of the 640-acre bill. 
 
 I am in the cow business myself, and the 640-acre bill would probably cause 
 me to move, but you fight for the bill and give the poor man a chance to live 
 here and be a benefactor to the State and the community in which he lives. 
 
 REQUIREMENTS ON LEASED LANDS DRIVING OUT SETTLEBS. 
 
 [A. Ladassar, Stanley, Santa Fe County.] 
 
 Several of us people have come out here and taken homesteads in the dry 
 country and have been here five and six years and have not made a dollar, and 
 now they have taken all homestead land and turned it back as State land and 
 have leased it to a few capitalists without us being aware, thinking the settler 
 would get a chance at what they could use; but we find ourselves in a big 
 pasture, and they tell us we will have to fence our cattle from their land, and 
 will have to fence their cattle if we don't want them on our land. You see 
 we have to do all the fencing. * * * It looks like after six years of hard 
 times we must lose our land after the Government, throwing it open and doing 
 all it could to settle their land up, then to turn it back and let a few have it, 
 starving out the settlers. 
 
 SHALL STOCKMEN OR HOMESTEADERS CONTROL — PROPOSED LEASING OP PUBLIC LANDS 
 A SCHEME FOR COLOSSAL GRAFT. 
 
 The following is a copy of a letter which was sent by various residents of 
 Roy, Mora County, to Members of Congress, a number of which have been 
 referred to Mr. Fergusson by Members of the House : 
 
 This letter is to call your attention to the bill presented in the House by 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson for the creation of a 640-acre homestead. 
 
382 DISPOSITION OF GKAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson's bill is the most practical measure yet devised for the better- 
 ment of the conditions of the homesteaders in New Mexico and has the uni- 
 versal approval of all the homesteaders in the new State. I have lived here 
 for five years and know from personal observation that the man who attempts 
 to keep stock enough to make a living after the open range is all taken must 
 have more than 320 acres of land. The 640-acre law proposed by Mr. Fergus- 
 son is a practical solution of the matter, and I urge you to support it. 
 
 The measure proposed by the National Live Stock Association, to practically 
 withdraw all the public domain from homesteaders and lease it to the wealthy 
 stockmen for grazing purposes, is the most colossal graft that has ever been 
 proposed in Congress. To permit the robbing of thousands of men of moderate 
 means of their right to land in small parcels in order to give it to the wealthy 
 in large tracts is plainly a graft and against public policy. 
 
 Conditions here in New Mexico are at the point now where the question of 
 whether the stockmen or the homesteaders are to control the future. To dis- 
 courage the homesteaders already here and prevent the immigration of others 
 will be to send New Mexico back to the conditions which existed a few years 
 ago, when cattlemen felt warranted in removing settlers with a Winchester if 
 they persisted in trying to hold their rights where the stockmen did not want 
 them. The homesteader has transformed the other plains and mountain States 
 from range land to farms and homes — from the useless waste of range methods 
 to homes for millions of American citizens. 
 
 The methods of ranging stock on Government land has not improved in the 
 past 50 years. This winter many thousands of cattle and sheep perished on 
 the range in ordinary winter weather from willful neglect of their owners 
 and this, too, after more than 50 years of similar experiences from which they 
 have learned no lessons. 
 
 I urge you to use your influence and vote for Mr. Fergusson's bill and give 
 this land to the thousands of modern farmers who need it rather than allow- 
 the continued waste by stockmen who are not competent to use it to advantage 
 even if leased to them. 
 
 CUT OUT THE 10-MILE OMIT. 
 [W. G. Trimble, Plalnvlew, Chaves County.] 
 
 I have lived here six years and have made final proof on 320 acres. I have 
 13 head of cattle and 5 head of horses — about all the stock my place will run— 
 and 40 acres in farm, and to make a living I have to freight or do whatever I 
 can get to do a part of the time. 
 
 Cut out the 10-mile limit if you can, for that would cut out lots of us oldest 
 settlers, and we have had the hardest time. 
 
 WILL HAVE TO ABANDON FARMS IF LEASE LAW IS PASSED MAKES AFFIDAVIT THAT 
 
 FARMING CAN BE SUCCESFULLY CONDUCTED. 
 
 [Silas E. Ferguson, White Flat, Chaves County.] 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, 
 
 Washington, D. C: 
 
 In regard to the lease law the cattlemen's association is trying to pass, we 
 say if that law is passed we farmers will have to abandon our homes, because 
 the cattlemen would lease the grass right up to our doors and we could not 
 raise any cattle to tide, us over. We would not have a chance to lease any 
 land, as the cattlemen would have their money up six months before the law 
 passed, and that we farmers can't do. 
 
 What big stockmen call their range in this section covers 40 or 50 miles 
 square, east, west, north, and south. Now, in the inside circle of what they 
 call their range there are between 500 and 1,000 settlers. Of the four stock 
 owners interested in these ranges there is but one who lives on his ranch. They 
 tell you people that the farmer has no water and is not able to get water, and 
 that they (the stockmen) have had to water our stock. Every farmer in this 
 community has from one to two wells on his farm, and most of them have 
 
DISPOSITION OF GKAZING LANDS. 383 
 
 windmills over them, and we certainly do not nave to ask the stockmen to 
 water our little herds. 
 
 Now, we say that if we can get another half section of land so that we can 
 put in a little feed to raise stock on, we can make a prosperous living farming 
 and raising stock, and we would build the country up faster than the 
 stockman. 
 
 They tell you people that we have abandoned our homes and that this will 
 never be a farming country. I will tell you what I have made here the past 
 five years farming. I live 7 or 8 miles south of R. D. Degraftenreid ; I am 
 53 years old; came here with my wife and six children and have made a 
 living for them off of my farm and have done it most all by myself, as we 
 have had seven or eight months of school each year and have kept the 
 children in school each session. 
 
 Now, I am going to leave it with you men whether a farmer can make a 
 living here or not. My first crop here was in 1909 ; just had a little sod, 
 didn't make but very little grain, but almost enough fodder to run me through 
 the winter. In 1910 I thrashed and sold 10 tons of maize. In 1911, 17 tons 
 of maize, 3 tons of kafir corn, 100 bushels of corn, put up about 8 tons of 
 cane fodder, 2 tons of millet, and 1,200 pounds of beans. In 1912 I thrashed 
 20 tons of maize, 2 tons of kafir corn, 50 bushels of corn, 2,200 pounds of 
 beans, and made 265 gallons of sorghum. In 1913 I made very little grain; 
 my cane and feterita that the Government sent me matured and did extra 
 well without any rain; didn't plant my maize till June, and it made very 
 little ; so you see it was principally my fault, not the fault of the country. 
 
 Take this letter and read it before the President and Congress and let them 
 see whether a man can make a living here farming. 
 
 Now, don't think we are prejudiced against the stockman ; we are not ; we 
 want them here, but as friends. We do not wish them to drive us away from 
 our homes, as they will surely do if the lease law is passed. 
 
 Now, I can get 50 men to sign an affidavit that every word of this is true. 
 
 State of New Mexico, County of Chaves, ss: 
 
 On this 17th day of March, 1914, before me personally appeared S. B. Fer- 
 guson, to me known to be the person described in and who executed the fore- 
 going instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act 
 and deed. 
 
 Silas E. Ferguson. 
 
 [seal.] Green B. Patterson, 
 
 Notary Public in and for Chaves County, N. Mex. 
 
 a lease law will ruin the sheep and wool industry. 
 [N. Francis, Seboyeta, Valencia County.] 
 
 Hon. H. B. Pergusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 Please use your influence to oppose, the Kent bill, which means the renting 
 of the public domain. It will ruin the sheep and wool industry of New Mexico 
 and other States. 
 
 THE KENT BILL WILL WIPE THE LITTLE MAN OFF THE MAP. 
 [Morgan Lee Massey, I-Iachita, Grant County.] 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 I wish to register my protest against the Kent bill, which is the last throw 
 to wipe the little man off the map. 
 
 Let this measure get by and the entire West will be thrown into the hands 
 of the rich cattlemen and associates, and the .settler, the man who does the work 
 to develop the country, will be bottled up and gradually forced out of business 
 and forced to abandon the country. 
 
384 DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LAND'S. 
 
 WILL DEVELOP COUNTRY AND STRENGTHEN SCHOOLS. 
 [J. E. Wooton, Lucille, Quay County.] 
 
 I sincerely hope that you are successful in getting your bill through, as I think 
 it would be a great help to settle up New Mexico, for we here realize that no man 
 on this dry land can make a living without stock, and anything less than 640 
 acres is not enough land to run stock sufficient to make a man a living. 
 
 Our people are very anxious to get the country settled and our schools 
 strengthened, especially in the thinly settled portion of the country. 
 
 KENT BILL WILL BUILD UP A MONOPOLY FOR LARGE CATTLE AND SHEEP MEN. 
 
 [A. W. Gerber, Yeso, Lincoln County.] 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 I want to ask your assistance to defeat the Kent bill now pending. We are 
 small farmers, with a small amount of stock, and if this bill becomes a law it 
 will work a very great hardship on those who are trying to develop the country. 
 We think this bill would build up a monopoly for the large cattle and sheep men 
 of this country. Any assistance you can give us in this matter will be appre- 
 ciated. 
 
 IP PASSED WILL ASSIST GOVERNMENT OUT OF LANDLORD BUSINESS AND GRAFT. 
 [G. F. Daggs, Williams, Ariz.] 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 Having been identified with Arizona and New Mexico land and grazing con- 
 ditions for 40 years, I want to congratulate you on the homestead bill you are 
 pushing for 640-acre claims. I consider the bill eminently suited to the condi- 
 tions existing here. Through it, if passed, we may assist the Government out 
 of the landlord business and graft. It is costing the Government at least $100 
 per pound for every pound of beef or mutton produced on the forest reserves. I 
 can refer you to both our Senators and Representatives and to friend F. B. 
 Warren, United States Senate; also our friend Frank Mondell, Congressman 
 from Wyoming, who has a bill for 1,280-acre homestead. 
 
 I beg your attention to a few points : Any grazing bill allowing the fencing of 
 the public domain is a steal. The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Co. 
 has already had a rake-off in Arizona on scrip to the amount of at least 
 $100,000,000, and are to reap a rich harvest on any grazing bill like the Kent bill. 
 This company has 10,000,000 acres of grazing land in Arizona. 
 
 LEASE LAW WOULD BE AN INJUSTICE TO WOOLGROWERS. 
 
 [Felipe Sanacino, Seboyeta, Valencia County.] 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson. Washington. D. C: 
 
 To rent the public domain would be an injustice to all the sheep owners of 
 New Mexico. Please use your good offices in Congress to protect the interests of 
 the woolgrowers of New Mexico. 
 
 SETTLERS WILL HAVE TO GIVE UP IF SECTION BILL FAILS. 
 
 [J. A. Rouse Rieardo, Guadalupe County.] 
 
 Hon. II. B. Fergusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 I sincerely hope you will succeed in having your 640-acre bill enacted into a 
 law. I understand we are to have no irrigation, and if the section bill should 
 fail to materialize we would have to give up and go where we could make a 
 living on the farm ; and to judge the future by the past without irrigation, or 
 more grass, this part of New Mexico will be depopulated in the next two years- 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 385 
 
 The land is here to file on if we had the chance to do so, but under the present 
 state of affairs the sheep are here by the thousand, besides we have big cowmen 
 3 miles south of us with their vast herds to roam at will over this part of the 
 country, so you see we are in hard luck. 
 
 OUT OP THE QUESTION TO DO ANYTHING WITH 160 ACRES. 
 [Elmer E. Veeder, attorney at law, Las Vegas, San Miguel County.] 
 
 I notice that you have introduced in Congress a bill allowing homesteaders 
 or settlers to take up 640 acres of this arid land instead of 160. I hope that 
 you will be able to get Congress to pass this bill. I have been of the opinion 
 for a long time that something of this kind should be done in order to get this 
 arid land settled up. If New Mexico is going to be settled up, it will have to 
 be done by some such process as this. 
 
 Farming on this land is out of the question. It is absolutely impossible for a 
 man to live by farming these lands, and the only way anyone can live on them 
 is by having sufficient land to enable him to keep 30 or 40 head of cattle. He 
 can raise a feed crop on the land sufficient to winter his stock; and if he can 
 get this amount of acreage, I believe the land will be settled up faster. It is 
 out of the question for anyone to do anything with 160 acres. It is practically 
 worthless. There are many tracts of 160 acres of this arid land idle, because 
 no one can do anything with it. It can not be farmed, and there is not enough 
 land to graze stock upon. 
 
 There is a demand in this State at the present time for small tracts of land 
 which will enable a man to keep a few head of cattle, and in order to get 
 sufficient land for this purpose at the present time it is necessary to buy up 
 several tracts of 160 acres each, provided he can get them adjoining each other, 
 which is very hard to do. 
 
 Of course this bill will be opposed by the large cattle owners, because they 
 do not wish to see the land settled up by these small farmers and cattlemen ; 
 but in the long run, if the State is settled up this way, there will be more cattle 
 in the State and in the end be better for it. 
 
 WHAT THE STATE NEEDS TO BEING IT TO THE FRONT.. 
 [R. G. Bryant, Portales, Roosevelt County.] 
 
 I was very glad to read that you had introduced a bill enlarging the home- 
 stead entry to 640 acres ; it is what this country needs to bring it to the front ; 
 our people can not run enough stock on a half section to do much good, but 
 with a full section you will see this side of the State fill up with farmers 
 pretty fast. ■ 
 
 I notice in the Roswell Morning News that some of our cattlemen are going 
 to Washington to try to get a drift-fence law passed for the benefit of the open 
 range ; such a law will soon put this part of the State back into the ranch line. 
 
 The cowmen have been trying to get in for the past year and it has been all 
 our people could do to keep them out. 
 
 ONLY HOPE IS IN STOCK FAEMING. 
 
 [Ben Crawford, Hollene, Curry County.] 
 
 I can secure any number of names to a petition for a 640-acre homestead, 
 and can convince any man that it is necessary to settle up New Mexico. Hun- 
 dreds and hundreds of men have tried it on 160 acres and lost, and on 320, but 
 had to give it up and leave. The only hope is stock farming, and no man can 
 do any good on less than 640, and anything less than that is no good ; the people 
 have gone to Texas and Oklahoma to pick cotton for a living. They can not put 
 in the time on these homesteads that they should and would like to if we had 
 enough to live on without going off to work. 
 
 35074— pt 1—14 25 
 
386 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 WOULD MAKE HOMES — WITHOUT HOMES ANY COUNTRY IS POOE. 
 [W. M, Ferguson, member board of county commissioners, Lincoln County.] 
 
 I believe 90 per cent of the people in these dry sections of the country realize 
 and know that 160 or 320 acres is not enough to make a living and raise a 
 family on, and without families, as you know, any country is poor. 
 
 The land around Capitan and Carrizozo, where the little ranchmen proved 
 upon 160 acres, and improved as he was able, has nearly all been bought up by 
 cowmen, as the 160 was not enough to live on. What improvements were on 
 the place were moved off or allowed to run down, so the company that owns 
 them pays but little taxes, and the families that were here and built school- 
 houses and tried to make homes and a good country have been compelled to 
 leave. 
 
 Tour law would permit some stock in connection with the different small 
 patches of land, and on this amount it would pay to farm, and it would mean 
 the settling up of this western country by people that need and want homes 
 instead of by a class of people who prefer to tear down instead of building up a 
 country. 
 
 One can keep about 50 to 75 head of cattle the year round on 640 acres of 
 land with a few head of other stock and his improvements and like. This is 
 what I know, and I believe that your law would do more people good than 
 any law passed for some time. Most of the people here hope you will get it 
 through. 
 
 CAN NOT MAKE A DECENT LIVING ON 320 ACHES. 
 [B. B. Greathouse, Inez, Roosevelt County.] 
 
 I have been living here for four years trying to farm and graze a few cattle 
 on 320 acres of land, but find that I can not make a decent living farming and 
 grazing that amount of land ; and I am afraid that I will have to follow the 
 example of my neighbors and others and sell out to some rich cattle company 
 for a song, and go back East or some other place where I can make a. living 
 for my family. 
 
 I believe with a section of land the poor man will be able to stay in this 
 country and make a living for his family. 
 
 And I believe that if your bill becomes a law, in a few years New Mexico 
 will be settled by poor people who need homes, and not be owned and controlled 
 by a few rich cattle companies. 
 
 THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY ACRES POSITIVELY NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE A LIVING ON. 
 [E. D. Elder, chairman board of county commissioners of Curry County.] 
 
 Such a bill should become a' law ; there can be no protest against it, only 
 from those that can not appreciate what the homesteader has to contend with 
 or have the selfish motive of trying to monopolize these plains for financial 
 and personal gain on their part. The homesteader that has remained is doing 
 so only by accumulating a small herd of cattle and other live stock, and 160 
 or 320 acres of this land positively is not enough land to make a living on, 
 and the way the homesteaders who only owned 160 or 320 acres have left the 
 country should be ample proof of this fact. 
 
 I have been living constantly upon my claim for the past six years, and if it 
 had not been for the other members of the family having land I would have 
 been compelled to leave years ago. In all, I am grazing 75 head of stock on 
 three sections of land, and have got to the point where I must have more 
 pasturage or get rid of part of my stock. The land I am on will not graze over 
 15 head of stock year in and year out continually. In the township I am in 
 there are only five homesteaders at this date, and all of them have a small 
 bunch of stock and make no effort to farm, as past experience has taught them 
 by hard knocks that this is no farming country. 
 
 The entire county is with you. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 387 
 
 CAN MAKE A GOOD LIVING ON 040 ACRES. 
 [J. H. Good, Las Vegas, San Miguel County.] 
 
 If you will give the homesteader 640 acres, all of the land in northern New 
 Mexico subject to entry will within a very short time be filed upon. The man 
 who takes a homestead under the present law only does so because he is not 
 acquainted with existing conditions, because he can not make a living farming, 
 and he does not have sufficient land on which to run live stock. Since live 
 stock has advanced so in price it is possible to go on to a tract of 640 acres, raise 
 feed, and take care of from 30 to 60 head of stock. This is an ideal stock 
 country, and, in my opinion, the only way that it will ever be settled up is to 
 get the settlers to- run cattle, as they all starve out trying to grow marketable 
 crops. 
 
 I have farmed here several years and know from experience that I can not 
 make good unless I have stock around me, and myself and all of my neighbors 
 have been getting all the stock possible and find that with a small pasture' we 
 can make a good living. 
 
 IP LEASED, THE COUNTRY WILL NOT SETTLE UP. 
 [H. B. May, Eunice, Eddy County.] 
 
 Twenty-five head of cattle is the limit of the number of cattle, take one year 
 with another, that can be run on 640 acres, with enough work stock to cultivate 
 the required amount of land. I am in the southeast part of Eddy County, 
 N. Mex. I settled here January 23, 1908. I have only raised two crops since 
 I have been here ; two years I did not make any .crop at all. My feed stuff did 
 not get to exceed in height knee high. Myself and four sons are only running 75 
 head of horses and cattle on two and one-half sections, and we had to pasture 
 out in Texas for two years out of the five years we have been here. A man 
 can not live here on 320 acres. I had to go to Texas two years and pick cotton 
 to get money to live on. I am the first settler in this part, and I can give you 
 the names of a number of men who did not have any stock except a work team 
 who has had to leave here, as they could not live by farming. 
 
 If Congress kills your bill and passes a lease law, it ought to appropriate 
 money to enable the settlers to get out of this country and make the cattlemen 
 pay the appropriaion. If one man could get two sections, so he could run 50 
 head of cattle, this country would be worth twice as much in taxation as to 
 lease this land to the big cowmen. If leased, this country will not settle up. 
 May the God of Heaven give you power to have your bill become a law. 
 
 NOT ONE SETTLER IN TWENTY-FIVE ABLE TO MAKE A LIVING ON 320 ACRES. 
 [Jas. H. Hughes,- Nadine, Eddy County.] 
 
 I have talked to nearly every man in this part of the country about your 
 640-acre bill, and every one is anxious for it to pass, as they think it would 
 enable them to stay at home more and improve their homes. As it is, there has 
 not been one family in twenty-five that has been able to stay on their entry and 
 make a living. I have been here five years, run a general store, and am post- 
 master, and I know exactly what I am talking about. The people that have 
 gotten their patents have nearly all gone, on account of not having enough land 
 to raise sufficient stock to make a living. 
 
 I would like the limitation to 10 miles eliminated, as it does not give the old 
 settlers much chance for the additional 320, as it has nearly all been filed on 
 within 10 miles of this place — even 20 miles of here. 
 
 NINE OUT OF EVERY TEN SETTLERS HAVE FAILED TO MAKE A LIVING ON 320 ACRES. 
 
 [W. C. Tharp, merchant, St. Vrain, Curry County.] 
 
 I note your efforts to secure the passage of a 640-acre grazing homestead act. 
 If you can get the bill through it would be a boon to eastern New Mexico. I filed 
 
388 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 here in April, 1906, and lost nearly every dollar I had trying to farm. Fully nine 
 persons out of every ten who originally came here went away flat broke, and in 
 debt besides. Many of those persons even lost their land under mortgage or 
 sold for very little, because they could not use one-quarter to any advantage, 
 and for this reason found it very undesirable to retain such lands only to pay 
 high taxes on them. 
 
 I believe a man can keep 4 mares, a few swine, and 20 milk cows on a section 
 hy using a silo, and this is as little as a man with a family can make out with 
 if he expects to be of any service to the country or pleasure to himself. 
 
 Every empty' shack and house is a silent, dramatic witness to these facts, and 
 just as sure as no relief is given only those whose means enable them to buy 
 out their neighbor can or will stay here. The many thousands of persons who 
 left here broke and discouraged are living testimonials of the truth of my 
 letter. 
 
 Every man or woman in Curry County knows these facts are true, and affi- 
 davits instead of letters can as readily be secured here by the hundreds. 
 
 Out of each 10 names on our books as customers in 1911 and 1912 at least 8 
 out of each 10 have gone away losers, many ruined. 
 
 IMPOBTANT THAT BILL SHOULD BECOME LAW — ALL THE PEOPLE AGAINST LEASIHG. 
 [Geo. F. Brulngton, Aztec, San Juan County.] 
 
 I think it very important that such a bill be enacted into law. I hav; had 
 some eight years' office experience with the present public-land laws, and my 
 experience has been that where by an accident Congress enacts a law that 
 might do some good that the department put so much red tape around it that 
 the good effects are lost. I have practically given up hope to get any man, 
 after he gets into a berth in the department, to take the view of the matter 
 that a western man on the ground takes. It looks to me that all these gum- 
 shoe men from the department who come through the country look upon a 
 entryman as a criminal, just because he is trying to obtain some Government 
 land under the laws enacted for that purpose. Naturally my disposition is 
 very gentle, but I have been up against so much of this thing that I am getting 
 disgusted. 
 
 However, we should all do what we can to improve the conditions. I think 
 it a very important feature that provision be made to guard against excessive 
 delays in the classification of the lands that may be covered by the bill. In 
 my opinion, the entryman should be given the right to make his application 
 previous to the classification. A limit should be placed on the time within 
 which the department should make classification after petition therefor by 
 settlors or prospective settlers, and an appropriation should be made providing 
 the means for the department to make the examination and classification. 
 
 I do not know whether it could be done or not, but some sort of expression 
 In the bill to the effect that all lands not under irrigation ditch should be con- 
 sidered semiarid for the purpose of the bill. The trouble in our county is 
 going to be that the provision -of the present bill where it says "known" 
 source of water supply will make trouble. Some cheap-screw man will report, 
 either from observations on the ground or by reference to some publication that 
 this county has one-half of all the waters of the State within its borders and 
 will try and look 20 or 30 years in the future and make a report that the land 
 has a known source of water supply from a river, and then the department 
 will refuse to include most of the lands of our county within the provisions of 
 the bill. This should be avoided if possible. 
 
 Under present conditions we are rapidly progressing backwards. Our popu- 
 lation is decreasing and our taxes are increasing, the latter frightfully. In our 
 county we keep up mile after mile of public roads on the public domain and 
 pay the expenses of policing it, and, in addition, in the past few years we have 
 had several hundred dollars expenses in connection with criminal proceedings 
 with the Navajo Indians, who have been off the reservation and committed 
 crimes, and have been convicted in the district court. 
 
 There is not the slightest question on earth but what all of our people are 
 against the large segregation of public lands for rental. If any thing further 
 is needed in connection with the public land laws to put our country on the 
 bum some legislation of that kind would do the business. We have been trying 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 389 
 
 to get the small jnan to settle and make this country his home and get title 
 of the public lands in numerous small holdings so that we can derive taxes 
 to keep up roads and public schools, but if the country is going to be leased to 
 the big fellows for ranges we might as well fold our tents and quit. 
 
 WILL GIVE HOMES TO THE SMALL STOCK RAISERS AND HOME BUILDERS. 
 
 [L. M. Garrett, secretary Farmington Fruit Growers' Association, Farmington, San Juan 
 
 County.] 
 
 I have been much interested in the details of the bill you have introduced to 
 utilize our desert and grazing land. I believe that you have certainly hit upon 
 the right plan to make the most of this land and give homes to the small stock 
 raiser. As it is at present, the large stock raiser has no interest in the commu- 
 nity where he grazes and often comes in and consumes the grass that the nearby 
 ranchers need for the few head of stock they try to keep, thereby causing hard- 
 ship. The large stockman will never do anything to develop the country in the 
 sense of making homes. 
 
 I believe that 640 acres in many arid sections will justify the fencing, and 
 maintain from 15 to 40 head of cattle most of the year. The amount of grass 
 will differ in different sections and in different years in the same section. 
 Another important matter in favor of your bill, the grazing when fenced and 
 properly protected from overgrazing at certain seasons of the year will geatly 
 improve in quality and quantity ; the preseut system makes this impossible. 
 
 I am intimately acquainted with the conditions of all northwest New Mexico, 
 and your bill if enacted into law will meet one of our urgent needs. 
 
 I am sure you will be opposed by the large stoekman, but he never builds up 
 any section of the country. It is the man who tries to build a home, helps to 
 form a community, that we must provide for. Your bill Will do this. 
 
 WILL BE FOR THE GREATEST HOOD TO THE GREATEST NUMBER. 
 [R. B. Maupin, Pendleton, San Juan County.] 
 
 I am in hearty sympathy with this bill, because it will be for the greatest good 
 to the greatest number — that is, the poor people. 
 
 I believe that, if properly fenced, 640 acres of land in this section would sus- 
 tain 30 head of cows and calves, and would keep them in good condition the 
 year round. I hope that such a law will be passed. 
 
 SETTLER INCLOSED BY CATTLEMEN. 
 
 [V. H. Stringer, Plainview, Chaves County.] 
 
 I am among the many settlers in New Mexico who would appreciate the 
 ■passage of the 640-acre bill. I have 30 cows, which will take 640 acres to run. 
 I am inclosed by cattlemen where I am. 
 
 PASSAGE OF A LEASING BILL WOULD BE A DISASTER TO NEW MEXICO. 
 [Irvin Ogden, si-., publisher the Spanish-American, Mora County.] 
 
 say for the people here that tfiey are a unit for your bill, and they fully 
 ;he disaster it would be to New Mexico to have the grazing-reserve bill 
 
 I will i 
 realize the < 
 become a law. 
 
 The selection of State land in this vicinity is a serious menace to homestead 
 and agricultural interests, but we can muster voters enough to control county 
 as well as State elections, but to discourage the immigration of settlers is to 
 delay New Mexico in reaching the high order of statehood to which she is 
 entitled. 
 
390 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 A HOMESTEADER CAN NOT MAKE A LIVING ON 320 ACBES. 
 [Florencio A. Trujillo, Springer, Colfax County.] 
 
 My honest opinion is thnt under present circumstances a homesteader, under 
 the 320-acre law, on arid land is unable to make a living, unless he has some- 
 thing else to depend on, because a man with a family to support will have to 
 work at least six months of each year on the outside in order to keep the place 
 in shape. 
 
 The leasiug of the Government land, I believe, is against the stock raiser on 
 a small scale, because the little man can not compete in the bids, and if he 
 has but 320 acres of land and is unable to lease enough to keep a number of 
 cattle or sheep to make a living with, he is put out of business. 
 
 The result of leasing will be that stock raising will be in the hands of the 
 few, and the majority in poverty, which will bring a result similar to the situ- 
 ation that confronts to-day our neighboring Republic of Mexico. 
 
 In expressing my opinion, I protest against the Government-land lease, which 
 I hope will not pass. I believe that everybody should be treated alike and given 
 a chance to make a living. 
 
 LESS THAN 64 ACRES PRACTICALLY WORTHLESS. 
 [A. F. Aker, Red Rock, Grant County.] 
 
 I am certainly in sympathy with your 640-acre homestead bill for the arid 
 lands of New Mexico. I have been taught by experience that less than 640 acres 
 is practically worthless, so far as settling the country is concerned. I have 
 seen it over and over again where men have tried to make a living on 160 acres 
 of this land and either threw it up before they proved up on it, or, having 
 toughed it out and Droved up on it, would immediately sell to some big cattle- 
 man for a paltry sum. and leave the country. 
 
 I state to you from experience that 160 acres of land will not keep over 6 or 
 7 head of cattle in anything like living order, and at that rate 640 acres would 
 keep not over 30 head the average years in this part of the country. Even this 
 is little enough for a man to try to make a living on. 
 
 A LEASE LAW WOULD DRIVE OUT THE SMALL MEN. 
 (Joe Baitinetti, Gallup, McKinley County.] 
 
 I heartily indorse your 640-acre grazing bill, as I know that the large stock- 
 men have been urging Congress for years to pass a lease law in order that they 
 would gobble up the entire range and the small men would be driven out of 
 the cattle business. Your bill would protect the small cattle owner, and I hope 
 that the committee will favorably report the same. 
 
 I presume the large stockmen will be in Washington to lobby against the bill, 
 but have faith that the committee will do the right thing and recommend the 
 passage of your bill. 
 
 DAIRYING COULD BE SUCCESSFULLY FOLLOWED WITH 640 ACRES. 
 
 [O. L. Freeman, East Las Vegas, San Miguel County.] 
 
 I tried to prove up on a 320-acre homestead in northern New Mexico, and 
 after spending what little capital I had was obliged to give up because I could 
 not make a living, which has been the case with a great many other settlers 
 throughout this part of the country. If I could have filed upon 640 acres and 
 run some 30 head of dairy stock my check every month at the creamery would 
 be as much as it would be possible to make in town, and I could live a great 
 deal cheaper on the farm. Give the settler 640 acres of the class of land found 
 in this section of the country and there will be thousands of small stockmen who 
 will raise rough feed and run a small herd of cattle. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GKAZING LANDS. 391 
 
 PRESENT LAWS WILL DEPOPULATE THE ABID REGION. 
 [E. B. Bristow, Inez, Roosevelt County.] 
 
 I have been asked to write you concerning your 640-acre grazing homestead 
 bill. 
 
 We are sorely in need of a 640-acre- grazing homestead bill. There is not 
 sufficient rain to make this a successful farming country, and it is only suitable 
 for grazing; but 160 or 320 acres is not sufficient for a poor man to mate a 
 living on. 
 
 There are a great many people here who are selling their farms and leaving 
 the country because they can not make a satisfactory living farming, and do 
 not have enough land, with their 160 or 320 acres, to graze cattle or sheep. 
 These men sell out to cattlemen. If they had 640 acres they would be able t< 
 make a living; they could pasture about 40 or 50 head of cattle. This would 
 induce, other people to settle this land. If we do not get some law like this one 
 this country will soon be depopulated. 
 
 GRAZING HOMESTEADS WOULD IMPROVE QUALITY AND INCREASE PRODUCTION OF 
 
 STOCK. 
 
 [Charles F. Holly, Flora Vista, San Juan County.] 
 
 I wish you all success with your " 640-acre grazing homestead bill." It is 
 time such a bill was passed, although I can not profit by it (having used my 
 homestead right), but I am pretty well acquainted with this portion of New 
 Mexico, and there are large areas that can not be successfully used for farming 
 on account of the impossibility of getting water on it in sufficiently large quan- 
 tities for irrigation ; and yet this land could be used for grazing. 
 
 The number of cattle that can be raised on 640 acres varies considerably 
 with the locality and situation, but at present I believe it will require on the 
 average 25 acres to one cow. But if the ranchman owned his own grazing land 
 he could and would improve his lands by seeding to grasses, conserving mois- 
 ture, etc., so that double the number or more could be grown on the same area. 
 Just as the man with a small farm well cultivated will get larger yields per 
 acre, usually, so will the small stcokman raise more animals on the same area 
 and for the same reason. 
 
 A 64 0-ACRE GRAZING HOMESTEAD WOULD BE A GREAT BOON TO NEW MEXICO. 
 [C. A. Earned, Dexter, Chaves County.) 
 
 A great many settlers in this part of the State are deeply interested in the 
 640-acre grazing homestead bill. We realize by experience that New Mexico 
 is primarily a grazing country. Asa matter of meat or wool production, how- 
 ever, we know that the farmer or small ranchman will naturally raise a better 
 grade of live stock than the large ranchman, which would be the cause of a 
 greater supply of meat and wool. 
 
 Should this bill becnme a law it would afford homes for many thousands 
 who otherwise could not live here, as 160 acres or 320 acres are not sufficient 
 to make a living on by stock raising. The small ranchman would naturally seek 
 to develop his holdings more than the large ranchman, especially in the matter 
 of the use of water, by means of pumping from surface waters or from any 
 available source whatever. By the use of such irrigation as the farmer or 
 small ranchman may be able to provide, in the raising of feedstuff and garden 
 stuff, etc., together with what can be produced by rainfall, we believe that on 
 a 640-acre grazing homestead a good living could be made, and its passage 
 would be a great boon to New Mexico. 
 
 We do not believe a few wealthy stockmen should have a monopoly of water 
 and grass any more than other men should have a monopoly on oil, meat, or 
 railroads. 
 
392 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 STOCK RAISING NECESSARY TO SUPPLEMENT DRY FARMING TO INSURE SUCCESS. 
 
 [T. F. MeAuliffe, Raton, Colfax County.] 
 
 I appreciate very much the interest you are taking in the plain people of 
 our State in introducing a bill for an enlarged homestead of 640 acres of grac- 
 ing lands. It is a just bill, and I hope it will meet with the approval of Con- 
 gress. A family can not make a living on less than that amount of this high 
 prairie land. A man can keep 20 cows and 2 horses the year round on 640 
 acres of land, and no more, and can do some farming. As you know, dry farming 
 has not been a success yet, and a family would have to have some live stock 
 to help out. 
 
 SUCCESSFUL SETTLEMENT ONLY POSSIBLE WITH GRAZING HOMESTEADS. 
 [William G. MacArthur, Monument, Eddy County.] 
 
 My residence in New Mexico extends over a period of 17 years, and 11 of 
 them has been in the eastern portion of Eddy County. When I first came 
 here this was a cattle country strictly, and during my residence at Monument 
 I have seen the country settled, first with 160-acre homesteads and later under 
 the 320-acre law. My experience has been that people can not stay in this 
 semiarid country on either a quarter or half section. A half section of land 
 will graze on an average 12 to 15 head of stock, but on the ordinary homestead 
 it will not graze that many, for the farmer in order to make proof on his land 
 has had to cultivate under the 5-year law 80 acres, and under the 3-year law 
 40 acres, and almost all the land that was cultivated was that much worse 
 for the homesteader, for he could not farm successfully, and when the ground 
 was plowed up it would not grow grass. Therefore it follows that the only 
 way for settlers to get homes, keep them, and become permanent citizens of 
 the State is to give them more land, so that they may have an opportunity to 
 raise some kind of stock. 
 
 I will state as a matter of information that I am in the mercantile business 
 here, and while the stock interests are our main support, or have been our main 
 support, I firmly believe a section law will benefit so many more people than it 
 will injure that I am heartily in favor of it. 
 
 HOW 040 ACRES CAN BE SUCCESSFULLY FARMED AND GRAZED. 
 [W. TV. Duke, Centerville, Union County.] 
 
 I hope with all my heart you are successful with your 640-acre grazing bill. 
 
 I have lived in New Mexico seven years, and I am sure the homesteaders here 
 need 640 acres or more. I have a small pasture fenced in with some of my 
 neighbors; our contract reads that there can only be 16 head of cattle to each 
 640 acres, and I am sure this is plenty, taking one year with another. 
 
 Now, take the 640 acres. A man can keep a team of horses and, say, 10 or 
 12 cows and then farm, say, 40 acres. These 10 or 12 cows must be good 
 milch cows; if they are, he can sell from $20 to $30 worth of cream in a year 
 from each cow and he can sell the calves at from $20 to $30 each. The 
 average cow will net about $50, provided the man has a silo and plenty of 
 good barn room for his cows. This would only give a man from $500' to 
 $600 each year to live on, and this is counting everything at 100 per cent. 
 Should there be a failure in a crop, which was the case last year, and the loss 
 of two or three calves or a cow or two, the man has gone to the bad. I know of 
 men here that are making arrangements to go elsewhere, because they can't 
 make a living on 160 and 320 acre entries, but they would gladly stay and help 
 improve and build up the country if they only had more land. 
 
 I presume you will have some difficulty in getting the Congressmen of the 
 Eastern States to see how this land will benefit us unless it all joins. I will 
 explain that in this way : The people that have proved up and left have 
 leased their land, and a man can exchange the land he has for this land, and 
 in that way we can get our land in a body and still own our land we file on, 
 for some pastures are from 10 to 40 miles long, and they will gladly give you 
 the use of their land joining you for the same number of acres some other place 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 393 
 
 In their pasture. I will guarantee that every man who gets 640 acres will make 
 good use of it, no matter how badly it is scattered. 
 
 If the homesteaders of New Mexico had only known of this sooner I am sure 
 you would have been overrun with petitions. 
 
 No one knows, nor can they realize, the situation in New Mexico unless they 
 have been here so that they see the difficulties and hardships we homesteaders 
 have to endure. 
 
 CAN MAKE A GOOD LIVING ON A 640-ACRE HOMESTEAD. 
 * [O. Hahn, East Las Vegas, San Miguel County.] 
 
 I heartily indorse your plan of giving the homesteaders of New Mexico 640 
 acres ; this is the only salvation for the small cattle raiser in the northern part 
 of this State. It is possible to raise some feed for stock with the limited 
 rainfall which we have, and with feed and a 600-acre pasture a man can make 
 a very good living on a homestead. 
 
 I have tried to farm along the lines known as dry farming, and last year 
 I did not get enough feed to carry my horses through the winter, but this is 
 an exception, as it is possible and profitable to raise roughage for the live 
 etock, but as a farming proposition it has been proven by bitter experience that 
 we can not depend upon farming for a livelihood. 
 
 If I had 640 acres of land and could fence it and put in about 80 acres of crop 
 and dig a silo I could take care of 50 head of cattle. As it is at present, the 
 large cattleman either owns the range or controls it, so that the homesteader 
 can not get into the stock business. 
 
 RESOLUTIONS OF AZTEC COMMERCIAL CLUB. 
 [The Aztec Commercial Club, Aztec, San Juan County.] 
 
 At a specially called meeting of our commercial club last Saturday evening 
 your 640-acre grazing homestead bill was thoroughly studied and discussed 
 and unanimously indorsed. Our club is composed of the representative citi- 
 zens of Aztec and surrounding community engaged in different pursuits — 
 merchants, lawyers, farmers, doctors, stockmen, etc. 
 
 The object of this organization is to promote the growth and general welfare 
 of our town and county ; to induce settlers to come into our county and make 
 homes. San Juan County contains about 3,000,000 acres of land; only about 
 one one-hundredth part of this is under irrigation and in cultivation, and a 
 comparatively small portion of the remaining ninety-nine one-hundredths can 
 ever be irrigated under high-line canals. 
 
 It is the proper management of this 99 per cent of our lands that will effect 
 the future prosperity of our county and this entire mountain region, which is 
 similarly situated. A large portion of this land is valuable for grazing pur- 
 poses and forage crops. We want this land settled up as fast as possible, and 
 we think your 640-acre homestead bill will be an inducement to the small 
 stock raiser. Under present conditions no one with a small herd of sheep or 
 cattle feels justified in attempting to develop the stock industry on a 160-acre 
 homestead, because of the fact that this amount of land is insufficient; and 
 having no rights to the public domain he feels that he would be at the mercy 
 of the large cattle owners. 
 
 Our knowledge of the semiarid condition of this western mountain country 
 is such that we do not hesitate to state that if your bill should become a law, 
 and the law given a liberal interpretation without the "red tape" that has 
 been attached to the past administrations of the public-land laws, within a 
 very few vears these lands would be settled on by numerous small stockmen, 
 who, in our judgment, by fencing and cultivating and growing the hardier 
 grasses and forage crops could not only make a respectable living for them- 
 selves, but would add materially to the meat supply, which is now causing so 
 much concern, and would also help the country generally. Investigation 
 shows that a 640-acre homestead cultivated and taken care of as cited above 
 would support from 25 to 100 head of cattle and four or five times that number 
 
394 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 of sheep, owing to the particular location. The method of proving up on the 
 land, as provided in your bill, by making permanent improvement and not by 
 paying cash would be a great inducement to the small stockman. The present 
 requirements for cultivating the land before making final proof is just that 
 much injury to it for grazing purposes. 
 
 Our experience as to classification and segregation of public lands as here- 
 tofore administered has been very unfortunate, to say the least. Lands have 
 been withdrawn for classification for several years in our county under the 
 so-called coal act, and up to this time, although diligent and persistent effort 
 has been made by petitions and letters, no action has been. taken, and practi- 
 cally the entire county at this time is retarded in its growth because the 
 people are not getting the benefit of the present land laws. For these reasons 
 we believe your 640-acre grazing homestead bill should have a positive provi- 
 sion for the immediate classification of lands subject to its provisions, and 
 allowing a preference right of entry to applications submitted prior to such 
 classification; also that a sufficient appropriation be made so that there will 
 be funds for this work. We deem this a very important matter for the reason 
 that heretofore when we have petitioned and entreated the department for 
 classification and segregation, or surveys, we were refused, because, as we 
 were informed, there were no funds for this work. 
 
 We sincerely hope that your bill will become a law. 
 
 Feed Bunker, 
 President Aztec Commercial Club. 
 E. P. Wilson, Secretary. 
 
 THE 160 AND 320 ACRE ACTS ONLY INJURIOUS. 
 [Teets B. Quirey, Carlsbad, Eddy County.] 
 
 I have practiced medicine here at Carlsbad for five ye;\rs and have also 
 been engaged in the live-stock business indirectly for five years. Our com- 
 pany owns cattle and horses on 105 sections of leased State lands, including 
 four sections of deeded lands; therefore it would seem that I would favor the 
 big cattlemen, yet I do not hesitate to say that the 160 and 320 acre acts are 
 injurious to this section of the country. These settlers on small entries can 
 not have enough stock on their land to make a living, and it is impossible to 
 make a living by cultivation. After the sod is broken, which is compulsory, 
 the land then can not be used for grazing or farming purposes. 
 
 We figure 15 to 30 head of cattle to a section of land, with a 00 or 95 per 
 cent calf crop, which you would get in an inclosure of this kind and close 
 attention. You would also have the advantage of cultivating, if there is any, 
 a small portion of this land, and utilizing what rough feed that might be 
 raised, whereas the small homesteader can scarcely exist long enough to make 
 proof, and if they do half of them go to other States where the rainfall is 
 greater. 
 
 I am sure that many homesteaders', in fact all near here, would s'gn a peti- 
 tion in favor of the enlarged-homestead bill ; in fact. I have personally heard 
 them express themselves in favor of it. 
 
 WILL PLACE THE STOCK INDUSTRY UPON A MORE PERMANENT BASIS. 
 [George W. McCoy, Aztec, San Juan County.] 
 
 I wish to write you concerning your 640-acre grazing homestead bill. 1 have 
 lived in San Juan County, N. Mex., for the past 35 years. I was one of the 
 first dozen settlers of the county. I have spent all this time here in fruit cul- 
 ture, farming, and stock raising, and I am familiar with the country for about 
 100 miles in every direction', having run cattle for several years. 
 
 I know that grazing lands are growing poorer every year from promiscuous 
 overpasturing. These rich arid lands will produce good crops of some of the 
 hardier grasses, and under modern dry-farming methods we can get good forage 
 crops to tide our stock over the winter. The average such homestead will sup- 
 port is from 50 to 100 head of cattle and four or five times as many sheep. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 395 
 
 A good many homeseekers who come into our county are looking for stock- 
 raising propositions. The mst of them are men of small means and are not 
 able to buy high-priced irrigated lands, but would be glad of the opportunity to 
 homestead 640 acres of our semiarid land and go into the sheep or cattle 
 business. 
 
 From my knowledge of conditions in this mountain country, I firmly believe 
 that your grazing homestead bill would give the poor man a chance to get a 
 home upon which he could make a living, thereby increasing our population 
 and placing the stock industry upon a more permanent basis. 
 
 Our people are greatly interested in your bill and sincerely hope it may 
 become a law. 
 
 GRAZING, DAIRYING, AND DRY FARMING THE SUCCESSFUL COMBINATION. 
 [Donald Upton, Solano, Mora County.] 
 
 I am greatly pleased with your proposed 640-acre law for homesteads and 
 hope that it may become law. 
 
 In this part of New Mexico we have come to realize that we are living in 
 a country which is far better for grazing than for farming. Here and there you 
 will come across a " dry farmer " who has bought or leased grazing for a small 
 herd of dairy cattle, and who by combining dry farming with grazing is mak- 
 ing a success. 
 
 To eliminate compulsory cultivation from the homestead law will be a de- 
 cided benefit. As it is at present, the cultivation is a burden to a large propor- 
 tion of the entrymen — a hardship which in 9 cases out of 10 offers no reward as 
 it produces no crops. Then, too, it destroys grass, and I believe that our 
 grama grass is our most valuable asset. 
 
 I believe that your bill will encourage genuine settlers, as it gives them 
 sufficient grazing, compels substantial improvements, which enhances the value 
 of the claim, and allows the entryman to use his own judgment and needs to 
 determine the amount of ground to be cultivated. 
 
 THE HOMESTEAD GRAZING BILL. 
 [The Herald, Albuquerque, Feb. 20, 1914.] 
 
 Petitions are now being circulated in New Mexico in support of the G40-acre 
 grazing homestead bill drawn up by Representative H. B. Fergusson, of New 
 Mexico, a hearing upon which is set for March 3 next. There is little doubt 
 that a large number of signers will be secured as this measure is one that 
 appeals particularly to the smaller rancher in the State. It is believed that 
 with 640 acres under his own fence, or a supplementary homestead of that 
 extent, the average small grower can make good, and the law proposed will 
 greatly expedite the settling up of New Mexico by the best class of settlers. 
 The measure is distinctly in the interest and for the welfare of the man with 
 small or moderate means, the man who is a home maker and a developer. It 
 has been pretty well demonstrated that in a majority of cases 160 acres or 320 
 acres is not enough land for the average sheep or cattle grower to make good 
 with his live stock. . . , 
 
 Mr. Fergusson in his fight for the passage of this bill may be fairly well 
 assured that he will have the support of the majority of the people of the 
 State. 
 
 A 640-ACBE GRAZING HOMESTEAD AN IMPERATIVE NECESSITY. 
 [Arthur J. Evans, member New Mexico State Senate, Ellda, Roosevelt County.] 
 
 In reference to your 640-acre grazing homestead bill, I certainly agree with 
 you that it is imperatively necessary for the arid West to have an enlarged 
 homestead if we ever succeed in getting our western country settled up. 
 
 Anyone that has ever been in New Mexico knows a family can not make a 
 living on 160 or 320 acres of land, for to attempt to farm here other than a 
 forage crop means a large expenditure of money and no reliance on making 
 a thing that you can market. 
 
396 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 I have been in the West for 28 years, and I think I can speak with some 
 authority when I say that if the Government intends to do by us westerners 
 as the Government has done by the settlers of Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, 
 and Nebraska, the enlarged grazing homestead bill will pass, so as to further 
 the interest in the cattle business, for truly, this is only a cattle country, and 
 by giving each head of a family 640 acres he can raise, one year with another, 
 about 50 to 75 head of cattle, making a good living, but not making him any 
 money above living expenses. 
 
 The people in the arid West will feel that the great Government at Wash- 
 ington is taking some interest in them if they will pass this bill, which is so 
 necessary to the settling of this country. 
 
 WILL MAKE THE STATE PRODUCTIVE AND THE LAND REVENUE PRODUCING. 
 [E. G. Shouse, manager Artesia Cream Depot, Artesia, Eddy County.] 
 
 I have read with much interest the grazing homestead bill as introduced by 
 you in Congress. 
 
 I feel very confident that such a law would do much in putting substantial 
 settlers into this portion of our State, and in a short time much of this land 
 would not only be paying a revenue into the pockets of the owners, but the 
 State would also acquire a revenue therefrom. 
 
 Make it easy and attractive for the bona fide settler, and our State will soon 
 come into her own. Too much land here producing no revenue and it will 
 not produce until a sufficient acreage is placed within the reach of men of mod- 
 erate means. 
 
 I sincerely hope for the passage of such a bill. 
 
 JUST WHAT IS NEEDED TO DEVELOP THE COUNTRY. 
 [G. W. B. Smith, M. D., Vaughn, Guadalupe County.] 
 
 I wish to express my hearty approval of your bill allowing entrymen 640 acres 
 of land in the semiarid region of the great Southwest. It is just what we need 
 to develop this country and make it possible for the dry farmer to graze enough 
 stock to make his existence a certainty. 
 
 I have been United States commissioner in Guadalupe County for the past 
 four years and am familiar with conditions in this part of the country, and I 
 have noted the failures of many well-meaning citizens who have attempted to 
 make homes in our State. Water can only be secured here by deep wells — 300 
 to 500 feet — and the average farmer can not afford to expend twice the value of 
 his land for water unless he can have a sufficient amount of land to graze stock. 
 
 I sincerely hope your bill will pass, as it is the solution to the development 
 of this State. 
 
 320 ACRES NOT ENOUGH FOR SUCCESSFUL FARMING. 
 [It. W. Boulware, Roy, Colfax County.] 
 
 I am a homesteader and have struggled for six years to build up this section 
 of the State by hard work and the building up of a dairy herd of cattle. Were 
 I not fortunate in having some open range I would be compelled to reduce my 
 number, which is 20 head. I follow dry-farming practices and I am one of the 
 first men to put a silo on the mesa. I can truthfully say that 320 acres of this 
 short-grass country will not support enough cows for a man with a family of 
 six children to make a good living. 
 
 It is difficult on many half sections to secure a well of water. I have no 
 water on my place, and I am now going to the expense of drilling the sixth hole 
 on my ranch, having an aggregate of 1,077 feet in dry holes. 
 
 I doubt very much if I could get an additional entry if your bill passes, but 
 others could, and it would be the means of upbuilding our country by men who 
 could raise live stock in small numbers. 
 
 I thank you for your interest in the poor homesteader. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 397 
 
 HOME MAKERS UNANIMOUSLY FAVOR A HOMESTEAD GRAZING BILL. 
 
 (Harry Campbell, corresponding secretary San Jon Valley Progressive Association, San 
 
 Jon, Quay County.] 
 
 Relative to your homestead grazing bill, I wish to express the appreciation 
 of the home makers of San Jon Valley and vicinity for your honest and untir- 
 ing efforts in their behalf. 
 
 One not familiar with conditions here can not realize their hardships, their 
 efforts to make for themselves homes and help to develop this Southwest soun- 
 try. Foregoing the pleasures and many of the comforts of life enjoyed by those 
 more fortunately located, endeavoring to provide for their families on one-fourth 
 or one-half section of land, which at best will only support a few cattle, being 
 compelled to dispose of their stock young, on account of insufficient range, they 
 are all at this time looking forward with hope and expectancy to the passage 
 of this bill. 
 
 I have talked personally with a large per cent of the settlers in southeast Quay 
 County and the north part of Curry, and all are anxious for the passage of this 
 bill, with one exception; that is, I have found one man who expresses himself 
 as opposing such a measure. 
 
 DAIRYING WILL PAY ON A C40-ACRE HOMESTEAD. 
 
 [W. A. Sutton, Las Tanos, Guadalupe County.] 
 
 Please push the bill, as you know the situation of this country. A man needs 
 as much as 640 acres to stay here and make a living. As you well know, the 
 160-acre homestead was a failure, also the 320-acre act, as the people left just 
 as soon as they made proof on their land; but the 640-acre act would enable 
 them to keep enough stock to support a family. The dairy business will be a 
 paying business here in. this country if a man can get 640 acres to hold his 
 cows on. 
 
 PRESENT LAND LAWS GOOD FOR FARMING SECTIONS ONLY. 
 [Charles M; Samtord, Hagerman, Chaves County.] 
 
 I have been a resident of New Mexico for 13 years and have had the oppor- 
 tunity of observing the grazing condition's here from an unbiased standpoint, 
 for I have not engaged in the stock business either on a large or small scale 
 and have no interest in either. However, as a citizen, and having the interests 
 of the State at heart, I heartily indorse any legislation which will bring a con- 
 siderable number of worthy citizens within our borders. 
 
 The present laws are good for farming sections, but there are great stretches 
 of country in New Mexico to which they do not apply. As proof of this one 
 has but to ride over this county and view the deserted homesteads, where brave 
 men and women have literally fought for a home against drought and failed. 
 Finding agriculture unprofitable, they turned their attention to live stock — 
 cattle and sheep and horses. Their small acreage being insufficient for this 
 purpose, they were compelled to depend upon the outlying range. No sooner 
 had they found a small range and put their cattle upon it when large herds 
 from some big cattle company would be driven over it, and there would be no 
 grass left for the small stockman. This has been the story of many a failure in 
 New Mexico. 
 
 In my opinion a law permitting a man to homestead as much as 640 acres 
 would enable him to support a family in ordinary comfort, but experience has 
 proven to hundreds of small cattlemen in this county that 320 acres is not 
 sufficient in this region. 
 
 JUST SUITS NEEDS OF SINCERE HOMESTEADER. 
 
 [N. L. Williams, Estaueia, Torrance County.] 
 
 I received copy of H. R. 9582 (the 640-acre grazing homestead bill), and after 
 carefully reading it I find it just what the home builders need. If it becomes 
 
398 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 a law this western country will soon build up with a good class of farmers and 
 stock raisers. 
 
 I congratulate you in framing a bill that just suits the needs of the sincere 
 home builders. 
 
 WILL ENABLE SETTLERS TO SUCCEED. 
 
 [T. Bdw. Bradley, Hudson, Quay County.] 
 
 The general provisions of your bill providing for grazing homesteads are 
 being heartily indorsed by the citizens of this community. I think it will 
 enable settlers to succeed on lands where they have heretofore failed. 
 
 THE PARAMOUNT QUESTION. 
 
 [B. L. Cooper, Elkins, Chaves County.] 
 
 I believe that all thinking people will heartily indorse the 640-acre homestead 
 bill. Some, however, will object to the mineral clause, and also to the distance 
 allowed to get the extra filing, owing to the fact that most of eastern New 
 Mexico has been taken practically clean, and some would have to go probably 
 50 miles to get vacant land, but most people will, I think, take the view that the 
 paramount question is getting a bill through allowing a filing of 640 acres; 
 afterwards these minor objections can be weeded out by new legislation. If 
 we ask for too much at once we might not get anything. 
 
 A HALF SECTION NOT ENOUGH ON WHICH TO MAKE A LIVING. 
 
 [Burl Johnson, Portales, N. Mex.] 
 
 I heartily approve of this bill, for I know that a half section is not enough 
 land of this character on which to raise stock enough for a living. I have 
 patented a half section of this land and lived on it seven years and had a hard 
 pull to stay. If 1 had a section I could have done better. I think the 10-mile 
 limit should be stricken out and allow homesteaders to enter where they can 
 find the land. There is no land in reach of the people in my locality, and to 
 limit us to 10 miles would be unfair. We have fought the hardships and done 
 our best, and to cut us off at this time is unjust. 
 
 IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE A LIVING WITHOUT STOCK. 
 [A. W. Drake, Mosquero, Union County.] 
 
 It is a matter of fact that it is almost impossible to make a living in this 
 country without stock, and one can not keep stock enough on 320 acres to make 
 a living ; so in order to reclaim this dry western country and make it a de- 
 sirable place to live urge the passage of the law allowing a homesteader to 
 file on an additional 320 acres, so we can keep stock and help reduce the high 
 cost of living, and at the same time we can make a living by industry and 
 good management. It is the opinion of the people here that if this 640 bill 
 passes, in a few years, as soon as we have time to build up a little bunch of 
 cattle, we can be prosperous enough to have good schools and society, without 
 such we just have a miserable existence. 
 
 Yours, truly 1 , for better and more prosperous people in New Mexico. 
 
 LEASING WILL TURN TIDE OF IMMIGRATION FROM NEW MEXICO. 
 
 [William A. Shira, Boaz, Chaves County.] 
 
 Accept my many thanks and those of this entire community for the interest 
 you are taking in behalf of the homesteaders in New Mexico. We, as a class, 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 399 
 
 are poor people and have emigrated to this country with the hope of securing 
 a home for ourselves and those depending upon us for support and a small in- 
 heritance for our children. I favor giving every head of a family 640 acres of 
 land who complies with the laws regarding the same. 
 
 This is my opinion : That as sure as this land is leased for a long term of 
 years it will turn the tide of immigration to other States and financially ruin 
 those of us who are here and have borne hardships to secure a home. I have been 
 here five years, and I can see by the way things are drifting that should this 
 land be leased at the expiration of the lease those wanting homes would hesi- 
 tate to enter. What could a man do with a quarter or half section surrounded 
 by a cattle syndicate? Let us have laws for the masses and not for the classes. 
 
 FOR DAIRYING AND FARMING, 640 ACRES SUFFICIENT. 
 
 [J. M. Hedgecock, jr., Endee, Quay County.] 
 
 Tour bill providing for enlargement of homesteads to 640 acres is very favor- 
 ably thought of in this vicinity and is indeed just what we need to assist the 
 settlers to remain on the homesteads, inasmuch as the grass on 640 acres is 
 sufficient to carry enough stock, together with farm and dairy products, to 
 make one a living. 
 
 OF TREMENDOUS IMPORTANCE TO THE STATE. 
 
 [Benigno Padilla, Puerto de Luna, Guadalupe County.] 
 
 I have to congratulate you most heartily on your 640-acre grazing homestead 
 bill. This bill, if passed, will be of tremendous importance to this and the 
 other States for which it is intended. Stock raising is the industry of this 
 State, and as the vast areas of grazing land are taken up each settler will de- 
 vote it to stock raising, and this will form the greatest source of wealth in 
 this section of the country. On 640 acres a settler can graze enough stock to 
 make a living successfully; on 160 acres he can not make a living out of the 
 land at all, because farming on such land is a failure, and he can keep only a 
 few animals on it. 
 
 STRIKE OUT 10-MILE LIMITATION — HELP THOSE WHO HAVE " STUCK IT OUT." 
 [Washington E. Lindsey, Portales, Roosevelt County.] 
 
 I have noted with interest your bill extending the homestead-entry right 
 on certain lands in New Mexico. I trust you will pardon me for making a 
 suggestion or two in regard to the same. 
 
 First, it appears to me that the limitation of 10 miles for legalizing the 
 taking of the additional lands should be stricken out, because in most cases 
 the present entryman in this section who has made proof and still lives on 
 his original entry, as well as the entryman who has not made proof, would 
 be cut out of additional land, because all the land within that distance 
 would be taken up. , . . . 
 
 Second, it has always appeared to me to be unjust to preclude the person 
 who has filed on and acquired title to less than the maximum amount from 
 making an entry of the difference should he desire so to do. The Congress re- 
 stores the right of entrymen who have failed to acquire title for any cause, 
 when, as a matter of fact, the entryman who has " stuck it out " and acquired 
 title has almost •invariably suffered the greater loss. Besides he is and would 
 be the better frontiersman by reason of his experience. If your bill could be 
 amended to cover the above points, I am of opinion that it would operate to 
 serve the country better and a greater number of the more deserving people. 
 However, I favor the passage of the bill in any event and trust that you may 
 be able to secure its passage. 
 
400 DISPOSITION OP GBAZING LANDS. 
 
 WITH 640 ACRES AND A FEW STOCK A GOOD LIVING CAN BE MADE. 
 
 [J. C. McClish, McDonald, Chaves County.] 
 
 In regard to 640 act, will say the entire farming portion of this plains part 
 of New Mexico is very anxious to have it put through as early as possible. 
 I believe it will put New Mexico in better shape than anything that can be 
 done, for this is not strictly speaking a farming country, but is admirably 
 suited to stock farming with 640 acres. With 75 to 80 acres in farm crops 
 and a few stock a good comfortable living can be made. A great many who 
 have tried to make a living farming on a 160-acre claim have made a failure 
 and sold out or leased and gone; while those who have 320 acres and a few 
 stock have managed to stay, but they have found out that 320 acres are not 
 sufficient to support stock enough to make a good living, with the crop failures 
 that we have had in the past six years. But 640 acres will, and with such a 
 law in force and the opening up for filing of more of the public domain, allow- 
 ing us to file wherever we can find it, will give every farmer an opportunity 
 for plenty of room, which will induce a better class of immigrants to settle 
 among us — men of large families ; men who are able to do something for the 
 country; men who have taxable property. So I write this to encourage you 
 and your colleagues to do all in your power to get the 640-acre bill through, and 
 also to urge you to do all in your power to prevent the great public lands from 
 being held solely for lease. If this lease law goes into effect it will effectually 
 stop all emigration to New Mexico. 
 
 WILL BE OP GREAT HELP TO THE COUNTRY. 
 
 [William O. Dunlap, Portales, Roosevelt County.] 
 
 I think this bill would be one of the greatest helps for the country in general 
 of any bill that could be passed, as it would increase the number of taxpayers 
 and decrease the rate of taxes. 
 
 CAN NOT HAKE A LIVING ON 160 OR 320 ACRES. 
 
 [B. O. Brownfleld, Orange, Mora County.] 
 
 In regard to your 640-acre grnzing-homestead bill for semiarid lands of New 
 Mexico, I think that would be one of the best land laws for New Mexico ever 
 passed, as it would help many people and cause New Mexico to settle up faster. 
 We can not make a living on 160 acres, nor can we on 320 acres. We do not 
 have a turf of grass in New Mexico. If we had 640 acres, we could raise 15 to 
 25 head of cattle and make a living, I think. To show you that I know what 
 I am talking about, I have had six milk cows and calves in my pasture of 160 
 acres since July 1, 19J3, up until February 1. when I had to turn them out on 
 account of not having grass in the pasture to run them any longer. 
 
 HAVE TO DEPEND ON STOCK FARMING TO MAKE A LIVING. 
 
 [John F. Smitnson, Grady, Curry County.] 
 
 We are very anxious for the 640-acre bill to go through in such a way that 
 all settlers here can have the benefit of it, both those who have deeded their 
 land and also those that hold claims here yet. It will take a section to graze 
 25 to 40 head of stock, and we have to depend on stock farming here to make a 
 living. I have talked to quite a number of the settlers here, and they are all 
 of the same opinion. 
 
 WILL INSURE A PROSPEROUS COUNTRY OF HOME OWNERS. 
 
 [Ben E. Storie, Hagerman. Chaves County.] 
 
 I think there is lots of the land in this country good enough for a man to 
 make a living on if he could own a section ; but if he has only 160 acres he 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 401 
 
 can't keep many stock, and, as most of the land can't be farmed successfully 
 without irrigation, he has to make a living somewhere besides on his home- 
 stead. 
 
 If the bill passes, I think there will be lots of men take homesteads and raise 
 stock, thus making a prosperous country of home owners. On the other hand, 
 if they lease the land, as the cattlemen are n»w trying to get them to do, a 
 few men will control the range and keep a few scrub " half-cared-for " stock 
 while lots of the citizens remain homeless. 
 
 CAN NOT SUPPORT A FAMILY ON A HALF SECTION. 
 
 [S. T. Bark, Monument, Eddy County.] 
 
 Please use your best efforts to pass your 640-acre grazing-homestead bill. I 
 believe the only way New Mexico can possibly settle up with good, substantial 
 citizens is to give them enough land so that they can make a living. We all 
 know from experience that a family can not be supported on a half section. 
 The only way. we can make a living here, one year with another, is by raising 
 stock ; and a half section will not graze over 12 to 15 head. 
 
 NINE OUT OF EVERY TEN SETTLERS HAVE FAILED ON 100 AND 320 ACRE HOMESTEADS. 
 [S. F. Lane, Floyd, Roosevelt County.] 
 
 In urging yon to try to secure a 640-acre grazing-homestead law for the semi- 
 arid portion of New Mexico, I wish to state just a few of the many rensons 
 why it is a necessity. I have lived here 12 years and bave seen this portion of 
 the State settled by 160 and 320 acre homesteaders, and have likewise seen them 
 leave as soon as they have made proof on their claims — at least about 9 out 
 of every 10 have done so. 
 
 Now, there is a reason for this, and you might sum it up just like this : After 
 a man has plowed a farm on his 160 or 320 acre homestead there is not more 
 than enough grass left to graze his team and possibly a milk cow or two. Our 
 people have not been able to stay here, for the very reason that they can not 
 have land enough to graze a few stock on. Ordinarily 640 acres of this western 
 land will run 20 to 25 head of cattle ; so it is plain to a thinking man what 160 
 or 320 acres will do with 40 to SO acres of that plowed up. 
 
 Say to those lawmaking friends of yours, down there, that if they want to 
 help settle this country, and settle it with a class of people who can and will 
 stay, give them the right to take 640 acres: and, too. I would like to see the old 
 timers who are still here have an additional filing if it can be so arranged. 
 
 ALL FEEL THE NEED OF SUCH A LAW. 
 [Dan C. Savage, Kenna, Chaves County.] 
 
 I inclosed herewith petition with a good list of names signed thereto. 
 
 You could count on one hand all in our community to whom this was pre- 
 sented that did not sign it. We certainly feel the need of a law similar to your 
 640-acre grazing homestead bill. 
 
 OPPORTUNITY FOR HOME MAKERS WANTED. 
 [Isaac Curry. Jal, Eddy County.] 
 
 We appreciate your efforts to get the section act passed. It would be well if 
 the bill allowed a settler to relinquish his old claim and take up a new claim, a 
 whole section in one place. 
 
 The herds of the big cowman of this, part of the State eat and tramp the 
 grass to death in the summer and then are taken over to Texas m the winter, 
 leaving the settler nothing to winter his stock on, and of course preventing other 
 
 35074— pt 1—14—26 
 
402 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 people from coming here to settle. As you know, it is the settler that builds 
 up the country ; they build houses, set out trees, and cultivate the ground and 
 improve the country in general, while the cattleman does nothing to improve 
 the country while his stock eats the grass and tramps it out. 
 
 CAN NOT SUPPORT A FAMILY ON A HALF SECTION. 
 
 [P. S. GatMngs, Monument, Eddy County.] 
 
 I have been in this country over two years, and I find that it is impossible to 
 make a living on this semiarid land by farming. I also find that it is, necessary 
 for a settler to have some stock, but it is impossible to raise enough stock on a 
 half section to support a family. A half section will only graze on an average 
 of 12 to 15 head of stock. Therefore I want to urge you to use all your efforts 
 to pass the 640-acre grazing-homestead bill. 
 
 NECESSARY TO ENCOURAGE THE SETTLEMENT OF NEW MEXICO. 
 [John D. Thompson, Lake Valley, Sierra County.] 
 
 •I heartily indorse a bill that will allow the homesteader at least 640 acres, 
 and I think that anyone that has made final proof should be allowed to take up 
 enough additional land to make 640 acres, as I deem it necessary to encourage 
 the settlement of New Mexico and stimulate the stock industry.- It takes 20 to 
 30 acres to graze a cow a year; therefore even 640 acres would be a small 
 pasture, but it would be a great help. During a drought every stockman in 
 this vicinity has lost hundreds of cattle for want of a place to hold them so 
 he could feed them. 
 
 If the Committee on Public Lands bad had 30 years' experience in growing 
 stock in this country, as I have had, they would see the benefit of such a bill 
 at once. 
 
 A 320-ACRE CLAIM A HARD PROPOSITION. 
 
 [W. H. Miller, Dedman, Union County.] 
 
 We think your homestead bill would be a great help to the poor homesteader. 
 I came here four years ago and took a homestead and, by bitter experience, 
 have found it a much harder proposition than I was expecting on a'320-acre 
 claim. Owing to the small yield per acre, a man will have to plant half or 
 more to make anything, and as it will take at least 20 acres to the head to 
 graze a cow or horse you can see he can't have any surplus stock; and if his 
 crop fails he will be compelled to leave and hunt work; and when he does prove 
 up he can't make a living, so he will have to sell to the wealthy stockman at 
 a price that won't pay him for the time and money he has spent on the place. 
 
 A filO-ACRE HOMESTEAD ACT WOULD BE A BLESSING. 
 
 [A. B. Ross, Cedar Hill, San Juan County.] 
 
 On behalf of the small farmer and stock raiser of this section of New Mexico, 
 I wish to say that the passage of your 640-acre grazing homestead bill would 
 be a blessing. Under the present conditions it is impossible for a small man to 
 raise stock, on account of the range being overrun by outside companies, and 
 the 160 acres he is allowed to fence is not enough to pay to fence. Under your 
 proposed act the small man would be able to fence enough land to enable him 
 to graze a fair-sized herd of cattle and sheep and not be molested by the larger 
 herds. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 403 
 
 640 ACRES ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR A SMALL FARMEB. 
 [John M. Allred, Fastura, Guadalupe County,] 
 
 I am a homesteader; have been here 4 years and 10 months, and think I 
 know something about the needs of this country. 
 
 First. Six hundred and forty acres are absolutely necessary here for a small 
 farmer. Even with this amount no more than 20 head of cattle can be raised 
 each year. 
 
 Second. If you will give us the 640 acres I am sure the countrv will be 
 settled up at an early date by a good class of people ; but with the 320-acre law 
 which we now have, it will be impossible to settle only the best of the land 
 here, and that may not be during our stay. 
 
 THE SMALL STOCKMEN THE SOLUTION OF THE MEAT SUPPLY. 
 [J. L. Chatten, Elkins, Chaves County.] 
 
 I have lived near Elkins, N. Mex., since April 3, 1908, and I think I know 
 something of conditions and the needs of the people in this new country I 
 would not pay the taxes on 160 acres of dry land, and 320 acres is worth very 
 little more, because it is only a stock country and that amount will not keep 
 stock enough to make a living for a family. But 640 acres will support 50 head 
 of stock, and with the high price of stock and dairy products settlers will be 
 satisfied to stay and will have schools and churches and live in civilization. 
 
 Now, as the argument that the large cattlemen will supply the present short- 
 age in beef cattle, I will ask why have they not supplied some already, how did 
 the country get in its present shape with the large cattlemen in possession as 
 they have been and are still. Now, in small herds the percentage of calves 
 show we can help the shortage more than the large ranchman. In three small 
 bunches I can name there was but two cows that failed to bring calves last 
 year. 
 
 The county should be cut into small ranches of one to a few sections, and 
 a better class of stock would be the result, having better care. I believe this 
 the proper solution of the problem. 
 
 FARMING WITHOUT STOCK RAISING A FAILURE. 
 
 [Elmer Evans, Deming, Luna County.] 
 
 It has been my experience that the homesteader who undertakes in this 
 country to make a livelihood by farming, I mean by that, the raising of crops, 
 is doomed to disappointment and failure. However, if he can get the range and 
 raise stock, there is but little question of success, and the making of a perma- 
 nent resident of the country- Then if this is true, the necessity of his being 
 able to get control of more land than the present law will admit of will be 
 apparent to all, especially when the fact is taken into consideration that it 
 requires at least 10 acres of grazing land per head to support cows or horses. 
 ' I wish you unlimited success for your bill. This is undoubtedly for the good 
 of the many instead of a favored few. 
 
 WILL DO MORE TO SETTLE NEW MEXICO THAN ANY OTHER LEGISLATION. 
 [F. George Queen, White Oaks, Lincoln County.] 
 
 I am a small stockman in Lincoln County, and have been a resident of New 
 Mexica for the past 25 years. I am very much interested in the bill that you 
 have before the House, and I wish to say that I think that your bill giving 
 the homesteader the right to stake 640 acres of land will do more to settle 
 New Mexico than any other legislation we have ever had. 
 
 In Lincoln County there are large areas of unsurveyed land which could be 
 taken by settlers if it could be surveyed, as under settlement by the home- 
 steader these lands will become taxable property, under their present condition 
 the State or counties will get no revenue from them. 
 
404 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 CAN MAKE A DECENT LIVING ONLY ON A SECTION OF LAND. 
 [William Fearnot, Hagerman, Chaves County.] 
 
 Your homestead bill surely is grand; just the thing for this State and the 
 West generally. 
 
 In this country there is not rain enough for a man to make a living on 160 
 acres raising stock, nor can he raise grain except where he can irrigate. By 
 having a section he can make a decent living by raising a bunch of sheep. 
 There is plenty of surface water in this State for this purpose. We think 
 the drift-fence bill is a disgrace; it is a shame that men of the United States 
 would think of cutting out the homesteaders. 
 
 Your bill will make it possible for thousands of honest, hard-working men to 
 make a living, while, as it is now, a few cattle millionaires have the vast West 
 in their grasp. 
 
 Make the bill so that if a man has proved up on 160 acres he will be entitled 
 to have the balance of a section. 
 
 WILL BE A GREAT HELP TO THE POOR PEOPLE OF THE STATE. 
 [Perry Harper, Red Rock, Grant County.] 
 
 I will say that your bill to give homesteaders a right to 640 acres for grazing 
 purposes certainly would be a great help to the poor people of this State. 
 
 This country will never be settled up unless some such bill is passed; 160 
 or 320 acres is not sufficient for a man to make a living on ; even 640 acres will 
 only keep 25 or 30 head of cattle in an average year. This has been clearly 
 shown in the last few years. 
 
 WITH LESS THAN 64 ACRES FARMING IS A FAILURE. 
 
 [Cyclone Jones, Claud, Curry County.] 
 
 We are all in favor of the 640-acre bill, for most of us have tried 160 and 320 
 acres and find it not enough to farm on and keep any stock. If a man had 640 
 acres, I feel sure he could keep a few cattle — say, 25 head, and mares — enough 
 to do his farming and make a good living ; without that amount I am afraid it 
 is a failure. 
 
 UNDER SUCH A LAW NEW MEXICO WOULD THRIVE. 
 [Claude L. Smithson, Plainview, Chaves County.] 
 
 Unless we have some such a law as your 640-acre grazing homestead bill, 
 New Mexico, as well as other States, will have vast areas of land that will fall 
 into the hands of large corporations, whereas, if the small stockman had the 
 encouragement of some such law New Mexico would thrive; under the present 
 conditions it does not. 
 
 I have been a resident of New Mexico for more than five years and can 
 truthfully say that a person can not make a living on 160 acres or 320 acres 
 of arid land. The land is not capable of pasturing more than 15 head of live 
 stock on 320 acres under fence, taking one year with another. The only re- 
 demption for New Mexico is the 640-acre grazing homestead law. 
 
 This letter will speak the sentiments of the people throughout this precinct. 
 
 WOULD MAKE THE COUNTRY PROSPEROUS. 
 
 [F. L. Graves, Thornham, Chaves County.] 
 
 I hope that your 640-acre homestead bill will become a law. Three hundred 
 and twenty acres is not enough of this land for a man with a family to make 
 a living on. I have been here eight years, and I have seen many blasted hopes 
 in that time. - , , . ., 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 405 
 
 Look at the difference between this part of this country and the Panhandle of 
 Texas ; the people of the Panhandle got that land in sections and four sections, 
 and it is prosperous. If we could get a section here in five years this country 
 would be one of the most prosperous on earth. We could keep 20 head of 
 cattle, and our cream- and calves would make us a living. 
 
 WILL RELIEVE MISERABLE CONDITIONS NOW EXISTING. 
 [Nathan Blbo, Grants, Valencia County.] 
 
 You want to be remindful of the following : 
 
 Any homesteader on Government sections, between the concession of the odd 
 sections to the railroad company (on their line), who can take only 160 acres, 
 and who does his legal work and more to make such homestead entry valuable 
 for stock raising is practically ruined, because the railroad company gives 
 leases for townships only for their odd sections, which poor homesteaders can 
 not afford to rent or lease. The spirit of the law is to protect a person of lim- 
 ited means. If your bill passes Congress, you will open the way for some color 
 of success to the homesteader who can take up 640 acres of pastural land 
 (otherwise unfit for agriculture). I can furnish to you a list of 10 or 12 
 neighbors of mine, all of whom own stock, which is starving on account of 
 the overrunning and overgrazing stock of people who do nothing for improve- 
 ment of Government land, but to the contrary destroy all chances to a home- 
 steader of making even the poorest living on his own bona fide entry. 
 
 I am authorized by every one of my neighbors to thank you for the bill you 
 have already introduced, which will relieve the miserable condition exist- 
 ing in the neighborhood and the part of the country in whieh I live, the eastern 
 part of McKinley County. 
 
 CAN NOT MAKE A LIVING ON LESS THAN 640 ACRES. 
 [William Elder, Allle, Chaves County.] 
 
 A 640-acre grazing homestead law would cause New Mexico to settle fast with 
 permanent settlers. One hundred and sixty or 320 acres is too small to stock 
 farm on with success. I know for I have tried it here four years. This coun- 
 try will not graze more than 25 cows or horses on an average year on 160 or 
 320 acres. 
 
 There have been hundreds of people left here on account of not having land 
 enough to raise stock on to make a living ; 75 per cent of the settlers have had 
 to go away to work in order to live. Such a bill would cause lots of people 
 to come here and make homes and reduce the taxes. 
 
 160 ACHES NOT ENOUGH IN NEW MEXICO. 
 
 [Thomas W. Hanna, Lamy, Santa Fe County.] 
 
 I think your 640-acre homestead bill is a good one ; only it is not enough land 
 for homesteading in New Mexico. It should be 1,280 acres instead of 640; then 
 the cattlemen could fence the 1,280 acres and make a fair living on it. One 
 'hundred and sixty acres is not enough land for a poor man in New Mexico, as 
 the'land is too "barren. 
 ' I hope your bill will go through. 
 
 STOCK RAISING NECESSARY TO INSURE SUCCESS. 
 
 [Francis Lee Robinson, Lamy, Santa Fe County.] 
 
 While I am strictly a cowman and always have been against the homesteader, 
 still I appreciate the fact that the farmers must come, and it is only a question 
 of time before the large ranges must go. Yet the class of men who take up Gov- 
 
406 DISPOSITION" OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 ernnient land on homesteads are poor. It has been my experience that they can 
 not make a living by tilling the soil alone ; they must own some stock. There- 
 fore, granting the homesteader can not use land outside of his claim, I should 
 say that 640 acres is but a small gift from the Government to the man who is 
 brave enough to fight for a living. 
 
 WILL MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOB SETTLEBS TO MAKE A LIVING. 
 
 [Robert Martin, Cuchillo, Sierra County.] 
 
 I am, as well as about all of the small holders in this locality, much in favor 
 of your 640-acre homestead bill, for the reason 160 acres is too little, 320 acres 
 is not enough, and even 640 acres is hardly enough to make a living on. Of 
 course the large holders of live stock on open range will be against your meas- 
 ure, as this bill will in time decrease their available range, but it makes it 
 possible for the small holders to make a living in many places where the large 
 holders of to-day entirely freeze him and his paltry 160 acres out. I would 
 like very much to see the 640-acre bill become a law. 
 
 DAIRY FARMING A SUCCESS. 
 
 [J. P. Smith, Kenna, Chaves County.] 
 
 One huudred and sixty or 320 acres of this land will not produce enough to 
 make a living on, but if a settler can graze it he can make it all right. A sec- 
 tion of this land in an avernge year will graze 20 head of cattle. I have been 
 living here eight years, and I know the hardships the people have gone through 
 with. For two years the people that are raising cattle here have been making 
 more off their cream than they did when they farmed. 
 
 COUNTRY ONLY ADAPTED TO STOCK FARMING. 
 
 [John W. Peacock, Allie, Chaves County.] 
 
 This country is only adapted to stock farming, and it will require 640 acres 
 for a man to make a living here. The country would settle very fast if this 
 bill would become a law. There have been a number of people left this part of 
 the State on account of not having land enough to make a living on. This land 
 will not graze more than 25 or 30 head of cattle per section. All of the people 
 in this part of the State want this bill passed, and there are hundreds of persons 
 wanting homesteads in this section if they could get land enough to make a 
 living on. 
 
 IMPOSSIBLE TO SUCCESSFULLY FARM ON 320 ACRES. 
 
 [J. S. Hlnes, St. Vrain, Curry County.] 
 
 I am very much in favor of your bill to allow each homesteader to file on 
 640 acres of land instead of 320 acres. I have been here eight years, and have 
 served the people in the capacity of postmaster, and have known of more than 
 nine-tenths of the actual settlers to leave the country owing to the fact that 
 they could not make a living farming. And it would be utterly impossible for 
 a stock farmer to make a living on 320 acres, wherein if they had as much as 
 640 acres they could have a small bunch of cattle and make a living. 
 
 LEASING DETRIMENTAL TO STATE. 
 
 [Elbert T. Collier, Carrizozo, Lincoln County.] 
 
 I think people ought to have a section here, as that amount will only run 25 
 to 30 head of cattle the year round. If we have a 640-acre homestead act I 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 407 
 
 think us old timers should have a show at it ; we who 15, 20, or more years ago 
 entered 160 acres are just as much entitled to the balance of a section as the 
 newcomer, and we should not have to take it adjoining our old entry, for In 
 many cases it is impossible and in others not desirable, and we should not have 
 to live on it, as we served five years' time. 
 
 You are right about leasing large tracts to big stockmen; it is against the 
 progress and settlement of the country. Our State land is being leased in large 
 tracts against the -interests of the people and the State. It is going to be very 
 detrimental to the people; leases should be limited to five or six sections to 
 anyone. 
 
 WILL MAKE NEW MEXICO A PROSPEROUS STOCK FARMING COUNTRY 
 
 [W. H. Cooper, Kenna, Chaves County.] 
 
 If your bill goes through it will make this a prosperous stock-farming coun- 
 try. If defeated it will leave it in the hands of a few. 
 
 NEED A SECTION OR MORE. 
 
 [Tom Nichols, Valley View, Chaves County.] 
 
 We need a section or more. It takes about 20 head of cows to make a living 
 for an ordinary-sized family, and some land will not support more than 10 to 
 15 head one year with another. I have charge of a section of sandy land and 
 know what I am talking about. Do all you can for us. Of course, we know 
 the cowman will fight it all he can. They know we can live on a section of 
 good tight land; all of our 160-acre men are gone, and fully one-half of the 
 320-acre settlers. 
 
 FARMING A FAILURE ON LESS THAN 640 ACRES. 
 [Juan F. Chavez, Bernalillo, Sandoval County.] 
 
 My opinion is, by my own experience, that no farmer can make a living on 
 160 or 320 acres of land in New Mexico, as it has been proven by the many 
 farmers that have failed. 
 
 My opinion is that under the 640-acre law a farmer can make a living by rais- 
 ing cattle, sheep, goats, and any kind of live stock. A man ought to raise 25 
 or 30 calves, or 200 sheep, or the same number of goats, besides his hogs, 
 chickens, and colts, on such a size farm in the average year in New Mexico. 
 
 SHEEP RAISING- CAN BE SUCCESSFULLY CONDUCTED ON 640 ACRES. 
 [J. R. Bruce, Hagerman, Chaves County.] 
 
 By request of some of the citizens of our country I am writing you relative 
 to the homestead bill now before the House allowing each applicant 640 acres 
 in the grazing districts of our country. A great many of the people in Chaves 
 County think it would be much better for us than the present laws, and much 
 better than to have the leasing bill pass. I am sure it would be better for our 
 State at large for several reasons. First, because we would raise better cattle 
 and sheep, more meat and more wool, for if we have small herds, we can care 
 for them better and our losses would not be so great. As it is now, a few men 
 control most of the range, and in many places only have it about half stocked, 
 thereby letting one-half of the grass go to waste. Second, the State would have 
 more taxable land arid more personal property. ' Third, it will furnish many 
 homes for the homeless. 
 
 I have estimated from experience in this country that one man can keep and 
 care for about 1,200 sheep on 640 acres of the grazing land, for when put in a 
 fenced pasture sheep become satisfied and will scatter out and feed, and then 
 lie down and rest and will thrive, where our large herds will perish becajuse 
 they walk or run close together and their hoofs cut and kill more grass than 
 they eat. 
 
408 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 A SECTION NECESSARY FOB SUCCESSFUL FARMING. 
 
 [J. E. Brown, "Scott, Chaves County.] 
 
 Every settler here has got to have as much as a section of land to make a 
 living as a half section will not run enough stock to provide for a family. A 
 half section will not run 15 head of cattle and 3 or 4 horses the year round, and 
 it is too dry to do any farming. If we could get 320 more the country would 
 thrive and more people would stay here. 
 
 STOCK FARMING NECESSARY FOR SUCCESS. 
 [N. C. Roberts, Pearl, Eddy County.] 
 
 I will say that on the dry lands of New Mexico a section will only run about 
 20 head of cattle or horses one year with another. I have been here 11 years, 
 and from my experience I thing this is a fair estimate. It is absolutely im- 
 possible to make a living with less live stock on the farm to help us out when 
 we make a failure of our crops, which is too ofen. There are very few of us 
 who would have come here and endured the hardships of pioneering in this 
 country if we had not thought that in time more would follow us and settle 
 and build up schools. 
 
 To lease this land to the stockmen would not only stop immigration to this 
 country but would ruin the people who are here. 
 
 WHAT THE POOR MAN NEEDS. 
 [T. P. Broughton, Monument, Eddy County.] 
 
 The 640-acre homestead bill is what the poor man needs. He can not make a 
 living on less. I think in eastern New Mexico 640 acres will graze 25 head 
 of cattle one year with another ; with what feed a farmer can raise he can 
 take care of 40 or 50 head. 
 
 Of course, the big stockman will oppose this bill. I think it will be a great 
 blessing to the poor man. 
 
 The time has come when we need land on which to raise boy babies as well 
 as bald-face bull calves. 
 
 IMPOSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN A FAMILY ON LESS THAN A SECTION. ■ 
 
 [W. R. Magness, King, Chaves County.] 
 
 I take pleasure in stating that your 640-acre homestead bill is highly approved 
 in this part of New Mexico. Furthermore, I can say that as I have been here 
 five years and know the condtion of affairs. It is practically impossible for a 
 man to maintain a living either on 160 or 320 acres. All who have tried have 
 virtually failed, and some have abandoned their claims, not because of the non- 
 productiveness of the soil but because of the light amount of rainfall, which is 
 not sufficient for farming, and as 320 acres is not capable of running more 
 th;m 15 or 20 head of cattle the year around, the settlers are forced to turn 
 their attention to other means of support. The section act would enable a man 
 to run from 30 to 40 head of cattle, and would thereby better the condition of 
 all concerned. 
 
 THE 640-ACRE GRAZING HOMESTEAD BILL. 
 
 [Kenna Record, Renna, Chaves County.] 
 
 A hearing is set for March 3 for a general threshing out of the 640-acre 
 grazing homestead bill. If you have an acquaintance in Congress you should 
 write or wire him before that date and acquaint him with the real conditons, 
 the facts, showing him the necessity of such a law here. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 409 
 
 The National Live Stock Association will be present on that day in an effort 
 to defeat the bill, and at the same time attempt to induce Congress to set aside 
 all of our public lands into great grazing reserves, to be leased in large bodies, 
 thereby putting the cap on further homesteading forever. 
 
 It is a self-evident fact that such legislation as is sought by the National 
 Live Stock Association is for the benefit of the few and against the majority. 
 It would benefit a few wealthy stockmen and would, discriminate against mil- 
 lions of poor people who depend on their own labor for support. 
 
 If the 640-acre bill should become a law it would induce eastern people in 
 crowded sections to come West and settle with a family on practically every 
 section of land. It would serve to develop this into one of the richest dairying 
 countries in the universe, which would supply beef cattle for the markets 
 equal to if not greater than the plan of large ranches, in addition to the cream 
 that would be produced. The people are getting more and more into handling 
 a good, well-formed, well-colored, combination beef and cream cow. On the 
 small ranch or farm the cows and calves are looked after, watered, fed, and 
 made to produce their limit. With such close attention of one family to the sec- 
 tion, with their 15 to 20 cows, the income per year from the cream and the crop 
 of calves is quite sufficient for the support and maintenance of a good-size 
 family. 
 
 PETITIONS IN FAVOR OF 640-ACRE HOMESTEAD GRAZING BILL. 
 
 Owing to the limit of space only the names of the first three signers, 
 with the number of additional signers, are printed with, each| 
 petition. 
 
 FROM 55 CITIZENS OF CHAVES COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergtjsson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We, the undersigned citizens of Elkins, N. Mex., and surrounding country, in 
 petition most earnestly ask you to bring our pleadings for a law allowing us to 
 file 640 acres or more of grazing land to Congress to consider, and we give our 
 reasons below for same. 
 
 We claim that 320 acres is not enough grazing land for a family to make a 
 living on, and as we have to depend largely on grazing stock to make a living we 
 most earnestly ask for a filing of 640 acres. We believe that 640 acres will 
 graze 20 head of cows and their offspring the year around, by selling each 
 spring all the yearling from the said 20 cows, reducing the herd to a minimum 
 of 20 cows to start with each spring. At present prices of yearlings the 
 farmers would realize $600 from the selling of the yearlings, and that, with the 
 aid of the butter that may be derived from the cows and milk that could be 
 fed to hogs and chickens, which would be good feed for them, would enable a 
 family to live and the children to be educated, providing school facilities were 
 close at hand and not have to send the children away from home to get school- 
 ing; which could be done. 
 
 We again most earnestly ask that Congress will not pass a bill allowing 
 large areas of grazing land to be leased to stockmen, for that would cause lots 
 of poor people to never have a home of their own. Of course, these stockmen 
 could give employment to a few people, but they would be so isolated and 
 their salary so small they would not be able to raise a family and educate 
 them, as there could not be any public free school, owing to the isolation, and 
 their salaries would not nermit of their sending their children away to 
 school, so their families would have of necessity to grow up in ignorance, 
 while the Government and each State is spending millions of dollars each year 
 to try to prevent such an attitude of free American people. 
 
 In short, we ask that Congress take the poor into their care and protection, 
 for the rich who are able to lease these large entries are able to take care 
 of themselves and need no such advantages, and we- claim that the farmer 
 with small herds, with homes, and raising families is more remunerative to the 
 Government in every way than the large cattleman. These large cattle interests 
 have always been a barrier to the settling of this country and are now, owing 
 to the fact that their herds break in on the settler and eat up what little stuff 
 they are able to raise, and they have practically no recourse, besides other 
 ways of intimidating and imposing on the settler, so we ask Congress in the 
 most earnest terms we can command for them to take the poor into their care 
 
410 DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 4nd consideration, for they are in a way the bone and sinew of the country, for 
 they are the ones who produce and the ones who develop a country so it is 
 habitable. We ask again that you consider that the rich is able to take care 
 of themselves. The rich, no doubt, will be represented in person, while the 
 poor has to take the more humble way of. sending in petitions to represent 
 them. 
 
 Gran C. Murray, 
 J. D. Hall, 
 S. E. Williams, 
 (And 52 others). 
 
 FROM 932 CITIZENS OF QUAY COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, 
 
 Washington, D. C: 
 
 We, the undersigned residents and entrymen of lands in Quay County, 
 N. Mex., respectfully urge you to do all possible to secure the passage of the 
 640-acre homestead bill now before Congress, known as the Fergusson bill, 
 for the reason that the acreage we can now own under the homestead laws 
 does not permit the raising of cattle and sheep on our places in quantities that 
 would be of material benefit to us. Without stock raising we can not success- 
 fully stay here, and when the fact is considered that it takes on the average, 
 in this country, an acre of land for a single sheep, and more land considerably 
 than that for a cow or a horse, it is easily seen that we are not able to have 
 any stock in a quantity that would be profitable to try to raise. Some land 
 must be cultivated, some land is taken up in buildings and improvements, 
 and the balance is insufficient for a stock-raising business. 
 
 It is imperative that some such bill be passed by Congress to enable the 
 people to stay here; otherwise the homestead law will be of no benefit to this 
 country, and the balance of the settlers will have to follow those who have gone 
 to other lands to make a living. Those now here have in large part remained 
 in the hope relief of some^ort would be given them. The old settlers want a new 
 filing; they have more than earned their lands, and have paid more than it is 
 worth. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 C. A. Berry, 
 G. A. Eager, 
 W. A. Smith, 
 (And 929 others). 
 
 FROM 33 CITIZENS OF GUADALUPE COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, Washington. D. C: 
 
 Sir : We, the undersigned, homesteaders and small stock growers, respect- 
 fully petition you to do all in your power to defeat the Kent bill now pending 
 before Congress. This bill if it becomes a law will put the small stock grower 
 out of business, from the fact the small man can not afford to lease land to run 
 a small amount of stock, which is the only subsistence the small stock grower 
 and homesteader has. We have tried to make a living on these dry claims 
 farming, and find it is absolutely impossible. If this bill becomes a law, and 
 we have to lease land from the Government to run what little stock we have, 
 which means a living to us and our families, we feel that we will be compelled 
 to throw up the sponge and lose all we have invested in improvements and 
 the time we have spent on our claims. This law would benefit about 5 per 
 cent of the people who are large stock growers and would create a monopoly 
 for the men with means which the people of this Government are trying to put 
 down. 
 
 Dosto Argon, 
 Frank Valdez, 
 A. W. Gerber, 
 (And 30 others). 
 
DISPOSITION OF GEAZING LANDS. 411 
 
 FROM 21 CITIZENS OF CHAVES COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We the settlers of Gramma Valley, Chaves County, petition in favor of the 
 section law now pending. 
 
 The settlers can not possibly make a living on the half section which they 
 are allowed without the free range. With the section we will be able to keep 
 from 30 to 35 head of cattle, which will make a living for any ordinary 
 family. It will encourage homesteading ; also the raising of better cuttle, sheep 
 and horses. < < 
 
 If the lease law goes into effect the big ranch men will not raise any more 
 stock than they do at present, but will lease the ground around us, which will 
 force us to leave. 
 
 We wish to mention that we are living on our claims, and will continue to do 
 so if we can get the section law ; otherwise, if the lease law goes into effect, the 
 majority of us will be compelled to leave, which will help to cut down the 
 meat supply, which is so scarce at present. We can make a living on a section 
 of ground. 
 
 A. B. White, 
 J. C. Dtjnlap, 
 Roy Dunlap. 
 (And IS others). 
 
 FROM 25 CITIZENS OF COLFAX COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We, the undersigned homesteaders in New Mexico and citizens of the terri- 
 tory most affected by the bill which you have presented in Congress for the 
 " 640-acre grazing homestead," hereby express our hearty approval of the 
 measure and our sincere wish that you may win in your laudable and prac- 
 tical effort to better the condition of the homesteaders; the exemplar of the 
 present day, of the pioneer of the past who has been the greatest factor in 
 the development of all of the great States of the East and Middle West; the 
 pioneer who has " beaten the sword into the plowshare and made the desert 
 blossom as the rose " in each and all of the Central and Plains States, and who 
 is the principal factor in the development of New Mexico and other Mountain 
 States, that is to come. 
 
 We urge that this " 640-acre bill " is the most modern and practical solution 
 of the difficulties that must be met by the homesteader and pioneer of the 
 present day in New Mexico, and as people who are actually experiencing the 
 hardships and difficulties of pioneering, and know whereof we speak. 
 
 We especially protest against the proposed " grazing-reserve " measure, to be 
 proposed by the National Live Stock Association, for the reasons that, its 
 intent is to take the land remaining in the Government domain from the com- 
 mon people and lease it for a pittance to those already wealthy, while depriving 
 the man of limited means of his birthright to a small parcel of the land. The 
 fact that the majority of the petitioners hereon are now risking their lives 
 in the coal mines for a part of each year that they may be able to reside upon 
 and cultivate their homesteads the remainder of the year is an evidence of 
 good faith and confidence in the future of this State which can not be overlooked. 
 We aver that this " 640-acre act will be the greatest good that the present 
 session can confer on all the States where conditions are as they are here, and 
 urge you to leave no stone unturned to accomplish its enactment. 
 
 W. Fred Ogden, 
 C. A. Frazer, 
 George Lucas 
 (And 22 others). 
 
 FROM 7 CITIZENS OF CURRY COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We, the undersigned citizens of Curry County, N. Mex., hereby petition you to 
 do all within your power to have your 640-acre homestead bill passed by this 
 session of Congress. Our experience as homesteaders in New Mexico has 
 
412 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 proved to us by bitter experience that the present amount of land allowed 
 the homesteader in New Mexico is insufficient to warrant our trying to make 
 a living on 160 or 320 acres of this land. We have found that 320 acres can 
 not support a dozen head of stock the year round, but we can see brighter pros- 
 pects ahead if we are able to get the 640 acres, as your present bill before Con- 
 gress provides. 
 
 T. J. Gamble, 
 Will McDaniel, 
 Sam McWhibteb, 
 G. J. Abnet, 
 R. D. Elder, 
 j „ W. C. Thabp, 
 
 3. L. Hines. 
 
 FROM 78 CITIZENS OF SAN JUAN COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We, the undersigned citizens of San Juan County, N. Mex., hereby petition 
 you and through you the Congress of the United States for the passage of the 
 640-acre grazing homestead bill, for the following reasons : 
 
 We believe that it would result in the arid lands of this section being taken 
 up and utilized by actual settlers, instead of being used by a seminomadic 
 population that neither reside here themselves nor pay taxes on the live stock 
 that eat our range feed. 
 
 That from 25 to 50 head of cattle and from 250 to 500 head of sheep could 
 be raised on such a homestead in an average year in this section. 
 
 That it will solve the problem of our arid, unirrigable land in the interest 
 of the landless rather than the rich stock owner. 
 
 That it will afford a market at home for the alfalfa raised on our irrigated 
 lands, and increase the amount of live stock in the Nation. 
 
 Wm. T. Butler, 
 J. A. Wehrer, 
 W. J. Hill 
 
 (And 75 others). 
 
 FROM IS CITIZENS OF MORA COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We, the undersigned citizens of Roy, Mills, Solano, and other communities of 
 New Mexico, respectfully petition you to exert every laudable effort to secure 
 the passage of the 640-acre grazing homestead law, presented by you in the 
 present session. 
 
 We further urge you to oppose in every manner possible the proposed meas- 
 ure to withdraw portions of the public domain for the purpose of leasing It to 
 capitalists and stockmen in large tracts as " grazing reserves." 
 
 We urge the fact that the homesteader is the true pioneer, and has brought 
 civilization to all the Plains States in spite of the opposition of those who pre- 
 ceded them with " range methods " ; that New Mexico can never become a great 
 State until her agricultural resources are developed and the homesteader is 
 the only class of citizen who can develop them. 
 
 For these and every other just reason we urge the passage of the bill for 
 640-acre homestead, which 'is a necessity to the prosperity of the New Mexico 
 homesteader. 
 
 Alvin C. End, 
 
 C. R. Inglis, 
 
 C. W. B. Leatherman 
 
 (And 15 others). 
 
 FROM S4 CITIZENS OF SANDOVAL COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 The sad and unfortunate experience of the past 10 years, resulting from the 
 existing 160-acre homestead grant, as held by the United States law, as well 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 413 
 
 as our. own personal interests in matter of defense of our own lauds against 
 rich money grabbers, who, under various pretenses, either veiled or disclosed, as 
 a combine, the "National Live-Stock Association of the United States" and 
 others, will have the United States virtually deprive the poor of New Mexico 
 of the opportunity of gaining an honest livelihood in their own State, compel 
 us, the undersigned residents of New Mexico, and its various towns, especially 
 of this our town of Peua Blanca, to appeal to you, HOn. H. B. Fergusson, our 
 congressional Representative of this our State of New Mexico, in reference to 
 the matter of our many thousand acres of semiarid lands, in the State of New 
 Mexico, lying waste, before our very eyes. 
 
 The proper settlement, cultivation, and improvement of the lands of New 
 Mexico, if ever to be realized, can not and will not, under any condition, be 
 effected by the law of 160-acre homestead grant as now existing. Rather has 
 the experience of the past 10 years taught us that instead of inducing people, 
 though poor, to accept a 160-acre homestead upon present conditions stipulated 
 by law, the law itself as it is deters them from moving a step toward acquir- 
 ing a 160-acre homestead. For this ponderous reason: Neither a 160 nor even 
 a 320 acre grazing homestead can prove and insure an equivalent correlative 
 investment in labor on the lands thus acquired, possessed, and titled. Hence 
 theory is cold and lifeless when confronting the life of experience and toil of 
 the poor Mexicans here in the State of New Mexico. For no theory can over- 
 throw the results reaped from our own bitter experience in the last decade of 
 years. 
 
 On 160 acres of our semiarid lands of New Mexico, no more than 4-5 head 
 of cattle can be raised in the average year. On 320 acres, doubling the amount 
 to 8-10. Hence what poor man can find a recompense, or what poor man can 
 find even a species of satisfactory investment in 160 or even 320 acres of this 
 land? Who will waste three years of occupation on a 160-acre homestead with 
 such little compensation in matter of return profits? Hence, we as citizens of 
 New Mexico, most forcibly appeal to you, Hon. Mr. Fergusson, as our Repre- 
 sentative of our own State's interests, to cause the United States to pass a bill 
 granting a 640-acre grazing homestead instead of the existing 160-acre stipula- 
 tion. The above 640-acre bill is not a convenience, it is a necessity ; urged both 
 by the interests of our own State of New Mexico collectively, and demanded 
 by the right to protection and the right to life individually, two qualities in- 
 herent in every citizen of New Mexico. We beg you therefore to use your 
 power, position, and influence well, to apply them in the right direction now, 
 and your efforts shall be employed in a truly honest, humane, agitation, bene- 
 fiting our poor though honest people, citizens of our home — New Mexico. 
 
 We are sorry that it is impossible to send any of our poor men personally 
 . to the hearing to be granted the " National Live-Stock Association " on March 
 3 on this great question. But we are confident that after hearing these senti- 
 ments of the poor honestly toiling New Mexicans here in our State and our 
 own county and our villages and towns, and after giving these our sentiments 
 and petitions as well as complaints due humane consideration the United States 
 can not and will not but consider our petitions just, reflecting that it is not 
 in keeping with the true spirit of this our country, of liberty, peace, and 
 justice to take the crumbs of bread away from the poor Mexican, take them 
 away from under their very eyes, and give them to the rich money grabbers, 
 and allow the Mexican to starve and the rich combines to grow fat on the lands 
 not their own. Therefore, Hon. Mr. Ferguson, voice our sentiments as stated, 
 and we in return assuring you of our hearty cooperation in procuring and 
 establishing the welfare of the citizens of New Mexico, and protecting and safe- 
 guarding our own personal interests, and thanking you in advance for your 
 honorable services employed in our behalf. 
 
 Manuel Akmijo, 
 Alberto Herrera, 
 Jose Silva, 
 
 (And 81 others). 
 
 FROM 44 CITIZENS OF QUAY COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We, the undersigned citizens of Montoya and vicinity, respectfully beg to sub- 
 mit for your consideration and that of the committee having in charge the matter 
 of public lands, some facts that otherwise might escape the notice of said com- 
 
414 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 ruittee. It is a fact known to citizens almost everywhere that the Government 
 in the distribution of public lands has considered 160 acres the proper quan- 
 tity to be set apart as homesteads. In most sections of the country this may 
 have been true, but experience has taught that this would not properly apply 
 in arid and semiarid territories as it did to more favored districts. It is easily 
 demonstrated that in sections where diversified and intensive farming were prac- 
 ticable that 25, and in many instances as little as 10 acres, is more nearly suffi- 
 cient for purposes of producing a livelihood for families and other real home 
 requirements than even 320 acres of the semiarid lands of New Mexico are. 
 
 For this reason we deem it wise and necessary that you elaborate these fea- 
 tures before the said committee, and call their special attention to the differ- 
 ence in the possibilities of production of agricultural products here and in sec- 
 tions where precipitation is sufficient to produce marketable crops. It is a dem- 
 onstrated fact that farming, or the production of crops alone, is not and can 
 not be made dependable in New Mexico except where irrigation is possible, and 
 the only means by which others may justly be induced to locate here, or those 
 that are already here can remain, is to make it possible to inaugurate a system 
 whereby stock raising may be combined with farming. To do this it is neces- 
 sary that each settler or homesteader be granted 640 acres, as they have here- 
 tofore been given 320 acres. 
 
 This is unquestionably a country well adapted to mixed farming, and if each 
 and every farmer owned a section of land, they could then hope to make a liveli- 
 hood here by combining stock growing with farming, and by this means many 
 hundreds ,of thousands of cattle would be grown that are not now produced, 
 and besides there would be a marked improvement in the grade of cattle com- 
 pared with those produced on the open range in great numbers. Therefore we 
 individually and collectively urge that you use every legitimate means at your 
 command to secure if possible the passage of the bill known here as your 640- 
 acres grazing homestead act. 
 
 We beg to call your attention to the fact that when said committee calls this 
 case for consideration on the 3d proximo very powerful interests will be ar- 
 rayed against the enactment of any kind of legislation that will tend to lessen 
 the chances of large interests or in any way curtail the areas that may be 
 secured from the Government by extensive corporations, all of which if allowed 
 to predominate will soon drive the small man from the boundaries of New 
 Mexico and leave in their stead a few extensive holders of leased lands, and 
 our beloved State would become an almost endless pasture, when it might be 
 the home of thousands of prosperous and happy farmers. 
 
 We appeal to you in the name of those who are already here and through 
 whose privation and toil New Mexico has reached its present state of develop- 
 ment. Those who will oppose what we ask will do so in the interest of such 
 concerns as the International Live Stock Growers' Association and other pow- 
 erful corporations who have no interest in common with the home builder. We 
 trust and believe that you will do your utmost to consummate the end we so 
 earnestly desire and so sincerely believe is the only safety of the future of our 
 people. 
 
 H. H. Myers, 
 Jacob Weeks, 
 G. Thomas, 
 
 (And 41 others). 
 
 FROM 24 CITIZENS OF COLFAX COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson. M'lixhingtrn, D. C: 
 
 The undersigned, residents of the County of Colfax, X. Mex., farmers and 
 misers of live stock for many years in this State, in the light of the experi- 
 ence thus obtained, most heartily indorse your " 640-acre grazing homestead 
 bill," and respectfully pray the Congress to enact it into law at the earliest 
 possible time, if homesteaders to the millions of acres of public lands subject 
 to entry within the confines of our State are to be invited to file on them and 
 encouraged and expected to build comfortable homes and establish schools for 
 the perpetuity of prosperous and happy communities. 
 
 Farming without its handmaid, " stock raising," is not a profitabe venture 
 in a country where from 20 to 30 acres of land are needed to sustain one cow 
 the year round, about 3 acres for a sheep or goat ; where the fencing of the 
 entire area is an absolute necessity in order to conserve the grasses growing 
 
DISPOSITION OF GBAZING LANDS, 415 
 
 on it and avoid the depredations of range stock; where water is so scarce 
 and generally can only be obtained at great expense by digging wells of from 
 40 to several hundred" feet deep; it is quite apparent that a tract of land of 
 640 acres is not large enough to justify the expenditure of means, energy, and 
 time to acquire it. 
 
 Jesus M. Valdez, 
 J. A. Montoya, 
 M. N. Chavez, 
 (And 21 others). 
 
 FROM 9 CITIZENS OF SAN JUAN COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Pergusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We, the undersigned citizens of northwestern New Mexico, hereby wish to 
 make known to you that we indorse the proposed 640-acre grazing homestead 
 bill. ' One hundred and sixty acres nor 320 acres is enough land to assure the 
 settlement of the vast areas of land to be found in most sections of New 
 Mexico. 
 
 With a 640-acre homestead bill on the statute books we know that this sec- 
 tion of New Mexico would rapidly settle up. It is safe to say that 640 acres 
 will, take one year with another, support from 300 to 500 head of sheep, or 
 from 25 to 50 head of choice beef cattle. 
 
 There are a number of fairly large sheep and cattle men in our section. Our 
 county, as shown by the United States census, is well toward the head of the 
 list in the number of sheep, but these men are in favor of such a bill as they 
 fully realize that it will do more to promote the cattle and sheep industry than 
 any other one thing, in addition to adding thousands of acres to the tax rolls 
 of the various counties. 
 
 To permit corporations and large interests to obtain the public domain under 
 the leasing method, with authority to fence, will, without doubt, work untold 
 injury to our section. We need more people, and our growth will be retarded 
 just in proportion to the acres of land withheld from settlement by the people. 
 The public domain must be placed within reach of the man of small means. 
 
 Harby Pierce, 
 M. M. Smith, 
 J. E. Reece, 
 
 (And 6 others). 
 
 FROM 44 CITIZENS OF GUADALUPE COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 In view of the fact that there seems to be considerable opposition to your bill 
 before Congress allowing a 640-acre grazing homestead bill for semiarid lands 
 in New Mexico, we, the undersigned citizens of New Mexico, respectfully ask 
 you to use your best efforts to have this 640-acre bill passed, and that this 
 petition be presented to the committee as being our indorsement of said 640-acre 
 bill. 
 
 It is well known by all people of the Southwest, especially New Mexico, that 
 strictly farming does not pay, but that by a combination of dry farming and 
 •stock raising on a small scale, this country will prosper. 
 
 A homestead of 160 acres, or even 320 acres, is not enough to support a family 
 as the grass on this amount is insufficient to feed more than 10 or 15 head of 
 cattle if you take into consideration that a certain amount of the claim has 
 to be broke and put in cultivation. 
 
 A homestead of 640 acres will graze on an average of 30 head of cattle, and 
 this with what little feed can be raised probably every other year, will sup- 
 port a family, a small family, in a moderate way, but it is simply out of the 
 question for the people to support themselves on less land. 
 
 Under the 160 and the 320-acre laws, nearly every one leaves the country as 
 soon as proof is made for the reason that there is not enough room so he leaves, 
 making the country more thinly populated and less prosperous and less self- 
 supporting, whereas if we can file upon 640-acres, we will soon have a more 
 thickly settled country and a more prosperous people, and this will tend to 
 cause thousands of people to come here from the more thickly settled and high- 
 priced land countries farther east. 
 
416 DISPOSITION OF GKAZING LANDS. 
 
 The 640-acre homestead bill will be the making of this country, a great help 
 to the more thickly populated States, and It Is a need that we people here can 
 not possibly do without, for it has been demonstrated time and again that the 
 small stock raiser is what this country is adapted to and without the 640-acre 
 law, our land will stay at a standstill and the country unsettled for years to 
 come. By all means, give us a chance to make a living and have a home. 
 
 J. O. Welbobn, 
 W. B. Obton, 
 W. H. Pabkeb 
 (And 41 others). 
 
 FROM 79 CITIZENS OF CUBBY COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We, the undersigned citizens of Curry County, N. Mex., hereby petition you 
 to do all in your power to obtain the immediate enactment of a law amending 
 our present land laws by giving to every homesteader in New Mexico the right 
 to file upon and make proof to one section of the Government land; and es- 
 pecially request you to see that in the enactment of this law that the home- 
 steader that has already made proof upon his entry be allowed to make addi- 
 tional filing up to the amount of one section. We ask this because we believe 
 that the homesteader that has stayed here through these trying times should 
 have an equal right in a just homestead law ; and we desire to further urge 
 upon you the great necessity of immediate relief in this matter, which you no 
 doubt realize in part. 
 
 If you could get a glimpse of the real struggle we petitioners are making, 
 and realize as we do that we are passing through a transition period, and being 
 at the very point where we must have some grazing land, or give up the fight, 
 then, we believe, if it is possible, for your interest in our behalf to be strength- 
 ened, these conditions would accomplish it. 
 
 We have the utmost faith in your integrity, sincerity, and ability to get us 
 this relief, and be assured of our unbounded support and deep gratitude. 
 
 M. S. Beaver, 
 G. R. Ormsby, 
 Luther P. Carnes, 
 
 (And 76 others). 
 
 FROM oil CITIZENS OF GUADALUPE COUNTY. 
 
 To House of ReiJiexenlatircx: 
 
 We the undersigned citizens of New Mexico pray your honorable body to en- 
 act into a lnw the 640-acre hiuneste-id bill introduced by the Hon. H. *B. Fer- 
 gusson for the following reasons, to wit: 
 
 Having resided in this State sufficient time to study and understand the 
 situation in hand, we state that the following conditions are true: 
 
 First. That the land is entirely too dry for successful crop growing. 
 . Second. That there is no inducement for one to settle on less than a section 
 of this land, as many have tried and failed. 
 
 Third. That with a section of land a man can graze 20 or 25 head of cattle 
 and thereby make a livelihood for his family. 
 
 Fourth. That it will practically insure a home for as many families as we 
 have sections of land in the State, thereby guaranteeing a lower tax rate, with 
 better provisions for public schools and other public institutions. 
 
 Fifth. That the climate is ideal and health good and we have a good citizen- 
 ship. Help us to build homes and develop our State by enacting the above bill. 
 
 G. W. R. Smith, 
 W. R. McMuixen, 
 
 J. E. LOBER, 
 
 (And 53 others). 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 417 
 
 FROM 33 CITIZENS OF OTEBO COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Ferousson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We the undersigned citizens of Otero County, N. Mex., respectfully petition 
 and urge you to do whatever is possible to secure the passage of the 640-acre 
 homestead bill now pending in Congress. 
 
 In this high semiarid section it is absolutely impossible for any one to make 
 a living on 160 or even 320 acres of land where it is not susceptible of irriga- 
 tion, and a large part of the land is so situated. If 640 acres could be secured 
 by the average homesteader, he could fence it and could graze about 30 head of 
 cattle or about 200 head of sheep on it, and in this manner, with additional 
 work, remain on the land and help settle up the State. 
 
 This bill, if it becomes a law, will be of an immense benefit to small stockmen 
 of the State, and, in our judgment, will allow vast tracts of land now vacant to 
 be taken up and used. 
 
 G. G. W afford, 
 G. A. Bufkin, 
 S. L. Kice, 
 
 (And 30 others) r 
 
 FROM 61 CITIZENS OF CURRY COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Ferousson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 The undersigned residents of Curry County, N. Mex., ask that you use your 
 utmost endeavor to have a grazing homestead bill of 640 acres passed this 
 Congress. We have tried to make a living on from 160 to 320 acres of this 
 land, but we must have at least a section of land to graze our stock upon and 
 make it worth while to stay in this country. Properly managed and with 60 
 days' winter feeding, a section of this eastern New Mexico land will graze 50 
 head of cattle, or at least 300 sheep. 
 
 If we have the land for grazing, we can rustle enough green stuff to fill silos 
 for the 60-day winter feed. 
 
 This is a stock farming and grazing country, and every man that has stock 
 (and that is every one here) should have a section of land. 
 
 Fred W. James, 
 C. H. Westfall, 
 W. E. Charlton, 
 
 (And 58 others). 
 
 FROM 63 CITIZENS OF MORA COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We, your constituents and citizens of Roy, N. Mex., and vicinity, desire 
 hereby to express our appreciation of your efforts in behalf of the 640-acre 
 grazing homestead " proposed by you in Congress, and to urge you and your 
 colleagues to put forth every laudable effort to secure its early passage. 
 
 Our common experience in homesteading in New Mexico proves that 320 
 acres of land is not enough for a man to keep stock on and provide for his 
 family in a manner suitable for an American citizen. 
 
 With 640 acres of land a man can with reasonable economy raise enough 
 stock to support his family after the open range has all been fenced. Fifty 
 head, of cattle and the other necessary stock for a modern farm can be ; kept .and 
 feed raised for them on 640 acres, and a less amount of stock will not properly 
 support a family. For this reason we demand the passage of the 640-acre 
 lioiUGstf fld " bill 
 
 We further protest against the withdrawal of Government land for the pur- 
 pose of "grazing reserves" as against public policy-as discriminating ^ against 
 the pioneer and homesteader of the class which has made the States of the 
 Middle West what they now are^who have transformed them from waste and 
 desert plains into prosperous agricultural communities. We assert that the 
 same Class of men are necessary to develop the States wherein there is still 
 Government land, and especially New Mexico. 
 35074— pt 1—14- — 27 
 
418 DISPOSITION OF GKAZING LANDS. 
 
 We assert that the method of ranging stock on land which is adapted for 
 farming purposes is profligate, wasteful, and should be made obsolete. That 
 the men who run cattle on the range are depriving the many of homes that 
 the few many enjoy special privileges. That the development of this country 
 demands that it shall be occupied by thousands of men with a few cattle each 
 rather than a few men with thousands of cattle each. 
 
 For these reasons we protest against despoiling the common people by with- 
 drawing land from homestead and leasing to the wealthy for grazing purposes. 
 
 F. H. Foster, 
 W. S. Wane, 
 Irvin Ogden, Sr., 
 
 (And 60 others). 
 
 FROM 8 CITIZENS OF UPTON, ROOSEVELT COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We desire to thank you for the information, and for the Interest you are 
 taking in the matter in behalf of the people. 
 
 The proposed bill is absolutely necessary. On account of the arid condition 
 of the country here people are compelled to rely mainly on stock farming or 
 grazing the land. 
 
 The majority who filed on 160 tracts in this county lost practically all their 
 accumulations in trying to farm the land and make a living in that way. 
 They failed to make a living and consequently left the country. If the land 
 is plowed up the high winds blow it away and leave the land in a condition 
 so it is worthless for any purpose. The people have already realized that the 
 only way that they can stay here and live on the farm is to raise stock, and 
 not by farming alone. 
 
 If the 10-mile limit is not extended there will be only a few persons who 
 get to the land office first to file who will get the benefits of the law, because 
 the scarcity of the available land will make it impossible for all to get land. 
 
 Isaac K. Greathouse, 
 Clarence S. Greathouse, 
 Lewis Hatcher, 
 
 (And 5 others). 
 
 FROM 50 CITIZENS OF LINCOLN COUNTY. 
 
 Some reasons why the Congress of the United States should pass the 640-acre 
 grazing homestead Wl for semiarid lands of New Mexico, introduced 8j/ Mr. 
 Fergusson. 
 
 The undersigned citizens of Lincoln County, in the State of New Mexico, 
 respectfully represent, from actual experience gained by means of a residence 
 in this country for many years past, that the extensive area of Government 
 lands in this State can never be successfully settled and permanent homes estab- 
 lished thereon under the existing homestead law granting settlers 320 acres to 
 the head of a family or to a single person over 21 years of age. Why? 
 
 Because during the past 10 years new settlers have come in, acquired home- 
 steads, plowed the land, planted it to crops, and after a trial of from two to 
 five years have utterly failed, on account of lack of sufficient rainfall, to make a 
 living for themselves and families and have been compelled to abandon their 
 homes and seek a living elsewhere. 
 
 Because 320 acres is not sufficient land to enable a settler to carry on a sys- 
 tem of raising feed crops and grazing stock ; bitter and costly experience for 
 the past 10 years proves beyond contradiction that for the settler to maintain 
 himself on a homestead here he must have sufficient land under fence to not 
 only raise feed crops, but to pasture stock upon, thereby enabling him to carry 
 on a combined system of farming and stock raising. 
 
 Without irrigation — and the water for such use is only here in a very limited 
 quantity — New Mexico can never be made a successful crop-raising country. 
 Its natural wealth is to be found in the rich grama grass growing upon plain 
 and mountain, a grass never killed out by extreme droughts, and capable the 
 year around of sustaining stock of the best blood, thereby inviting the settler 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 419 
 
 to engage In mixed farming and stock raising that will always produce a good 
 living for himself and family. 
 
 Our experience here in the raising of cattle on the native grama grass proves 
 that if one would not destroy that grass by overstocking he must possess and 
 have under fence at least 30 acres of grazing land for each head of cattle to 
 maintain the sod and raise cattle successfully the year around; hence we can 
 readily understand that no settler can raise a sufficient number of cattle upon 
 the 320 acres to make him a living, let alone have any land to raise feed. 
 crops on. 
 
 We love this land of sunshine, with its unequaled climate, its great stretches; 
 of magnificent distance between mountain and plain, and its romance handed 
 down to us by the Spaniard, all of which invite the settler here to build homes, 
 churches, and schoolhouses, and assist those already here for life in making 
 this a great State. • 
 
 Give the settler a homestead of 640 acres of land, shut out the cattle and 
 sheep baron by so doing; then, and not until then, will homes be established 
 upon these vast stretches of plain and mountain and a Commonwealth of the 
 first rank be created. 
 
 Geo. B. Barber, 
 Anastacio Gaecia, 
 A. W. Adams, 
 
 (And 47 others) . 
 
 FROM 313 CITIZENS OF SAN MIGUEL COUNTY. 
 
 'To the honorable Representatives of the United States of America m Congress 
 
 assembled: 
 
 We, the undersigned, patrons of Buxton post office, San Miguel County, 
 N. Mex., do earnestly petition your honorable body praying that you grant to 
 the needy, worthy, and desiring homeseeker, of whom there are already many 
 in our country, a chance for a home such as provided under H. R. 9582, by 
 Hon. Mr. H. B. Fergusson. 
 
 There are already many of us here (and many more who have had to leave 
 owing to the fact that their little homestead was not sufficient to make them 
 a living in this dry, arid country) who will be compelled to leave here after 
 spending. our all in this country, unless we shall be aided through a bill like 
 that of Mr. Fergusson's, to acquire title to 640 acres of this land. It has become 
 an established fact that 160, or even 320, acres of this land is not sufficient for 
 the most industrious hard-working man to make a living upon. It has become a 
 known fact, which has gone out through not only this State but adjoining 
 States that the most desiring home-loving husbandman can not support him- 
 self and little family by tilling the soil here in this dry, semiarid part of New 
 Mexico; that this land is grazing in character; and that if we, the humble 
 homeseeker, half fed, half Clothed, and struggling to maintain ourselves and 
 our little families, could have added to what we already have enough to make 
 up our 640 acres we could in this way maintain stock enough, together with the 
 roughness which we could raise, that it would enable us to stay and to settle 
 up the unsettled..parts of our country and perhaps build us up very comfortable 
 little homes. 
 
 Praying your honorable body, trusting that you will not turn a deaf ear to 
 the earnest pleadings of the masses, the worthy and desiring homeseeker, we 
 beg to remain, 
 
 Tours, sincerely, 
 
 Gerald H. Buxton, 
 Cleofes Romero, 
 A. B. Bagley, 
 
 (Anil 310 others.) 
 
 FROM 55 CITIZENS OF LINCOLN COUNTY. 
 
 To Hon. H. B. Febgusson, Washington, D. C: 
 I We, the undersigned, cattle and sheep owners in the State of New Mexico, 
 
 have considered your proposed law extending the homestead law to the limit of 
 1640 acres and think that you are on the right track leading to a more extended 
 
 settlement of our State. 
 
420 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Your bill is a long step toward the solution of the problem that confronts us 
 here — how Uncle Sam should parcel out this vast domain of semiarid land to 
 bring the largest population to the State. The great cattle and sheep barons 
 would certainly, settle the land with cattle and sheep thickly under a lease law, 
 while they themselves lived and exercised the rights of American citizens 
 in some other State. 
 
 What we want and the State needs is a law that will enable many men of 
 small capital to secure a foothold on the soil and grow up themselves toward a 
 respectability in citizenship and wealth and bring the State up with them. 
 
 Formerly in the vast agricultural States of the West the advice to " Go west 
 and grow up with the country " was good, but with reference to our condition 
 in this State the advice should and must be, " Go southwest and help to' build 
 up the country." 
 
 C. L. Kennedy, 
 C. D. Mayes, 
 John Townsend, 
 
 (And 52 others.) 
 
 FROM 40 CITIZENS OF GUADALUPE COUNTY. 
 
 To Hon. Scott Febeis, 
 
 Chairman Commitee on Public Lands, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C: 
 We, the undersigned citizens of the State of New Mexico, do hereby petition 
 and request that the bill recommended to you by the Hon. A. A. Jones, assist- 
 ant secretary of the Department of the Interior, on January 30, 1914, be passed. 
 We as citizens know from bitter experience that 160 or 320 acres of land 
 in the arid region is not sufficient to enable us to make a living thereon. 
 
 From experience we know that with 640 acres of 1,280 acres we can raise 
 at least 30 to 60 head of cattle per annum, and on less land we can not sustain 
 them if inclosed. 
 
 With 640 acres or 1,280 acres inclosed we can care for and improve our 
 cattle or horses and utilize the grazing and cultivate enough land to enable us 
 to carry our live stock through the winter without loss or strayage. Such a 
 law has long been desired by the settlers of the arid regions, .and we know that 
 it will be a great boon to the people, and be the means of settling up the lands 
 all over the State. 
 
 Beniono Padella, 
 Feank N. Page, 
 Maises Baeela, 
 
 (And 37 others.) 
 
 FROM 18 CITIZENS OF LOS TANOS, GUADELUPE COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We, the undersigned citizens of Las Tanos, N. Mex., petition you to push the 
 640-acre bill, as we know that a man with a family can not make a living in 
 this arid country on 320 acres of land. Farming is a failure here without 
 irrigation. With 640 acres of land a man could keep enough stock to make 
 him a living. 
 
 W. A. Sutton, 
 Everett Kent, 
 Frank Wisnee, 
 . (And 15 others.) 
 
 FROM 2 CITIZENS OF SIERRA COUNTY. 
 
 To the Senate and Souse of Representatives of the United States: 
 
 The undersigned petitioners, residents and taxpayers of Sierra County, State" 
 of New Mexico, respectfully pray you to pass the bill now before you with 
 reference to the 640-acre homestead bill for semiarid lands of New Mexico. 
 
 We feel that if the bill becomes a law homesteaders can then take up a 
 claim under said act, and by fencing the same about 25 to 30 head of cows, with 
 their calves, can be grazed on said tract, and in that way a homesteader will 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 421 
 
 not have the fear that he can not make a living on the semirid lands as obtains 
 under "the 160 or 320 acre law. We feel that the experiences of the home- 
 steaders under the 160 and the 320 acre act had in past years with their fail- 
 ure will not be repeated under the 640-acre bill should same become a law. 
 
 Under the said bill a homesteader can raise about 150 to 200 head of sheep, 
 and that not only will the semiarid lands be homesteaded and the country 
 settled up, but that the improvement in the breeds of the stock will become 
 apparent, because it is an established fact that where stock is inclosed that the 
 breeds are of a higher quality. 
 
 In connection with the above -we feel that the homesteader who has ex- 
 hausted his right under the 160 or 320 acre act should have the right to file 
 on an additional piece of land, so that he will in the end have the benefits of 
 the 640-acre act should same become a law. 
 
 T. T. Lee, 
 Wm. P. Keil, 
 E. Hale, 
 (And 17 others.) 
 
 FBOM 50 CITIZENS OF GRANT COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Febgusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We the undersigned citizens of Grant County, N. Mex., do heartily indorse 
 your 640-acre grazing homestead bill for the semiarid lands of New Mexico, 
 realizing that it takes at least 20 acres to the head of cattle or horses any 
 ayerage year to support them. We therefore ask that this "bill may become 
 a law. 
 
 Oeson O. Richins, 
 Eeastus Fhygerson, 
 Thtjblow A. Weight, 
 
 (And 47 others.) 
 
 FBOM 15 CITIZENS OF CUBA, SANDOVAL COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Febgusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We have heard that you have introduced a homestead law allowing anyone 
 to take 640 acres of arid land for grazing as a homestead. 
 
 We (believe that if we could have such a law passed, it would be a great 
 thing and a great benefit for the poor men. We hope that such a law will be 
 passed. 
 
 E. D. Salazae, 
 J. M. Ooedova, 
 V. C. de Baca, 
 (And 12 others.) 
 
 FBOM 18 CITIZENS OF CHERRY VALE, SAN MIGUEL COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Febgusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We the undersigned petition for a right to homestead more than 160 acres 
 in this locality, for experience has proven that we only can graze 8 cows on 
 160 acres. The majority of settlers have already left this section and others 
 are leaving without any compensation for their land. 
 
 John Pantebatz, 
 
 L. L. Cbanfobd, 
 
 N. Chris Petebson, 
 
 (And 15 others.) 
 
 FBOM 318 CITIZENS, OF CHAVES COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Febgusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 Haying lately received some information as to the move on foot by the 
 National Livestock Association to induce the Government to place our PubUc 
 domain into great grazing reserves, which would be leased in five to fifty 
 thousand-acre tract by wealthy stockmen, practically robbing the masses of 
 the people of the great homestead privileges, stopping further immigration 
 
422 DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 and further improvements and developments of this western country, especially 
 of our new State. New Mexico, we, the undersigned citizens of the State of 
 New Mexico, Chaves County, hereby urge and beseech you, our Representative 
 In Congress, to use every honorable means at your command, leave no stones 
 unturned to defeat such legislation. Such legislation is unquestionably de- 
 signed and perpetrated for the benefit of the few, the wealthy ones, and against 
 the many, the poor, the working people who are striving for little homes. 
 
 We would urge the passage of a law, something similar to your 640-acre 
 grazing homestead bill. Something that gives the workingman of very limited 
 means an opportunity of developing a small home. The 320-acre homestead 
 Is insufficient to develop this country and to carry on dairying successfully, 
 as we can only run from 15 to 20 cows to the section of land. After 10 years 
 of bitter experience at farming, we find this State better adapted to dairying 
 and stock farming, to which it is fast developing. And if a 640-acre grazing 
 homestead entry is allowed, it will very soon result in the settlement of a 
 prosperous and thrifty family on each and every available section of land, 
 which will soon be well developed. It will mean the further development of 
 churches and schools and all public enterprises. 
 
 Our very scant means will not permit us to present our claims personally 
 and must necessarily take this means of presenting them to you, our Repre- 
 sentative, and trust you and rely on you to save our country to settlement by 
 the masses. 
 
 W. H. Cooper, 
 R. L. Robinson, 
 Will Harvick, 
 (And 315 others.) 
 
 FROM 9 CITIZENS OF GRANT COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Ferousson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We, the undersigned, firmly believe no farmer can make a living on 160 acres 
 nor 320 acres on this grazing semiarid land. Therefore New Mexico can not 
 be settled up, as is shown by past experience, with less than a 640-acre home- 
 stead, which will keep 35 head of cattle. 
 
 Thos. N. Keene, 
 O. M. .Moore, 
 W. H. Rathbun, 
 (And 6 others'.) 
 
 FROM 124 CITIZENS OF OTERO COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Ferousson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We, the undersigned citizens of Otero County, N. Mex., respectfully petition 
 and urge you to do whatever is possible to secure the passage of the 640-acre 
 homestead bill now pending in Congress. 
 
 In this high, semiarid section it is absolutely impossible for anyone to make a 
 living on 160, or even 320, acres of land, where it is not susceptible of irrigation, 
 and a large part of the land is so situated. If 640 acres could be secured by 
 the average homesteader, he could fence it and could graze about 30 head of 
 cattle or about 200 head of sheep on it, and in this manner, with additional 
 work, remain on the land and help settle up the State. 
 
 This bill, if it becomes a law, will be of an immense benefit to small stockmen 
 of the State, and in our judgment will allow vast tracts of land now vacant 
 to be taken up and used. 
 
 James G. Shults, 
 O. 6. Cady, 
 S. W. Fairchild, 
 (And 121 others.) 
 
 89 CITIZENS FROM GUADALUPE COUNTY, N. MEX. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Ferousson, M. C, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C: 
 We, the undersigned citizens of Guadalupe and Chaves Counties, N. Mex., 
 petition Congress to defeat the bill for leasing the public domain for grazing, 
 
DISPOSITION OF GKAZING LANDS. .423 
 
 and the 640-acre homestead grazing act be passed. For the following reasons : 
 
 First. The leasing of the public domain in New Mexico in large bodies to 
 the big stockmen is a disaster to hundreds of settlers who already have homes 
 here. As long as we only have 160 or 320 acres we, depend on the outside 
 range. With 640 acres we can depend more on our own homestead. 
 
 Second. The State has land for lease at 5 cents per acre, and has not taken 
 in any big amount until recently and not until the settler came. We believe 
 the stockmen do not want to lease the public domain ; their aim is to keep the 
 settler out, as the leasing of the State land plainly shows. 
 
 Third. We, the undersigned settlers, have lived here from one to eight years 
 and know the conditions in Guadalupe and Chaves Counties. 
 
 With our little herds we are building up substantial homes, and without the 
 range or the 640 acres we are ruined. Further, we wish to call your attention 
 to the fact there is double the stock and a better grade now in Guadalupe and 
 Chaves Counties since/ the settler came six years ago, and we have only com- 
 menced. The building up of this country depends, as in other States, on the 
 settlers, and we believe in our State, and its natural resources make it a good 
 place to live, where the poor man can own his own home. With 640 acres he 
 can have his little herd at home and grade up his stock to a point where New 
 Mtexico will be proud of her live-stock industry. 
 
 B. R. Deavotjes, 
 
 C. M. Lamhabt, 
 Jas. H. Glabk, 
 
 (And 36 others.) 
 
 FBOM 50 CITIZENS OF MORA COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Febgusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We, the undersigned citizens of Eoy, N. Mex., and vicinity, respectfully peti- 
 tion that the 640-acre homestead law, as proposed by the Western Ranchman's 
 Association, which is in the interest of intensive live stock and dairy farming, 
 be passed by Congress at an early date, and that you use your influence and 
 best endeavor to secure its passage. 
 
 Walteb Ross, 
 Ibvin Ogden, Sr., 
 C. Floyd Mobbis, 
 
 (And 63 others.) 
 
 FBOM 1,600 CITIZENS OF UNION COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Febgusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We, the undersigned citizens of Union County, N. Mex., respectfully petition 
 you with reference to introducing a measure in Congress providing for an en- 
 larged homestead act, giving to each and every citizen 640 acres of land, un- 
 restricted as to cultivation, embodying in said measure that all those who have 
 already filed and made final proof be entitled to an additional entry to make up 
 their full complement under this 640-acre act, the land to be selected from Gov- 
 ernment domain wherever located. Residence on home tract to be deemed suffi- 
 cient. 
 
 Knowing as we do the impossibility and hardships of an entryman on 160 or 
 320 acres endeavoring to provide a maintenance for himself or family in this 
 arid country, we urgently appeal to you to use all possible means at your com- 
 mand to secure the passage of this measure. We feel it the duty of all our 
 Representatives in Congress to lend said measure their heartiest support. We 
 who have been here several years fully know from sad experience the impossi- 
 bility of supporting ourselves and family on 160 or 320 acres. 
 
 J. L. Bunhitt, 
 Sefebino Duban, 
 John Davis, 
 v Joe Sanchez, 
 
 J. E. Stoffel, 
 Jose Babela, 
 (And 1,594 others.) 
 
424 DISPOSITIOK OF GKAZING LANDS. 
 
 FEOM 28 CITIZENS OF GUADALUFE COUNTY. 
 
 To the Congress of the United States: 
 
 We, the undersigned petitioners, all residents of the State of New Mexico, 
 county of Guadalupe, do hereby petition the Congress of the United States, 
 through our Eepresentative, Hon. H. B. Fergusson, that we are in urgent neces- 
 sity of the passage of a bill in Congress allowing people to take up a homestead 
 of 640 acres of land for grazing for the following reasons, to wit : 
 
 First. That 160 or 320 acres of land is a very small area of land for the 
 small stockman and the poor man, in view of the fact that 320 acres of land 
 under fence is scarcely able to support and maintain 50 head of sheep or 10 
 head of cows the year around owing to the semiarid conditions of the State, 
 which 640 acres of land would support and maintain double the number of 
 stock. 
 
 Second. While a law of this kind would benefit the poor man it would also 
 help in bringing more population into the State of New Mexico. In view there- 
 fore of the absolute necessity of such a law being enacted we respectfully peti- 
 tion your honorable body to this end. 
 
 Elentubo Baca, 
 Cbistian Nelson, 
 Juan C. Bomebo, 
 
 (And 25 others.) 
 
 FROM SIX CITIZENS OF SIERRA COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 A 640-acre grazing homestead is the only way to get the semiarid lands settled 
 up. Six hundred and forty acres will feed about 40 head of cattle the year 
 around under fence or about 175 head of sheep. It takes at least that much 
 to support a family ; any less would not be enough. The. bill will be a great help 
 to the small stock man. 
 
 S. A. Hoisinqer, 
 W. A. Knibbe, 
 James W. JIackey, 
 
 (And 3 others.) 
 
 FBOM THE FORT SUMNER (GUADALUPE COUNTY) COMMERCIAL CLUB. 
 
 Whereas the homestead lands within the State of New Mexico are almost 
 wholly semiarid lands, upon which it is impossible for the homesteaders to 
 sustain themselves upon the present restricted area of 160 to 320 acres; and 
 
 Whereas the above facts retard the development and settlement of the State 
 of New Mexico and defeat the object of the homestead laws, the settlement 
 of the arid West; and 
 
 Whereas there are now pending in Congress homestead bills providing for 640- 
 acre grazing homesteads for the semiarid lands of New Mexico ; and 
 
 Whereas the passage of some such bill would greatly facilitate the settlement 
 and development of New Mexico, because with a 640-acre homestead a home- 
 steader could under his own fence own and graze 32 or more head of cattle, 
 which would be sufficient to make his homestead self-supporting; and 
 
 Whereas under the present restricted area of 160 to 320 acre homesteads it is 
 impossible for the homesteaders to sustain themselves thereon, with the result 
 that they are forced to leave the State as soon as proof is made and often 
 sooner by abandonment of homestead : Therefore be it 
 Resolved by the Fort Sumner (N. Mex.) Commercial Club in regular session 
 
 assembled on the 24th day of February, 1914, That it is true that the homestead 
 
 lands available within New Mexico are for the most part semiarid lands upon 
 
 which it is impossible for the homesteaders to sustain themselves upon the 
 
 present restricted area of 160 to 320 acre homesteads. 
 And resolved further, That a homestead comprising 640 acres would enable 
 
 a homesteader to have and graze under his own fence 32 or more head of cattle, 
 
 which would be sufficient to make his homestead self-supporting. 
 And resolved further, That the present restricted area of homesteads retards 
 
 the settlement and development of the State of New Mexico and is subversive 
 
 of the object of the homestead law, the settlement of the arid West. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GBAZING LANDS. 425 
 
 And resolved lastly, That the president of this commercial club be, and is 
 hereby, authorized and requested to communicate the preceding resolutions to 
 the Congressman from New Mexico and others whom he might deem proper, 
 to assure them that the numerous business men comprising the membership of 
 this club consider it essential and necessary to have the Congress of the United 
 States enact some 640-acre grazing homestead bill. And those to whom these 
 resolutions are sent are hereby enjoined to present the same to their respective 
 Houses and to use the best endeavors to procure at the present session of Con- 
 gress the enactment of some such 640-acre grazing homestead bill. 
 
 Clyde Showalter, President. 
 
 W. H. Lowbt, Secretary. 
 
 FROM 18 CITIZENS OF EDDY COUNTY. 
 
 We, the undersigned citizens of the southeastern part of New Mexico, favor 
 the section act. It takes one section to run 25 head of cattle on the average 
 year. It takes that many to make one a living. We believe that with a sec- 
 tion act New Mexico will settle up and furnish homes for thousands of poor 
 families that otherwise would never be able to own a home. The cattlemen 
 don't want the State to settle up. They want the grass to graze cattle on. 
 
 Isaac Cubey, 
 G. W. Toby, 
 John A. Cooper, 
 (And 15 others.) 
 
 FROM 65 CITIZENS OF GUADALUPE COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Febgusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We, the undersigned citizens of Cuervo, N. Mex., and vicinity, knowing some- 
 thing of the contents of your bill to allow a homestead settler 640 acres of land, 
 petition for its passage. 
 
 We know by experience that a man with an average-sized family can not 
 make a good living for himself and family on 320 acres of New Mexico land 
 without irrigation. A section of this New Mexico land will not keep more than 
 25 head of cattle the year around of an average season, and on some sections 
 some years not more than 10 head. The rainfall here is very light, and there 
 are often spots that do not get rain enough to make any grass during the 
 
 summer. 
 
 S. P. Mobison, 
 J. G. Sanctebs, 
 A. T. Bell, 
 
 (And 62 others.) 
 
 FBOM 57 RESIDENTS OF MONTOYA, N. MEX. 
 
 Hon. H.-B.' Febgusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We the undersigned, petition that the bill for 640 acres, now pending before 
 Congress, be passed; said bill will be a blessing to the citizens of the State of 
 New Mexico, and especially to the small stock raiser, who may be able to raise 
 a team of horses, 10 or 15 head of cattle, on a tract of 640 acres of land. 
 
 Benigno Lopez y Benabidez, v 
 Flobencio Benabidez, 
 Isidob A. Ortey, 
 
 (And 54 others.) 
 
 FBOM 183 BESIDENTS OF GUADALUPE COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 The undersigned residents of Guadalupe County, N. Mex.. respectfully peti- 
 tion for the passage of the proposed 640-acre homestead grazing act 
 
 The larger portion of this section of the country is essentially grazing land, 
 and neithlr 160 acres nor 320 acres are sufficient of itself to enable a settler 
 to graze in sufficient numbers to support a family, whereas 640 acres would 
 
426 DISPOSITION OP GKAZING LANDS. 
 
 afford a nucleus for a small grazing proposition that would render such sup- 
 port, and result beneficially for the community at large. 
 
 Felipe Sanchez y Baca, 
 Hipolito Lopez, 
 Jose P. Gutierez, 
 
 (And 180 others.) 
 
 FROM 46 CITIZENS OP ROOSEVELT COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We, the undersigned citizens and homesteaders of the semiarid plains of 
 Roosevelt Count, N. Mex., ask and pray that a homestead law be passed to 
 contain 640 acres of land. Such a law would enable the homesteader, by using 
 economy and industry, to make a good and comfortable living. 
 
 On a homestead of 640 acres can be kept 30 to 50 head of cattle, or other 
 stock in proportion, with sufficient number of horses to run his ranch. We 
 who have been here a number of years have learned by experience 160 acres 
 nor 320 acres make such a living. We have managed to stay those years, but 
 not with the satisfaction we feel we deserve as citizens of this country. Epe- 
 rience assures us, many more and better stock can be raised on these plains if 
 we could get the 640-acre homestead than is possible with the open or large 
 range, as each homesteader would cultivate a small portion and raise some 
 feed that would help him care for his stock in very bad weather ; whereas the 
 large rancher can not or does not look after his large herd, letting them drift, 
 losing a much greater percentage of stock than the small rancher. Such a 
 law (for 640 acres) would make many people prosperous and happy. Also 
 aid and encourage the settling of these great plains of the West by people who 
 need homes from the eastern congested portion of our country. 
 
 E. P. Williams, 
 Wesley Rogers, 
 D. E. Thomas, 
 
 (And 43 others.) 
 
 FROM 75 CITIZENS OF EDDY COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, Washington, D. €.: 
 
 It is the opinion of the undersigned petitioners that 320 acres is not suffi- 
 cient for a stock farm in the semiarid lands of this State. If a law could be 
 passed permitting homesteaders to take up as much as a section of land they 
 could fence this land and raise as many as 25 head of cattle or 100 head of sheep 
 in an average year and thereby be able to support a family and maintain a 
 permanent home thereon. 
 
 Since a large part of New Mexico is unfit for agriculture, we believe that 
 some such law as above mentioned Is absolutely necessary for the settling up 
 of this land. 
 
 C. M. Sanford, 
 
 C. W. CUBRY, 
 
 J. S. Wbanosky, 
 
 (And 72 others.) 
 
 FROM 50 CITIZENS OF SIERRA COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Febgusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We, the undersigned petitioners, hereby state that we are in hearty sympathy 
 with your efforts to pass your 640-acre homestead bill for semiarid lands of 
 New Mexico. 
 
 From our past experience we can positively state that it impossible for us 
 to make any advance until we are permitted to have at least 640 acres of land 
 under fence. We believe that on an average a settler can not run more that 
 40 head of cattle on 640 acres and not more 100 head of sheep or goats. Unless 
 some such bill is passed we can only exist from one drought to another, but 
 with this much under fence we could prepare for dry spells. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 427 
 
 We earnestly protest against the leasing of the grazing lands of the West, 
 and submit that this would be the ruination of our country and of all small 
 settlers. 
 
 T. H. Byrne, 
 A. L. Bird, 
 Will S. Coopbb, 
 (And 47 others.) 
 
 FROM 26 CITIZENS OF OTERO COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Pergxjsson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We, the undersigned citizens of Avis, N. Mex., and surrounding country, 
 petition for the 640-acre grazing homestead bill, semiarid lands of New Mexico, 
 for the poor people of this part of New Mexico can not make a living by farm- 
 ing alone on 160 or 320 acres. But by having control of 640 acres they will 
 be able to run about 60 head of cattle or 200 head of sheep or goats the year 
 round and will enable the country to settle up and have more taxes for the 
 county and State. Under present conditions it is impossible for the country to 
 settle up or poor people to make a living. Under the present conditions the 
 big stockman grazes the little stockman and farmer out. 
 
 S. H. Gaines, 
 Y. F. Barnett, 
 M. C. Munson, 
 (And 23 others.) 
 
 PROM 27 CITIZENS OF GUADALUPE COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We, the undersigned citizens of Buchanan, Guadalupe County, N. Mex., ask 
 that the 640-acre homestead bill you have introduced be considered and passed 
 by Congress for the following reasons: 
 
 First. That 640 acres under fence will graze from 40 to 50 head of cattle 
 or from three to four hundred head of sheep, on an average, a year. This 
 would insure the homesteader a living and a small income for himself and 
 family. Whereas under the 320-acre act it is impossible for the homesteader 
 to make a living, to say nothing of an income. 
 
 Second. In most eases water can be secured by wells oh 640 acres. Under the 
 present 320-acre act a great many failures are encountered, as ofttimes, if they 
 could drll on an adjoining 320 or 160 acre claim, they could get water suffl- 
 Harvey B. Usher. 
 
 Third. We are certain if this act of 640 acres becomes a law New Mexico 
 will be settled by permanent and substantial citizens, while under the 160 or 
 320 act this can not be done in this part of New Mexico. 
 
 Harvey E. Usher, 
 C. M. Lainhabt, 
 E. E. Bales, 
 
 (And 24 others.) 
 
 FROM 140 CITIZENS OF EDDY COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We beg to submit the following reasons for the passage of the 640-acre home- 
 steadVgrazing bill : 
 
 First. Large areas of New Mexico are without railroad facilities, our section 
 being thus situated. 
 
 Second. While we are prepared to say that a family can not be maintained 
 on 320 acres of land here by dry farming yet experience has shown that many 
 have experienced a most difficult time in living out their claims. 
 
 Third. The most prolific crops we have here are the dry-land! forage crops 
 consisting of the sorghum family, viz, maize, kafir, feterlta, etc. 
 
 Fourth. There being no market here for these products, by reason of lack 
 of railroads, were it possible for a farmer to acquire a few more acres to be 
 used as grazing lands, and these crops thus supplemented, thus transforming 
 this product into beef and marketed on hoof without a railroad!. 
 
428 DISPOSITION OF GBAZING LANDS. 
 
 Fifth. This would not only not injure the cattle business, but would actually 
 increase the number of cattle to be produced per section. 
 
 Sixth. At present 30 head to the section is allowed, grazing exclusively. 
 Under the 640 law, and by stock farming, rather than stock grazing, this number 
 could! be increased to 40 or 50 head per section. 
 
 Seventh. Forty head of cattle to the home, with what farming can be done, 
 will maintain a family. 
 
 Eighth. The large cowman has been enabled, and admits it, to amass a large 
 fortune by use of free grazing lands. 
 
 Ninth. If he could do this on 30 head to the section, on grass, the home owner 
 can turn the same grass to better account by supplementing feeding. 
 
 Tenth. Moreover, the home owner will pay tax on his land, and this tax 
 will go to aid schools, etc. 
 
 Eleventh. We believe that the awarding of 640 acres to the home, instead of 
 a smaller amount, will settle up the country, induce the building of roads, and 
 finally inaugurate all kinds of development. Not only this, but if the small 
 home owner of New Mexico. is given a chance he will help to increase the num- 
 ber and grade of cattle and sheep raised, and thus do his part toward the re- 
 ducing of the high cost of living. 
 
 Twelfth. The cattle and sheep industry of New Mexico, would, we believe,' be 
 greatly augmented by the enactment of your bill. 
 
 Edwabd M. Love, 
 W. C. Howard, 
 A. J. Scaff, 
 
 (And 137 others). 
 
 FROM 24 CITIZENS OF SAN JUAN COUNTY'. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Feegusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We the undersigned citizens of this section of the county hope you may be 
 able to secure the passage of your 640-acre grazing-homestead bill. Nearly all 
 your petitioners are engaged in the sheep business ; a few have cattle. We have 
 small herds and your bill would enable many of us to get homesteads large 
 enough to take care of our sheep and cattle. 
 
 We do not care to take advantage of the present homestead laws, as the 
 amount of land we would get would mot be sufficient to take care of our i little 
 bunch of sheep or cattle, and besides the cultivation of the land required 'to 
 make, final proof is just that much injury to it for grazing purposes. 
 
 A 640-acre homestead as provided in your bill, and the method of proving up 
 on it, by making permanent improvement, and not by paying o.ash, would ibe-ia 
 boon to the small stockman. 
 
 Such a homestead would furnish grass and shrubbery enough, together '-with 
 the, forage crop we could make on the land, to feed from 25 to 100. head of cattle 
 and from 150 to 600 head of sheep. 
 
 J. H. Lujan, 
 
 J. V. ROMEEA, 
 RlCABDO OfiCHULITA, 
 
 (And 21 others). 
 
 FEOM 65 CITIZENS OF MOEA COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Feegusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We, the undersigned citizens of Mora County, respectfully petition you to 
 exert every laudable effort to secure the passage of the 640-acre grazing home- 
 stead law, presented by you in the present session. 
 
 We further urge you to oppose in every manner possible the proposed measure 
 to withdraw portions of the public domain for the purpose of leasing it to 
 capitalists and stockmen in large tracts as " grazing reserves." We urge the 
 fact that the homesteader is the true pioneer and has brought civilization to 
 all the plains States in spite of the opposition of those who preceded them with 
 " range methods." That New Mexico can never become a great State .until 
 her agricultural resources are developed, and the homesteader is the only class 
 of citizen who can develope them. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 429 
 
 For these and every other just reasons we urge the passage of the bill for 
 640-acre homesteads, which are a necessity to the prosperity of the New 
 Mexico homesteader. 
 
 J. B. La Rue, 
 Ji C. Grimstead, 
 C. P. Beaman, 
 
 (And 62. others); 
 
 FROM 46 CITIZENS OF CHAVES COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We, the undersigned, desire to make a few statements in support of your 
 €40-acre bill now pending in Congress: 
 
 First, nearly all the people who only took up a 160-acre claim and made cash 
 payment for same has left the country — either sold their land for what they 
 could get for it or left it and are paying taxes on the same, not being able 
 to keep stock- enough to live from the increase, as a consequence some one else is 
 grazing this land besides the owner — perhaps a settler with 320 acres, who also 
 has a section of school land leased from- the State. Those are the ones who 
 can stay in New Mexico and help build up the country. If the balance of the 
 settlers who have already 320-acre claims were allowed another 320 acres they 
 could be able to make a living and build up the country and have good schools. 
 As it is now the settler is kept out. The stockmen put down a well and claim 
 to have same leased, and keep many a settler out of a home. 
 
 Tour 640-acres homestead bill, for the semiarid plains of New Mexico, 
 is, we believe, the best for the most people, as leasing the public domain to a 
 few would be a detriment to the development of our new State. If the people 
 are allowed to take up a 640 1 acre homestead on the terms of your bill the 
 entire grass country would' be settled in a short time. Our past experience 
 in New Mexico is that in the average years of New Mexico conditions one can 
 not keep over 40 of 50 head of cattle or horses each year ; as to sheep, one 
 couldn't afford to fence them in on 640 acres of grass. 
 
 J. R. O'Neal, 
 J. A. Cooper, 
 F. M. Coe, 
 (And 43 others). 
 
 PROM 123 CITIZENS OF MORA COUNTY. 
 
 We, the undersigned citizens of Mora County, in the State of New Mexico, 
 heartily indorse and approve the Fergusson grazing homestead bill of 640 
 acres for semiarid lands of New Mexico. 
 
 Bitter experience in the years past has shown that homesteads of 160 or 320 
 acres, are not sufficient for the maintenance of one family in the State of New 
 Mexico. Experience also shows that on 640 acres of semiarid land in New 
 Mexico a good farmer may raise about 300 head of sheep or 50 head of cattle, 
 and thus provide for his family a comfortable living, and will also induce people 
 to come in and homestead in the State of New Mexico. 
 
 Eugenio Romero, 
 Her__an Roberts, 
 Philip Steinfeldt, 
 
 (And 120 others). 
 
 FROM 25 CITIZENS OF SAN JUAN COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, Washington, D. 0.: 
 
 We, your petitioners) respectfully ask you to exert your best efforts in secur- 
 ing a 640-acre homestead bill. This kind of a law would make homes for 
 a great many people, while as the law' now is, it is impossible for a man to 
 take 160 acres, or even 320 acres, and live on it. With 640 acres (m our county) 
 he could keep stock enough to make a living for an average family, especially 
 when you take into consideration the moderate success we have here in dry 
 farming. We urge you to work hard on this bill. 
 
 VV. (J. ORANDALL, 
 
 A. H. Masters, 
 O. C. Goodwin, 
 
 (And 22 others). 
 
430 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 FBOM 18 CITIZENS OF SAN MIGUEL COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, 
 
 Washington, D. 0.: 
 We, the undersigned, your petitioners, residents and farmers of San Miguel 
 County, respectfully represent to you that during our experience as farmers 
 and stock raisers in this State we are fully convinced that neither 160 nor 
 320 acres is sufficient land for a farmer or stock raiser to run a number of 
 cattle under his own fence that will produce enough income for the support of 
 a family, and this is the main cause to prevent our State from being cettled up ; 
 that 640 acres of the semiarid land of New Mexico will cover about enough 
 grazing land for 15 to 20 head of cattle. 
 
 Therefore, we earnestly request that you use your utmost endeavors to have 
 your 640-acre grazing homestead bill enacted into law. 
 
 J. M. Bentley, 
 Paul McCobmick, 
 Elfego Tafoya, 
 
 (And 15 others). 
 
 FBOM 28 CITIZENS OF BOOSEVELT COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, 
 
 Washington, D. C: 
 We, the undersigned citizens of Roosevelt County, N. Mex., commend your 
 good work in Congress and in behalf of the enlarged homestead act and would 
 ask you to use your influence and vote to get the proposed amendment, giviDg 
 each homesteader 640 acres, as it has been proven by actual experience that the 
 men that control 640 acres have been enabled to stay on their claims, and 
 men on 160 acres have had to abandon their claims to make a living. A home- 
 steader should be allowed to file wherever he can find vacant land in the arid 
 region ; the 10-mile limit would exclude 90 per cent of the men who pioneered 
 the West from any benefit whatever. 
 
 W. O. McCOBMACK, 
 
 S. F. Andebson, 
 Henby Holland, 
 
 (And 25 others). 
 
 FROM 23 CITIZENS OF EDDY COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, 
 
 Washington, D. C: 
 We, the undersigned citizens of Eddy County, N. Mex., do respectfully petition 
 you to use your best efforts to pass your proposed 640-acre grazing homestead 
 bill, for the following reasons, to wit : 
 
 First. It is impossible for anyone to make a living on a half section in this 
 semiarid country, because they must raise some kind of stock, and a half 
 section will not pasture one year with another more than from 12 to 15 head 
 of stock. 
 
 Second. Everyone that comes to this country and tries to make a living 
 farming do the best they can until they can prove up, and then leave. 
 
 Third. That it is our belief that the only way to settle up the State will be 
 to give the settlers a section of land, and we believe that a living can be made 
 on a section. 
 
 W. G. MacAbthub, 
 'Theo Anderson, 
 Mark M. Foster, 
 
 (And 20 others). 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 431 
 
 FROM 7 CITIZENS OF LINCOLN COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, 
 
 Washington, D. C: 
 Permit us to submit our petition from our little community and to express 
 our warm gratitude for the interest you manifest in the welfare of the dry-land 
 home maker. Six hundred and forty acres fenced to conserve the native 
 grasses, with drought-resisting forage crops, will enable the settler to maintain 
 a small herd of stock, thereby making him independent and placing him in 
 position, financially, to remain on his claim, thereby eliminating much of the 
 leave of absence troubles. 
 
 W. S. Armstrong, 
 J. B. Gravler, 
 Tom Stewart, 
 
 (And 4 others). 
 
 FROM 41 CITIZENS OF CHAVIS COUNTY. 
 
 To the House of Representatives : 
 
 We, the undersigned citizens of Chavis County, N. Mex., do respectfully 
 petition for the passage of the 640-acre grazing homestead bill. One hundred 
 and sixty and 320 acres is too small an entry on which to make a living. This 
 country will not graze more than 25 head of cattle on each 640 acres. The bill 
 will cause this country to settle fast and permanently, and would help in regard 
 to taxes. 
 
 W. E. Elder, 
 Jose McGaha, 
 G. C. Massey, 
 (And 38 others). 
 
 FROM 75 CITIZENS OF EDDY COUNTY. 
 
 We, the undersigned citizens of Nadine, Eddy County, N. Mex., do hereby 
 petition for the pasage of the 640-acre grazing homestead bill. We can not 
 raise enough stock or crops to support a family on 320 acres. 
 
 H. A. Callahan, 
 C. M. Simpson, 
 H. H. Forster, 
 
 (And 72 others). 
 
 FROM 24 CITIZENS OF LINCOLN COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We, the undersigned residents of Corona, Lincoln County, N. Mex., do hereby 
 petition Congress to act favorably upon your 640-acre grazing homestead bill 
 for semiarid lands for the following reasons : 
 
 It has been pretty positively proven by the last few years' trial that a 
 living can not be made upon 160 acres of land by agriculture alone. It has also 
 been proven that a living can not be made under the enlarged homestead law of 
 320 acres by farming alone. It is also thoroughly proven that 320 acres of land 
 are not sufficient to run cattle, sheep, or other live stock in sufficient quantities 
 in connection with the farming that may be done in some years to make 1 a living 
 for a homesteader. 
 
 It is the opinion of the undersigned that if the bill in question is passed 
 giving each man 640 acres of land he can run on it from 15 to 20 head of cows 
 or about five times that number of sheep We believe that this, in connection 
 with what may be made by agriculture, will enable a man to get a start, and 
 will have enough stuff that he will not have to call upon the Government for 
 aid or ask for leave of absence to go somewhere else to make money to support 
 
 himself and family. 
 
 G. C. Clements, 
 J. M. Atkinson, 
 A. W. Colbaugh, 
 
 (And 21 others). 
 
432 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 FBOMI33 CITIZENS OF GUADALUPE COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Febgusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We, the undersigned citizens of Guadalupe County, N. Mex., are in favor of 
 the 640-acre act, as we know by our own experience that we cati not keep over 
 25: head of cattle under one fence on 640 acres, and can make a 1 living on such 
 an entry. 
 
 Smith McDonald,* 
 C. L. Williams, 
 Gbanvtlle Downing, 
 
 (And 30 others). 
 
 FBOM 28 CITIZENS OF OTEEO COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Febgusson, Washington, D. €.: 
 
 We, the undersigned citizens of Otero County, N. Mex., respectfully petition 
 and urge you to do whatever is possible to secure the passage of the 640-acre 
 homestead bill now pending in Congress. 
 
 In this high semiarid section it is absolutely impossible for anyone to make 
 a living on 160 or even 320 acres of land; where it is- not susceptible of ' irriga- 
 tion, and a large part of the land is so situated. If 640 acres could be secured 
 by the average homesteader he could fence it, and could graze enough cattle 
 or sheep, with additional work, to remain on the land, and help settle up the 
 State. 
 
 This bill, if it becomes a law, will be of an immense benefit to small stockmen 
 of the State, and, in our judgment, will allow vast tracts of land now vacant to 
 be taken up and used. 
 
 J. S. McMan, 
 D. C. Jones, 
 John Cain, 
 (And 25 others). 
 
 FBOM 87 CITIZENS OF EDDY COUNTY. 
 
 To the Congress of the United States: 
 
 We, the undersigned citizens of Eunice, Eddy County, N. Mex., hereby peti- 
 tion for the passage of the H. B. Fergusson 640-acre grazing homestead bill. 
 
 We think that it is absolutely necessary that this bill be passed so as to make 
 it possible to settle up this vast undeveloped country. 
 
 Will state a few facts about this semiarid climate: The rainfall is not suf- 
 ficient for any man to make a living on 320 acres by farming and grazing this 
 amount of land, but if we can get 320 acres additional it will be a great in- 
 ducement to draw a class of citizens to this country that would add materially 
 to its development, and would be a great help to those that came here under 
 the most unfavorable circumstances and blazed the way through three years of 
 drought, and are still here, hoping to get 320 acres additional. On 640 acres of 
 this land, fenced, it will not run over 20 or 25 head of stock on an average. 
 
 J. N. Cabson, 
 R. L. Bbunson, 
 W. S. Mabshall, 
 (And 84 others). 
 
 FBOM 84 CITIZENS OF GUADALUPE COUNTY. 
 
 To the Members of the House of Representatives: 
 
 We, the undersigned petitioners, all residents in the State of New Mexico, 
 County of Guadalupe, do hereby petition for the passage of a 640-acre home- 
 stead for grazing purposes for the following reasons : 
 
 First. That 160 or 320 acres of land is a very small area of land for grazing 
 purposes for the small stockman, in view of the fact that 320 acres will 
 scarcely maintain 50 head of sheep or 10 head of cattle the year round, owing 
 to the semiarid conditions of the State, while 640 acres would support double 
 the amount of cattle or sheep, and enable the poor man to make a living. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 433 
 
 Second. A law of this kind would bring more population into tlie State of 
 New Mexico. 
 
 In view, therefore, of the absolute necessity for such law being enacted, we 
 respectfully petition your honorable body for its passage. 
 
 Benito A. Nelson, 
 Tobias Gonzales, 
 Atanasio Montata, 
 
 (And 81 others). 
 
 FROM 21 CITIZENS OF EDDY COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We, the undersigned citizens of Eddy County, N. Mex., do respectfully petition 
 you to do your utmost to pass your proposed 640-acre grazing homestead bill 
 for the following reasons : 
 
 First. From experience of the past we know that a homesteader can not 
 make a living on 320 acres of semiarid land. 
 
 Second. The only way a living can be made every year is the raising of stock 
 of some kind, and experience has taught us that 320 acres will not graze 
 enough stock to support a family. 
 
 Third. On an average year 320 acres will graze about 12 to 15 head of stock, 
 and the average family can make a living on a section of land, but can not 
 do it on a half section. 
 
 W. P. Fergusson, 
 A. B. Steeler, 
 M. E. Steeler, 
 
 (And 18 others). 
 
 FROM 24 CITIZENS OF LINCOLN COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, Washington, D. C: 
 
 We think that your 640-acre grazing homestead bill, if it becomes a law, will 
 do the poor in the West more good than any other enactment that has become 
 a law, for, from -experience and observation, we realize that in the semiarid 
 region the raising of crops or successful farming is very doubtful without irri- 
 gation, and water for irrigation can be obtained only in certain localities, so 
 the western man must rely upon the stock industry for a livelihood; and as 
 the range is being bought and fenced by cattle barons and syndicates, it puts 
 the poor man, who composes about 95 per cent of the inhabitants in the West, 
 without means of making a living unless he gets some assistance in the shape 
 of your bill. 
 
 It is estimated that 640 acres of good grassland will support from 30 to 35 
 head of cattle or horses. In some localities it won't do it. Also there are 
 some seasons that 640 acres in the best sections won't do it. Less than that 
 number of stock won't provide subsistence for a man and his family. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 S. R. Moss, 
 John Roberts, 
 B. A. Salazar, 
 (And 21 others). 
 
 FROM 23 CITIZENS OF OTERO COUNTY. 
 
 A petition for the passage of the Fergusson 640-acre grazing homestead bill : 
 
 Whereas homesteading under present laws in the semiarid regions is so 
 difficult that it is practically impossible to a person without means ; and 
 
 Whereas a livelihood can be gained from stock raising where larger areas 
 can be .obtained, which is evidenced by the effort of the cattlemen to preserve 
 the integrity of the public domain ; and 
 
 Whereas Representative H. B. Fergusson has introduced an excellent bill 
 in Congress allowing homesteaders a total of 640 acres in designated areas, 
 .with the privilege of choosing said land within a radius of 10 miles, thus allow- 
 
 35074— pt 1—14 28 
 
434 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 ing entrymen to continue settling in groups for the preservation of community 
 interests : 
 
 We hereby petition our Representatives in Congress to support said bill for 
 the relief of those now homesteading and for the benefit of those waiting to 
 take up land when favorable legislation shall make such action possible. 
 
 W. J. Davis, 
 F. Woodside, 
 0. R. Fox, 
 
 (And 20 others). 
 
 FROM 11 CITIZENS OP SANTA FE COTJNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Fergusson, Washington, D. G. 
 
 We hope that you will succeed in passing the 640-acre grazing homestead bill, 
 as we believe it is advantageous to the poor people and to the small stockmen. 
 Our lands are dry and without water; the rich lands are transformed into 
 reserves and only capitalists can maintain their expenses. Six hundred and 
 forty acres if cultivated and supplied with water, with about 25 or 50 head of 
 cattle, Will be a homestead that will sustain a family in comfort. 
 
 Nicolas Gonzales, 
 Vebona Salazab, 
 Ramon Sandoval, 
 
 (And 8 others). 
 
 FBOM 67 CITIZENS OF TAOS COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Febgusson, Washington, D. C. 
 
 We, the undersigned citizens of Taos County, N. Mex., believe that under 
 present conditions the remaining public lands in said county will support not 
 to exceed 50 head of sheep or 16 head of cattle to the section of 640 acres. 
 
 We further believe that if this land was settled up and fenced by homestead- 
 ers, allowing each 640 acres, the efficiency of this land could be materially 
 increased. 
 
 We therefore respectfully petition that the amount allowed for a homestead 
 in this locality be increased to 640 acres. 
 
 W. K. Shupe, 
 F. T. Cheecham, 
 J. D. Mohan, 
 
 (And 64 others). 
 
 FKOM 22 CITIZENS OF LINCOLN COUNTY. 
 
 Hon. H. B. Febgusson, Washington, D. C. 
 
 We, the undersigned homesteaders and citizens of Lincoln County, N. Mex., 
 would respectfully represent that a 640-acre grazing homestead law would bene- 
 fit our section to the extent that one homestead would then sustain annually 10 
 head of cattle or 15 head of horses, or 30 to 50 head of sheep or goats, and we 
 are in favor of its passage. 
 
 Jno. H. Boyd, 
 H. E. Riddle, 
 W. P. Loughrey, 
 (And 19 others). 
 
 FROM 820 CITIZENS OF EDDY COUNTY. 
 
 A petition from citizens of Lovington, Eddy County, N. Mex., with 320 signa- 
 tures, praying for the passage of the 640-acre grazing homestead bill was re- 
 ceived and was presented to the Secretary of the Interior, as it also referred to 
 the classification of State land in New Mexico. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 435 
 
 V Committee on the Public Lands, 
 
 House of Representatives, 
 Wednesday, March 11, 1914. 
 The committee this day met, Hon. Scott Ferris (chairman) pre* 
 siding. 
 
 The Chairman. Gentlemen, we will hear first this morning from 
 Eepresentative Mondell, of Wyoming. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK W. MONDELL, A REPRESENTATIVE 
 IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin my statement 
 by inserting in the record a telegram I received yesterday. I 
 do not want to unduly take up the time of the committee and will be 
 glad to answer any inquiries the members of the committee may care 
 to ask me in regard to the general subject you have had under con- 
 sideration. 
 
 I have lived nearly all my life in the public-land States. All these 
 years I have lived where men were taking up the public lands, where 
 men were using the range, and I feel I am fairly familiar with the 
 conditions except as my duties here have kept me so closely that I 
 have not been out in the western country a very great portion of the 
 last few years. I think, however, I am fairly familiar with the con- 
 ditions out there. 
 
 I also think I am fairly familiar with the sentiment of the people 
 of that country, partly by reason of what we have heard from them 
 on this committee, as I have been a member of it, and communica- 
 tions I have received by reason of my activity in public lands mat" 
 ters from people all over the West. 
 
 I want to read the telegram which I received yesterday from Raw- 
 lings, Wyo. [Reading:] 
 
 Rawlings, Wyo., March 9, 191%. 
 Hon. F. W. Mondell, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C: 
 Carbon County woolgrowers, in meeting assembled to-day, are opposed to 
 leasing of public domain, for the reason that their livelihood is at stake. The 
 range now used by the sheep in Carbon and Sweetwater Counties and a large 
 portion of Fremont and Natrona Counties is absolutely fit for nothing else, and 
 a large percentage of the public domain can only be used when snow is on the 
 ground. The sheep have to be trailed great distances to the ranges for the 
 various seasons. As you know, we feel that it would be a simple matter to 
 convince a congressional business committee that it is not feasible to lease these 
 ranges and still maintain the business. The increased cost of running sheep, 
 on account of forest-reserve fees, compulsory winter feeding, etc., have already 
 made the business one of questionable profit. Letter follows. 
 
 J. H. Clause. Eenest Sudin. 
 
 A. F. Thode. E. M. Tiebney. 
 
 F. A. Hadsell. L. E. Vivian. 
 
 William Daley. William A. McKay> 
 
 John J. Cullen. John A. Donnell. 
 
 R. H. Middlewood. R. H. Hopkins. 
 
 H. Rasmussen. J- M. Rumsey. 
 
 Louis Seavebson. 
 
 I recognize from these signatures that these are men in the sheep 
 business, either personally or as members of companies engaged in 
 the sheep business on a range basis — that is, the sheep are run on a 
 range in bands of from 2,000 upward. 
 
436 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I had in mind particularly to speak to the commit- 
 tee about the homestead bills and matters relating to the general 
 homestead question rather than discussing the leasing question, un- 
 less the committee desires me to discuss the leasing question some- 
 what. 
 
 The Chairman. Both bills are before the committee. 
 
 Mr. Mondei^l. Yes; I understand so. 
 
 The Chairman. You may use your own pleasure about that. 
 
 Mr. Mondelju To begin with, we all remember the conditions 
 under which settlement has been going on in the western country for 
 many years. Under the conditions in the region settled under the 
 old homestead law, all that was necessary was to turn the sod and 
 raise a crop. Our first departure from the 160-acre homestead poliey 
 was in the passage of the so-called Kinkaid bill. Those gentlemen 
 who were members of the committee at the time will remember that 
 the committee, had before it for two years the question of what to do 
 with western Nebraska lands. 
 
 Mr. Cantor. What year was that ? 
 
 Mr. Mondell. I do not recall the year of the passage of the Kin- 
 kaid Act. 
 
 The Chairman. I think it was 1904. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Western Nebraska at that time and up to the pw 
 eat time has presented a peculiar problem, owing to the conditions 
 there. 
 
 One difficulty with all general legislation relating to public lands 
 arises from the diversity of conditions. But in western Nebraska, 
 the part of Nebraska that still had public lands at the time of the 
 passage of that bill — western Nebraska has no timber, no minerals, 
 no irrigable land except along the Platte. Successive waves of 
 homestead settlement passing over it had taken up practically all 
 the land that at that time was believed to be fit for cultivation A 
 large portion of the area was made up of sand hills, which produced 
 very considerable forage, and natural hay was produced in the 
 valleys. In most of that sand-hill territory, which was a very con- 
 siderable part of that areaj the breaking of the soil was a real injury, 
 because in many places it resulted in breaking the roots 01 the 
 grasses that held down the sand, and the breaking of the soil would 
 result in the blowing of the sand. 
 
 About the year 1900, there was great agitation in that region for 
 leasing legislation. The Public Lands Committee, after hearing a 
 number of stockmen from that country, tentatively agreed to report 
 favorably a leasing bill limiting, as I recall, the are which any one 
 person could lease to 5,000 acres, and with some restrictions, allowing 
 the public-land laws to still apply. 
 
 After the committee had tentatively agreed upon that legislation, 
 in order to get an idea as to what the people thought about it, copies 
 of the bill were sent out. 
 
 Apparently it did not please anybody. The big stockmen who 
 had been anxious to have leasing legislation did not want it, because 
 the limitations were too drastic, and the maximum area too small to 
 suit their purposes. The farmers were afraid of it. The result was 
 that the Nebraska Legislature put a veto on our proposed legislation, 
 and the committee took no further action. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GBAZING LANDS. 437 
 
 Then the question was what we should do. The gentleman from 
 Nebraska, Mr. Kinkaid, introduced a bill, and after much discussion, 
 I was appointed a committee of one to redraft it. The redrafted 
 bill as finally adopted by the committee is the so-called Kinkaid Act. 
 It was an evolution in homestead law, in that it recognized grazing 
 as the basis of the homestead rather than farming. It applied to 
 that territory, because the situation was the same, or approximately 
 the same all over that territory. Therefore, no designation was 
 necessary. ' 
 
 There has been some discussion of the expansion of that idea to 
 other regions. Eastern Colorado has a very large area, a great 
 portion of which is very similary to that of western Nebraska. We 
 have few large areas in Wyoming that could be designated, geo- 
 graphically. 
 Mr. Cantor. You mean for grazing? 
 
 Mr. MoNDEiiL. Yes; our lands vary. They are interspersed with 
 irrigable lands and lands containing some timber. Coal and oil 
 occur over a large portion of the area. There are a number of 
 problems that did not exist in Nebraska. Western Nebraska was 
 clasified and described by the conditions that existed there, which 
 were practically uniform over the entire area. 
 
 After a good deal of discussion of the matter, this committee con- 
 eluded that instead of following that line of homestead evolution, 
 the better way would be for the time being to return to the farming 
 idea and carry out our homestead evolution along those lines. 
 
 I introduced, and with some amendment the committee reported, 
 what is known as the enlarged or 320-acre homestead bill. It had 
 no provision for classification except the classification as to character, 
 which the bill itself carried, that it should not apply to lands sus- 
 ceptible to irrigation, and should not apply to mineral lands. 
 
 When we gpt into the House we met a great deal of opposition 
 and criticism. That was 1 fortunate, in a way, in that it finally led 
 to the adopting in Congress of a suggestion I offered on the floor 
 of the House when we seemed to be in a box and could not move. 
 I suggested that we prvoide that no lands should be subject to 
 entry under the 320-acre homestead bill until it had been selected 
 and designated by the Secretary of the Interior, designated by him 
 as not being, in his opinion, susceptible of irrigation. 
 Mr. Church. When was that bill passed ? 
 Mr. Mondell. February 19, 1909. 
 
 The Secretary of the Interior, after that bill became a law— and 
 you remember what its provisions are^-it required a definite amount 
 "of cultivation ; it was a farming homestead, but it recognized the fact 
 that we had reached areas where, by reason of the lack of rainfall, 
 or the country so rough and broken, the homestead might have 
 but a comparatively small acreage of tillable land, it was necessary 
 to increase the size of the homestead in order to make homesteadmg 
 attractive, and in order to settle those areas in the West that up' to 
 that time the homesteader had passed by. 
 
 i We sometimes lose sight of this fact, that in the country west o± 
 
 the one hundredth meridian there has not for a long time been much 
 
 'grass going to waste. A man coming from that country en his first 
 
 visit east— that is, a man who has had to do with range matters and 
 
438 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 the use of the grasses of the range — is struck by nothing in this eastern 
 country more than the tremendous waste of forage. There is more 
 grass goes to waste in Maryland, I will venture to say, every year 
 than goes to waste in Wyoming. 
 
 Our people have generally utilized these grasses, but sometimes 
 in a somewhat wasteful way, and sometimes they use their pastures 
 too closely. 
 
 So that in passing these homestead bills we were not simply pro- 
 viding for the utilization of areas that had not been utilized, for 
 they had been utilized for stock purposes, but we were attempting 
 to transform large areas from range to farm. 
 
 There was a good deal of criticism of that law when it was passed. 
 In the main, it has worked, in my opinion, exceedingly well, and I 
 want to emphasize that, because there has been some testimony here 
 to the effect that entries under the enlarged-homestead law had been 
 largely speculative, and even where not speculative they have been 
 largely in vain, because the settler has not found it possible to sup- 
 port his family on this land. 
 
 Now, I have not traveled over the country where this law is operat- 
 ing, to any great extent, outside of my own State. We have been 
 pretty constantly in session here since the law was passed. I have 
 tried to keep in touch with the developments under that law, and 
 in my own State I am very familiar with the development we have 
 had under it. I am especially familiar with the part of the State 
 in which most of the development has occurred, and in which most 
 of the designated lands lie. 
 
 Speaking from the standpoint of my own State, and I think I 
 am speaking conservatively when I say, with pretty complete knowl- 
 edge of the situation, I believe that at least three-fourths of all the 
 entries made under the 320-acre law in Wyoming have been made 
 in perfect good faith by men who intended to utilize it for the pur- 
 pose of making homes. 
 
 Those homesteaders have come largely from Nebraska, Iowa, 
 and Missouri, and to a lesser extent from some of the States a little 
 farther east. 
 
 It is true that a lot of these people have had a hard time. It is 
 true that some of them have taken land that they should not have 
 taken, that can not successfully be farmed under any process we 
 now know. It is true, also, that here and there in the region where 
 people have been taking these lands, there have been some very un- 
 usual series of droughts. A part of my State has suffered during the 
 period that this law has been upon the statute books, for three suc- 
 cessive years from a drought unprecedented in the period in which 
 records of rainfall have been kept. And the condition of some of 
 these people has been desperate. But that, however, is not a new 
 situation in homestead settlements. 
 
 When I was a boy in northwestern Iowa I lived in a region, where 
 out of a settlement of 72 families, mostly New England people, in 
 1870, owing to diverse unfortunate conditions, the settlement had 
 fallen to less than 20 families in 1876, and that was as fine and fertile 
 a part of Iowa as there is, but it was a very new part of Iowa, far 
 distant from railroads. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GBAZING LANDS. 439 
 
 Mr. Graham. How much of that was due to the fact that those 
 families had no farming or agricultural experience and really did 
 not know what they were up against? 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Most of them, Mr. Graham, were tremendously good 
 farmers. There- were some men in the neighborhood who had been 
 sea captains, who had followed the sea and who did not know much 
 about farming, but most of them were New England farmers, and 
 exceedingly good ones. One of the difficulties, and the greatest single 
 difficulty we liad, was in a series of grasshopper raids. 
 
 Mr. Graham. But they did not understand the conditions in 
 Iowa. The farming in New England and Iowa was so different that 
 it put them at a great disadvantage. 
 
 I noticed, when I was a youngster, a man from the East who had 
 a piece of prairie land near us. He brought his horses and his har- 
 ness and his wagon, all fitted for use in a hill country out to use on 
 the prairie. He brought also his plows. He started in to break the 
 soil, and I think he broke it 8 inches deep, and he .nearly killed his 
 horses in doing so, whereas those who are acquainted with breaking 
 of the original sod would go down only about an inch and a half. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. I do not think many of our people made those mis- 
 takes. There were a sufficient number of people there who knew what 
 to do to prevent the making of such mistakes. We never did any 
 breaking after the middle of June. We did the breaking with plows 
 with a razor edge, and we cut the prairie as thin as we could cut it. 
 It was not due to any lack of energy or application or lack of knowl- 
 edge. 
 
 In following development for 40 years, and as a believer in Provi- 
 dence, I am almost inclined to think that one of the inscrutable ways 
 of Providence is to lay in the pathway of the new settler or of the 
 man who is developing any new territory every possible obstacle 
 that ever can confront him. If he sticks it out from the beginning 
 and gets over the bumps, he is good for anything anywhere. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Now, what was the class of settlers who went to 
 Wyoming ; that is the point I want to get to. Were they experienced 
 men or inexperienced men? 
 
 Mr. Mondell. We have gotten, under the 320-acre homestead law, 
 all kinds in Wyoming. We have gotten splendid Iowa farmers. We 
 have gotten some folks whom I have great respect and sympathy for, 
 who I want to see succeed, who answered that general call which has 
 been echoing throughout the country to get back to the soil, who 
 have come from town occupations, and who do not know much about 
 farming, and who were not well prepared to encounter the difficulties 
 which they would encounter in any new country. 
 
 But the good farmer has suffered almost as much as the poor one,' 
 in many' instances, because when Providence withholds the former 
 and the latter rains entirely, you can not grow a crop, no matter how 
 good a farmer you are. , , 
 
 If a man understands his business well enough and is industrious 
 enough, and has sufficient appliances to prepare himself for serious 
 drought, of course, he can get over trying and adverse conditions, 
 but conditions may arise under which the best-laid plans of any man 
 will fail and you can not help it. 
 
 Now, to show you what we have been doing under the 320-acre 
 law- 
 
440 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Raker (interposing). You did not tell us what became of the 
 Iowa farmers, and why they did not go on. I would like to have 
 that followed up. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. That is a long story, and I do not know that it 
 would illustrate anything before us at this time. 
 
 We had years of grasshoppers and we lived on short rations. We 
 had one year of drought, and then, to cap it all, we had a year when 
 it rained so continuously that we were not able to save the crops after 
 we grew them. We had about everything that a kindly and con- 
 siderate Providence could send us. Tnose people scattered, but those 
 who stayed prospered. Some who left eventually came back. They 
 left good houses and good barns. 
 
 Mr. Cantor. They abandoned them? 
 
 Mr.. Mondell. They abandoned them, in many instances because 
 they could not stay. Some of them eventually came back. 
 
 I am not comparing that country with some of the country we are 
 trying to settle now, because it is a better country; it has not any 
 better soil, but it has a surer rainfall, and it is nearer to the markets. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Are not the people getting nearer to the markets by 
 means of the improved modes of transportation? 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Yes, indeed. Now, I want to show you this- map 
 of Wyoming, which shows the designations in our State under the 
 enlarged-homestead law. We got an appropriation soon after that 
 law was passed, under which the department publishes twice a year 
 these maps, maps of each of the States where the law operates, show- 
 ing the changing designations under the law. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. What is the date of that map ? 
 
 Mr. Mondell. This map was issued under the law of February, 
 1909, which is the enlarged-homestead law, and it is the edition of 
 December 31, 1912. There is a later edition of this map, but they 
 did not evidently have any copies of it, although there is a copy of 
 the later edition on the walls of this committee room. 
 
 In the eastern part of my State the department had no considerable 
 difficulty in designating a very considerable area all at one time. 
 Now the dsignations go on gradually, on the application of intending 
 entrymen, on affidavits, and after examination of what information 
 they have in the offices here — in the Geological Survey and in the 
 Land Office — and if there is any question that can not be settled or 
 any doubt that can not be resolved from the records here a complete 
 examination is had. Gradually those areas are extending. 
 
 Mr. Kent. What has been the cost of that sort of rough estimates? 
 Has there been any especial appropriation for that sort of classifi- 
 cation ? 
 
 Mr. Mondell. I think we have increased the appropriation for the 
 survey a little, not very much, on the ground that they were doing 
 this work ; but it has not been a very extensive work. You will un- 
 derstand, they make no effort to designate these lands as being 
 mineral or nonmineral. 
 
 Mr. Kent. I understand that. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. The entryman must determine that himself; he 
 must prove the nonmineral character of the land. Except for a ter- 
 ritory that is known to be considerably heavily timbered they do not 
 attempt to, in any minute detail, determine the timbered or the non- 
 timbered character of this land. They do not even finally determine 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 441 
 
 that it is not irrigable, because the Secretary simply says that in his 
 opinion it is not susceptible of irrigation at a reasonable cost from 
 any known source of water supply. But still the entryman, down to 
 the time he gets his patent, is charged with the knowledge that he 
 must not take irrigable land or land that is covered with merchant- 
 able timber, and that he can not take mineral land except that we 
 have provided for the taking of coal land, and a good 'deal of this 
 territory, particularly in the northeast part of the State, is underlaid 
 with coal and is entered with a reservation of coal. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Our proposition is one that refers to classification a 
 good deal like that, and it has been contended that it would be vastly 
 expensive to map out such areas as you have designated. Would it 
 not be possible, in the same way, to roughly take land that has too 
 high an altitude for cultivation and roughly map it out — roughly map 
 out large areas that, for a period of, say, 10 years at the maximum, 
 would not be reasonably considered as subject to cultivation, and then, 
 in addition to that, would it not be possible to go on over the balance 
 of the public domain very roughly and classify land that might he sup- 
 posed to be more or less arable, and then have a third classification of 
 land that might or might not be arable, and treat all three different 
 classes of lands in different ways, without any very large expense? 
 
 Mr. Mondell. I have been of the opinion that a classification, such 
 as the Geological Survey has had in mind for a good many years, 
 would be very difficult to secure; that is, a general classification, 
 descriptive of character and content. 
 
 Mr. Kent. I am talking about rough classification, just as you 
 have here. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. You could say to the Secretary of Interior that he 
 might report to Congress, or he might designate and not report to 
 Congress, areas of considerable size where, in his opinion, there was 
 no immediate possibility of agricultural development. You could 
 do that, and I think the Secretary could find some such areas. The 
 area that the stockmen use who sent that telegram which I read at 
 the beginning of the hearing this morning is likely such an area. 
 They do not want even that area leased. 
 
 Mr. Kent. How do they hold their preferred rights on that land ? 
 They seem to think that they can control and operate that land 
 without having a lease. How do they hold that land if they do not 
 hold it through control ? Would it not be better that they should 
 pay a small fee and be sure that they control it legally ? 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. I would like to ask you a question right there. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Let me answer Mr. Kent's question. They hold 
 " that control by use, as stockmen generally hold it. They live in the 
 general region of the land. They have been in business a long time. 
 They have been accustomed to grazing some of their flocks in the 
 summer in the forest reserves. Those of them who can reach the 
 reserves try to get their ewe flocks into the reserves during the sum- 
 mer. In the winter they come down onto the red desert, as we call 
 it, or to the territory lying north of it and northeast of it, and graze 
 there in the wintertime. A good deal of this territory can not be 
 successfully grazed in the summer becaaise of lack of water. They 
 graze there in the winter largely by use of the snow, the sheep eating 
 the snow and getting no water all during the winter. 
 
442 DISPOSITION OB 1 GBAZING LANDS. 
 
 There are, of course, some conflicts, but generally in a friendly 
 way they adjust their respective grazing areas. But the same men 
 do not always graze in the same areas year after year; sometimes 
 they do that where there is no crowding of the range for a consid- 
 erable length of time, but there is a general use of the range by men 
 who have been using it for years and new men who go into business 
 in the community. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. You have answered what I have in mind. I wanted 
 to call your attention to this argument, which I have frequently 
 heard advanced, and that is this: At the present time the range is 
 being used by the stockmen, strictly speaking, big and little, and 
 also by the farmer. The stock of these different owners — the farmer 
 and the stockman — now frequently mingle together promiscuously 
 on the range. Each man takes potluck as to what range he is going 
 to get, and frequently the best bluffer gets the best grass. Now, the 
 argument is advanced that instead of having those unregulated con- 
 ditions it would be better to have that grazing regulated. I have 
 frequently heard that argument advanced, and I would like to have 
 your views on it. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. It is a very big problem. Ours is still largely a 
 range State. My people have every conceivable view of this thing 
 that any people on earth have. And they are very forceful and em- 
 phatic in their expression of their divers views. The control of 
 the range has been favored by some people for a good many years 
 on the theory that we were not getting the best use of the range, 
 and that in the interest of all the people and the largest production 
 of meat there should be a regulated use of the range, to the end that 
 we should get more benefit from it. It has been claimed that the 
 general scramble for the grass led to tramping down the grass in 
 the early spring in some localities and in some other localities to 
 overgrazing. It has been claimed that present methods were waste- 
 ful because they did not allow reseeding, and close cropping without 
 reseeding would, of course, reduce in the course of time the grass 
 growth. 
 
 Mr. Cantor. The methods were destructive ? 
 
 Mr. Mondell. The methods were claimed to be destructive from 
 the standpoint of all the people of the country. Will general range 
 regulation feed more steers and more sheep and give more meat and 
 more wool to the country ? That is the question that vitally interests 
 all the people of the country, because when you come to matters of 
 revenue, all the revenue you will get out of it will not amount to 
 anything. 
 
 Mr. Kent. That is the primary proposition, will the control of 
 these areas result in the production of more meat? I think we have 
 had a lot of testimony about the forest reserves, but there is another 
 proposition here about which there has been a great deal of talk, 
 and that is the rights of the settler. Can a settler get any rights 
 under this gentleman's agreement to utilize a certain patch of land? 
 He has to go out there and take potluck. Would he not be better 
 off if the range were regulated, if he were not subject to a gentleman's 
 agreement, but subject to regulation? 
 
 Mr. Mondell. It would depend altogether on what the regulations 
 were. 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 443 
 
 Mr. Kent. Similar to what they are on the forest reserve, that he 
 should have preference in cases of that kind. 
 
 If you speak of the right of the settler to range his stock — and you 
 say the settler — I suppose you mean any man who is not in the busi- 
 ness in a big way. Can a man who is trying to support a family 
 and do some agricultural work in connection with the raising of his 
 stock? 
 
 Mr. Mondell. I think there would be, unquestionably, cases where 
 that kind of man would be helped by some kind of range control. 
 If that were not true, then there would not be much of any argument 
 for range control. 
 
 But there is. another side to that, and that is the question of trans- 
 forming the range into something other than a range, and when you 
 come to that question, then I think no one can truthfully say that any 
 kind of range control that would be helpful to the stockman would 
 not, to a greater or less degree — it might be greater or it might be 
 less — check settlement and a development from range to farm. 
 
 Mr. Kent. You stated awhile ago. that you believed that there were 
 certain areas that could probably be considered, whether regulated 
 or not, as in no way liable to become irrigable land within a reason- 
 able period of years, and if that is true, that particular lot of land 
 would be legitimately considered as grazing land, under your view 
 and the views of others of us. When you have land that is on the 
 verge of cultivation you do not believe in destroying the forage on 
 that, and while you believe that should be developed as fast as it can 
 be developed, do you not believe that it should be subject to control ? 
 Would that control of that particular land interfere with settlement ? 
 That is what I want to get at. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. My constituents who signed the telegram I have 
 filed have in mind very largely the kind of land you have in mind. 
 So far as they were concerned, from their standpoint they did not 
 want that kind of land leased. There are areas in all of the moun- 
 tain States of some size which from anything we can see now will be 
 for a long time useful only for range purposes. In my own State 
 such areas are not large, because generally the territory that would 
 be recognized by all as being permanent pasture land is surrounded 
 and interspersed with lands that might eventually be or now are 
 irrigated, or lands that might eventually be or are now being some- 
 what utilized for farming purposes. I think there are States other 
 than Wyoming where there are larger compact areas possibly 
 than we have of what might perhaps be called permanent range 
 lands. Of course, the question as to what you ought to do with 
 those areas is one which men judge largely from their personal view- 
 point. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. I want to call your attention to the fact that in that 
 telegram those men did not state why the leasing is not feasible. 
 Now, in effect, those people at the present time have a lease or, at 
 least, a parole lease upon that very land. What distinction do you 
 draw between that and a permanent lease? 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Well, there is a lot of difference between a lease and 
 range control. If you mean the right, the exclusive right, to occupy 
 certain territory when you say lease, of course, when, you havfe leased it, 
 you have for the period of the lease fixed conditions in that area. If 
 
444 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 you mean range control, then a party may or may not exclusively 
 occupy a given area. His permit might be only a sort of an uncertain 
 guaranty that if the grass is there he can have his share of it. That 
 is the situation in the reserves largely. One of the difficulties about 
 that is this, and particularly in the sheep business, sheep require a 
 variety of feed in order to do real well, and there are very few 
 regions throughout our country where sheep are kept on the same 
 pasture the year around. They seek the mountain pastures in the 
 summer because the grasses are soft and juicy, and the lambs grow 
 fat and they are early ready for the market. When the ewes are on 
 that kind of pasture they give more milk. It is a very great advan- 
 tage to get into the hills in the summer. Those regions are inaccessi- 
 ble in the winter, owing to the snowfall. In our country the moun- 
 tain ranges are generally closed from the 1st of September; some- 
 times they are utilized as late as the middle of September, but gen- 
 erally not later. 
 
 Then there are these dry pastures, a large portion of which could 
 not be utilized in the summer without the development of water. 
 
 As a matter of fact, the use of some areas for winter pasture only 
 is really the most economical, because those grasses always seed. 
 They are undisturbed during the summer time.- It would be a mis- 
 take, even though you were able to fully control it, to change the con- 
 ditions under which some of the desert ranges are utilized, because 
 there you need not only the continued expansion of the roots but need 
 the continued renewal of the seed, and the only way you can get that 
 is by keeping the stock off in the summer time. It would be a great 
 mistake, on that class of ranges, even though you. were able to con- 
 trol them, to utilize them in any different way than now. Many 
 stockmen fear that between getting a permit to go on the mountains 
 in the summer and to go on the desert in the winter, or to the short- 
 grass country, and trail back and forth, they might get mixed in such 
 a tangle of red tape that it would be practically impossible for them 
 to transact their business. 
 
 Mr. Church. Now, I would like to get this in the record. You 
 have a great many forest reserves in your State, do you not? 
 
 Mr. Mondell. We have a number of large reserves. 
 
 Mr. Church. I agree with every word you have said and it strikes 
 me just right at the present time. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. I do not want to be misunderstood. I do not want 
 to be understood as saying that there is not any possible way in which 
 a limited leasing system might be worked out. Out of a good deal 
 of experience, I want to say I would not want to have the job of try- 
 ing to do it in a way that would be very satisfactory to anybody, 
 although I realize it would help certain people who are entitled to 
 consideration. 
 
 It is not altogether true that it is only the large owner who wants 
 a leasing system. It is true that the large cattle owners largely 
 favor it, and for reasons easily understood by anyone who under- 
 stands the business. I do not criticize or blame them for it. They 
 are generally very frank in their expression of their views. 
 
 There are also some small cattlemen, men with from 50 to 200 head, 
 who believe they would be benefited by leasing; generally they are 
 much opposed to anything in the nature of range control. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 445 
 
 Mr. Johnson. You have reference to the small farmer? 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Yes; the man who has some irrigated land in the 
 valley, and who has a residence and lives there and has his family 
 there and who needs an outside range that he can control, because 
 under present conditions his situation is sometimes very unfortu- 
 nate. Some of the men believe they would be benefited by a lease law. 
 
 One difficulty about that is this: A lease that would not give the 
 lessee practically complete control for a series of years would be of 
 little value to him. On the other hand, such a leasing system, we 
 must recognize, would crystallize conditions and prevent development, 
 except as you would get development in the establishment of water 
 holes, in fencing, and in possible improvement of the pastures, 
 which would undoubtedly come in many cases under that sort of a 
 system. That is really the difficulty of the whole problem. People 
 sometimes indorse bills that they say give the settler all the oppor- 
 tunity in the world, but which, as a matter of fact, do not. We 
 must realize that a leasehold law that gave the settler every encour- 
 agement he has before the leasehold is established is of questionable 
 value to the lessee. 
 
 The difficulty with the whole proposition is, that except in the 
 regions which the gentleman from California has referred to, which 
 are unquestionably grazing land, and they are' somewhat limited in 
 area — that if you give a lessee any real control the cautious small 
 stockman with his family will not invade the territory. He keeps 
 out of a region occupied with any sort of color or right of title 
 
 Mr. Raker (interposing). He is compelled to keep out. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Even if he is not compelled to keep out, men do 
 not take their families and become permanent settlers in a region 
 where they feel they are stepping on somebody's toes. 
 
 Mr. Cantor. They do not want trouble. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. You can easily develop, under certain systems, a 
 class of professional homesteaders, whose business it would be to 
 file homesteads on water holes, corrals, sheep pens, and various other 
 localities likely to bring some pecuniary reward outside of the re- 
 wards of agriculture and hard work. 
 
 Mr. Hatden. It would be your idea that in these areas which 
 everybody recognizes can not be successfully farmed, that if any 
 sort of a leasing law or a grazing regulation was put over them that 
 this professional homesteader, this holdup man, who locates the 
 water tanks ought not to be permitted to interfere with the lease, 
 if the man gets it. If the lease is any good at all, it ought to be a 
 lease of that kind ; is that your idea ? 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Let me put it in a different way. If there be any 
 place on the public domain where it is the part of wisdom to estab- 
 lish a leasing system or range-control system, it would seem to 
 follow logically that the very determination of the fact that it is 
 wise to lease or control would be bottomed in the proposition that 
 it was not inviting to legitimate agricultural development. 
 
 Now, the question is whether there are any such areas of any con- 
 siderable size that you are justified in considering. Many people 
 think there are. It is a more or less mooted question. 
 h I wanted to give a little testimony on the claim that we have been 
 ruthlessly destroying our ranges. I do not believe that at all. I 
 
446 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 have seen ranges come and go, and I have seen them apparently 
 frightfully denuded, and 1 have seen the same ranges a year or two 
 afterwards as fine as they ever were. 
 
 I do not mean to say that you can not greatly injure a range, that 
 you can not and that we have not sometimes overfed the ranges. 
 But my own personal opinion is that, take the years as they come up, 
 and by and large, as the years have gone, and all areas consid- 
 ered, I think we have fairly well and economically used our grasses. 
 
 We have to some extent used them all; that is certain, and I do 
 not think that, take it by and large, we have injured many of them 
 permanently. 
 
 Mr. Eakee. From your statement which you made a while ago, 
 in regard to the great quantity of forage going to waste in the 
 Eastern States, and your statement as to the use of the ranges in 
 the West, would you say there has been as much conservation in the 
 East, so far as forage is concerned, as in the West ? 
 
 Mr. Mondell. There has been very much more conservation in 
 the East than in the West, if conservation means conserving a thing 
 to go to waste. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Mr. Mondell, you have had enough experience to 
 know that I do not mean that. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. I would like to have your definition of conserva- 
 tion. If a complete utilization of a product in a useful was is con- 
 servation, no place on earth has had better conservation of its 
 natural growth than the range country in the West. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I agree with you on that; and have not all these 
 stock and cattle which have come from these ranges assisted in 
 building up the country and making more prosperous the farmers 
 and people living in that community ? 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Oh, yes; if it had not been for the stock business, 
 in a stock State like ours, we would. not have had much of a State. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That has been utilized for the purpose of advancing 
 the community and assisting the people. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. I think I know what you have in mind. If we had 
 not had the free range in the West heretofore, we would never have 
 had the settlement and the development we have had in that country. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That is what I was getting at. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. It has been the use, to a certain extent, of the natu- 
 ral resources of the country by the settler in the development of the 
 region, and that has been one of the great assets of the American 
 pioneer from Plymouth Rock on, and it has been no greater in the 
 West than it was in the settlement period of the East. 
 
 Here is a peculiar situation in this country. The time was when 
 we were all pioneers. Twenty-five years ago you could scarcely 
 strike a man in Congress who did not hark back to some pioneer 
 recollections of his own or of his immediate family. That has ceased, 
 so far as the majority of our population is concerned; so far as the 
 majority of our population is concerned, we have ceased to be a 
 people familiar with pioneering, and a great many of our people 
 know no more of it than the people of Europe. And yet we have 
 some as real pioneering to-day as we ever did, and we have new 
 country to develop just as we had a hundred years ago. 
 
 Mr. Church. Is not the open range necessary now just as much as 
 it ever was for the development of the West, in your judgment? 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 447 
 
 Mr. Mondell. The use of those range products is just as necessary 
 now as it ever was. There never was a time when it was more neces- 
 sary, because there never was a time when we had so much dependent 
 upon it. We never had a time when we had so much stock dependent 
 upon it, and we never had a time when we had so many families 
 dependent on it. 
 
 The percentage of stock ownership by the actual resident is greater 
 to-day than it ever has been in the history of the West. The time 
 was in my State when the people who owned the stock, largely, lived 
 in New York, or London, or Philadelphia, or Chicago, very largely. 
 To-day there is comparatively little outside ownership of live stock 
 in my State. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Mr. Mondell, you spoke about the range being fully 
 occupied, and you spoke about the resuscitation of the range. I do 
 not think anyone will deny that most of the range country that has 
 been abused will come back in three or four years. But there is an- 
 other proposition that you have not mentioned, and about which I 
 want to ask you. Do you not believe that the mortality among stock 
 is a great element in the cost and in the reduction of the capacity to 
 carry stock — the fact that the stock dies in inordinate quantities ; and 
 do you not believe that the fact is that that is, in part, caused by the 
 fact that a man does not know where he is going to go for feed, or he 
 is apt to be caught with short feed where he ought to have good 
 feed? 
 
 And if that is so, do you not believe that the open range is put to 
 its best use by giving people a certainty of knowing where they are 
 going to go for their feed? Would that not prevent this mortality 
 which frequently occurs in a herd, especially of sheep ? 
 
 Mr. Mondell. There are many people in our western country who 
 would, answer your hypothetical question in the affirmative. It is 
 true that the range business is and always has been very much of a 
 gamble. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Extra hazardous. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Extra hazardous; there is no doubt about that. 
 Losses are sometimes frightful and appalling. Just to what extent 
 you could cure that by a range control, without at the same time re- 
 ducing the output over a series of years, I do not know. 
 
 Eeally, the great losses have arisen, not so much because a man was 
 robbed of the range he had expected as because of overoptimism as to 
 the carrying capacity of the range. And further, as the gentleman 
 knows, unexpected and extraordinary storms would occur, no matter 
 what you did with the range, and that can not be foreseen or alto- 
 gether provided for in advance. 
 
 Mr. Sinnott. You were talking a while ago about not providing 
 hay. Do they depend upon grass for the winter ? 
 
 Mr. Mondell. I am speaking of Wyoming. Wyoming has or had 
 a little over 5,000,000 sheep. We have about 10 per cent of all the 
 sheep in the United States. Our sheep business in the mam has been 
 a purely range business, in which the full-grown, mature, healthy, 
 vigorous sheep have, in the main, been dependent on the range. The 
 old sheep are taken out of the herds, and the young sheep are always 
 provided for, but the yearlings and the two-year olds and the three- 
 vears olds have been dependent largely on the range, except as we 
 have hauled shelled corn onto the range and scattered that about in 
 
448 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 severe weather. Under those conditions there must necessarily be 
 losses when you have very unusual conditions, and those conditions 
 are, some of them, conditions that would not be affected by any kind 
 of range control. 
 
 Mr. Kent. My personal knowledge of the sheep business is exactly 
 what Mr. Mondell has stated. Have you not known of cases where 
 men have taken their breeding ewes to a lambing range before the 
 grass was fit, because they were afraid somebody would get in there 
 ahead of them, and their flocks have suffered ? That is the critical 
 time in the sheep business, and that critical period would be likely 
 obviated as against anything but unnatural and unexpected storms 
 and acts of Providence. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. There are certain of such kinds of losses that would 
 be obviated to a certain extent by a lease or control system. The 
 question as to whether, in the aggregate, you would greatly reduce 
 the losses by reason of such a system, unless it very largely reduced 
 the stock output is, of course, a question the answer to which we can 
 not be certain about. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Do you not believe that this question of heavy 
 losses that comes at times would be fully obviated, or at least the 
 losses would not be nearly so heavy, under a system of combined 
 farming and stock raising as contemplated by the 640-acre homestead 
 bill, than under any other system of using the public domain, even 
 under the leasing or ranffe-control system? 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Many of our large stockmen, both sheep and cattle- 
 men, have entirely changed their opinion in the last few years in 
 regard to the question of making winter provisions for their stock. 
 Many of them will tell you frankly that now that the range is cut 
 up to a very great extent, we have in the main reached conditions 
 where a man is scarcely justified in depending wholly on the range 
 for winter feed. 
 
 Last winter and the winter before, I know of a considerable num- 
 ber of large sheep men who were saved from very considerable losses 
 by the fact that they were able to buy feed from settlers who occu- 
 pied lands adjacent to their ranges. Our people are feeding more 
 and more feed as our production increases. They will undoubtedly 
 feed more and more as the area of irrigated production and the 
 volume and quantity of unirrigated production is increased. 
 
 The range business has always been more or less a gamble, and 
 curiously enough it is that much more of a gamble now with the 
 range badly cut up than it was in the good old days when a man 
 had all creation to range over. 
 
 The most severe less ever suffered in my State was in the winter 
 of 1886 and 1887. The whole State was a range. There were 
 practically no sheep; cattle ranged from the Colorado line to the 
 Montana line, practically without a fence to keep them anywhere, 
 and yet the spring of 1887 saw every stream lined with carcasses, 
 and many a great outfit cut down 40, 50, and 60 per cent by losses of 
 that winter. 
 
 Mr. Fergusson. Now, let us come down for a moment to the idea 
 of homesteading combined with agriculture. Would it not be better, 
 in the matter of preventing such awful losses as you have referred 
 to, to have this range occupied by small stockmen combining their 
 raising of stock with agriculture, as far as possible? 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 449 
 
 Mr. Mondell. My notion is, as it always has been, that in the main 
 the ideal conditions for our western country would be a condition 
 of comparatively small stock ownerships ; that even the land that 
 is only adapted to grazing purposes ultimately could be better 
 utilized by comparatively small ownerships. We still have, how- 
 ever, wide areas over which very considerable operations in sheep 
 and cattle can be carried on for many years to come. The question 
 is, speaking from the standpoint of the people there — and I do speak 
 from their standpoint, because, after all, the development of my 
 State and the prosperity of my people appeals to me more than any 
 general question of public good to all creation. As a matter of fact, 
 I think the two things are synonymous. It is a question whether, 
 as we go on with development without halting in combine with 
 certain limited leasing laws. Inhere are two sides to that question. 
 I am of the opinion that one who has given the matter careful atten- 
 tion, must come to the conclusion that any such thing as general 
 range control or a general lease law is not to be thought of unless we 
 are content to remain for the next 20 years where we are now without 
 further development. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Will you define a general lease proposition? 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Some people think what we ought to do is to give 
 the Department of Agriculture complete control over the use of the 
 grasses of the public lands. 
 
 Mr. Kent. In what bill is that ? 
 
 Mr. Mondell. The old Lever bill did that, and the old Scott bill 
 did that. Those bills had provisions under which, perhaps, all might 
 not come in immediately, but that was the basic principle of the 
 legislation. I do not know that your bill contemplates that or not. 
 
 Mr. Raker. The present bill before the committee is the same 
 as the Lever bill. 
 
 Mr. Kent. That bill provides distinctly that certain areas may 
 be withdrawn, and that the maximum period for which they shall 
 be withdrawn shall be 10 years. That is not a general withdrawal. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Of course, there is certain territory nobody would 
 thing of putting into a grazing area, because it is all covered with 
 homesteads. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Why should it be withdraAvn ? 
 
 Mr. Mondell. But when you get outside of that kind of area, I 
 think a fair interpretation of these bills — I have it right here 
 
 Mr. Fergtjsson (interposing). Before you go on, I want to recall 
 your attention to my question. With all due respect, it seems to me 
 you never have gotten to the point, and that is whether it would not 
 prevent losses to a large extent to have this area controlled by men 
 who own their own lands and who would conserve their own stock 
 by raising feed for it in the winter ? , , 
 
 Mr, Mondell. I hope 'and believe the time will come when there 
 will be no public land in the ordinary sense of the term when it 
 will all be owned by somebody and utilized in the best way that 
 economic conditions shall develop as being the most efficient. Of 
 course, there will be a long road to travel before reaching that point. 
 Nobody believes now that you could suddenly come to that condition 
 Without unfortunate results in some respects. 
 35074— pt 1—14 29 
 
450 DISPOSITION OF GBAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Do you believe that private ownership necessarily 
 brings about that result? Do you believe that private ownership is 
 more certain to lead" to proper use than a leasing system? Take the 
 whole proposition of land ownership. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Oh, my, yes. I think that in the long run a prop- 
 erly regulated private ownership is the best, but that must come 
 gradually to prevent unduly large holdings. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Do you mean to say that all the speculative holdings 
 are getting into useful hands, as far as they 
 
 Mr. Mondell (interposing). I do not know just what you mean 
 by " speculative " holdings. 
 
 If there is a condition in the sand hills of Nebraska, for instance, 
 under which in some localities it takes four sections of land to 
 take care of a family, I hope the four sections will get into the 
 hands of the family eventually. 
 
 Mr. Kent. In leasehold or fee simple? 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Fee simple. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You mean the Nebraska land ? 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Yes; the Nebraska. 
 
 Mr. Raker. It has been intimated that it is all going into corpo- 
 rate and monopolistic holdings. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. My information is, of course, not down to the 
 minute, and is not such that I could say absolutely it is thus and so, 
 but I talk with men on the train, and I see the country as I go 
 through it, and I make it my business to inquire of stockmen who 
 go down there from our country to buy hay, and my personal belief 
 is that eventually over half of that land will be retained in the 
 original 640-acre areas, that that will be the basis of it, and that 
 the areas will run from that up to a thousand acres, occasionally 
 more. In the sand hills where 1,000 acres are needed for a man to 
 take care of his family, why should he not have the thousand ? 
 
 Mr. Raker. Say a man can raise only 10 head of cattle on 5,000 
 acres, which he himself owns in fee simple, would it make any dif- 
 ference in a case of that kind, except in favor of the homesteader, 
 if the Government leased that land to him ? 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Let us make this suggestion right there. Some peo- 
 ple have been a good deal terrified for fear people would own too 
 much irrigated land. Except in some localities that fear has little 
 foundation, because nobody can afford to do that, because they can 
 not make money out of it. It takes a good deal of energy to take 
 care of 80 acres of irrigated land and make anything out of it. The 
 big stock business has already ceased to pay over a great portion of 
 our country, and is becoming less profitable each year over a large 
 area of the country, and while we do not want to encourage the 
 acquisition of large areas in individual ownership in fee simple, my 
 notion is that there is very little danger, if we are careful and reason- 
 able about our legislation, of a man obtaining and holding vast areas 
 of land for the purpose of ranging cattle and sheep over it. It does 
 not pay, if they have to pay taxes — and in our American communi- 
 ties they must pay taxes, and when you pay taxes on land and the 
 land is fit for use other than grazing, the time comes when it pays bet- 
 ter to cash in and get what the land will bring than to continue to 
 utilize it, when the largest return you could hope to get for it would 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 451 
 
 be perhaps 50 cents an acre for the grass. I do not mean to say that 
 we should be reckless in our legislation; but I do think some of us 
 overestimate the danger of large permanent ownership. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Being somewhat familiar since a boy with the country 
 in Nevada and Oregon and California, so far as sheep are concerned, 
 I want to ask you if it is not a fact that one of the troubles has been 
 that the sheepmen raise large herds and go into' the mountains in 
 the summer and out on the desert in the winter, where this grass is 
 never touched by anything except antelope, that they lost the animals 
 because of the hard winters even in that State, and in Nevada and 
 northern California? 
 
 Mr. Moss dell. You mean in the olden times? 
 
 Mr. Raker. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Oh, my; yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Now, since times have changed, I have seen men go 
 in with 15,000 sheep in the fall and drive them from the mountain 
 range back into Nevada and come out in the spring with only 800, 
 because of the severity of the winter. These men buy their hay from 
 the little farmer, and when it gets very severe weather this man gets 
 his sheep to the hay. Is that not a protection, in the long run, of the 
 range, because the sheepman's sheep do not die? Both the sheepman 
 and the farmer are benefited by being able to utilize the range as 
 well as the land adjacent thereto? 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Undoubtedly. That has been true. The more feed 
 you have in the country the more valuable the outside grass becomes. 
 Then you have the benefit of the outside grass at the time when it is 
 most useful, and you have the feed as an insurance against loss, and 
 for the purpose of getting your stock in condition, so that it is not 
 necessary to rush it to the market at a given time, without regard 
 to the condition of the market. We have always been at the mercy 
 of a fluuetuating market which was lowest at the time when we had 
 to seek it. We had no feed, and we were compelled to put stock on 
 the market in the olden days. 
 
 I want to talk now for a little while about homestead legislation. 
 I introduced a bill on that subject (H. R. 6637). Under that bill 
 the area is to be designated by the Secretary of the Interior between 
 640 and 1280 acres. The Secretary of the Interior, in reporting on 
 that and other bills, suggested that they were not in condition at this 
 time to determine as to the amount of territory that would be needed 
 for he support of a family above 640 acres, and suggested 640 acres 
 as a maximum. 
 
 " I hope that this committee will report out some kind of an en- 
 larged homestead bill on grazing lines, and I do not think that it 
 would be objectionable if at the beginning you move with a good 
 deal of caution as to the conditions of such an enlarged homestead 
 bill, so that it might work out gradually and lead only to the kind 
 of development that we ought to have — development by the man 
 who goes there for the purpose of actually establishing himself and 
 remaining there. 
 
 t But there is another feature of the situation that I want to_ par- 
 ticularly emphasize. My bill, in section 4, contains a provision I 
 think of very, great importance. In a way, we do not treat fairly 
 1 the man already in the country when we pass these enlarged-home- 
 stead bills, unless we also deal with him pretty liberally. The man who 
 
452 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 took his homestead under the old law, of 320 or 160 acres, irrigated a 
 little of it or dry-farmed some of it, his farm is there and he has 
 been utilizing the adjacent range. He needs additional pasture 
 pretty bady. He has to spend a great part of his time hunting 
 his saddle horses and the balance of his time hunting his cows. He 
 has not any pasture. In providing for new people we must not 
 forget that the man in many of our mountain States who is in the 
 worst condition now is the man who is already there and can not 
 get more land. The taking "up of the adjacent land reduces his 
 adjacent range; it does not give him any help at all in the matter 
 of getting control of range himself. 
 
 In the bill suggested by the Secretary there are three differnt 
 sections intended to help different classes of those people, and those 
 sections are very excellent in the main. But there is one difficulty 
 about them all. The bill provides for a designation as grazing 
 land, and it provides that the man who gets the supplemental entry 
 must be upon the land also designated. That cuts out about three- 
 quarters of the men already there, because they are on land that 
 they can farm a little and not on grazing land. 
 
 In section 4 of my bill I group them in one section to emphasize 
 the necessity for something of this sort; I provided that all those 
 now occupying land having adjacent range land might have the 
 opportunity to make supplemental entries, no matter how or when 
 they acquired their lands. And in order to embrace all those kinds 
 of people, without giving an additional homestead opportunity, 
 which might be objected to, I make my supplemental entries pur- 
 chase entries, providing that a man in addition to making improve- 
 ments on the supplemental area shall pay $1.25 an acre, to be paid 
 in five annual installments. 
 
 Those people do need more grazing lands. In many cases they 
 have no adjacent grazing lands. In those cases they would not be 
 helped. They might be helped in some cases by a provision under 
 which a man could make an exchange. 
 
 We need more money in the irrigation fund, and we need it badly. 
 We are not going to get any more in the immediate future from 
 bond issues, in my opinion. We can get some by these sales under 
 supplemental entries. 
 
 Mr. Church. I want to ask you one question there. Taking into 
 consideration the forest reserves in your State, Mr. Mondell, and 
 the restrictions which have been in vogue there, do you think that 
 the forest reserves and the restrictions have caused more legitimate 
 homesteaders to come in on this territory or less ? 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Well, I do not think that the forest reserves in our 
 State have had any appreciable influence one way or the other upon 
 settlement. Most of the settlements in our State are some distance 
 from the reserves. 
 
 Mr. Church. I mean within the region of the forest reserves — 
 limiting it to the territory within the reserves ? 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Well, we have not a very, great deal. We are un- 
 like some of the other States. We have not a very great amount of 
 farming land within our reserves. 
 
 Mr. Church. How could you answer that? Could you say there 
 have been more settlements within the reserves by reason of the re- 
 serves and the restrictions, or less? 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 453 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Undoubtedly less. 
 
 Mr. Church. Have the forest reserves been conducive to the pro- 
 duction of more cattle within the forest reserves, in" your judgment? 
 
 Mr. Mondell. There is a great difference of opinion in regard to 
 that. There is such a difference of opinion in regard to that that I 
 am not certain — I doubt very much whether we are taking care of as 
 much stock on the reserves now as we did on the same lands before 
 they were created. 
 
 'Mr. Church. But you are sure we have lost in agricultural pro- 
 duction within the reserves? . : .. .■■:-,- 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Undoubtedly there has not been as much settlement 
 as'there would have been without the establishment' of the reserves, 
 because any restriction of any kind, whether it is necessary or un- 
 necessary, whatever it may be, without going into that question, every 
 restriction discourages settlement. 
 
 Mr. Church. I ask you that because Mr. Pinchot stated here the 
 other day that he thought the forest reserves had stimulated legiti- 
 mate homesteading within the reserves. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. That has not been the case in our State, although 
 I can not say that that would not be so elsewhere. 
 
 Mr. Church. I am rather anxious to get an expression from a 
 lepresentative of each State on that. 
 
 Mr. Mondeuj. In the main, there is not a great deal of real farm- 
 ing land within the reserves in my State. 
 
 In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me emphasize this thought. We 
 want new settlement and new development and we want folks, be- 
 cause we can very well build a Commonwealth without them; but 
 just now one of the things we need, perhaps more than anything 
 else, is an opportunity for the small farmer and the small stockman 
 who is already in our country to get control or ownership of some 
 of the rough grazing land adjacent to his holdings. 
 
 As to those men who are not in the classes which Congress would 
 consider as being entitled to additional land as a gratuity, you will 
 iind that a great many of them will be very glad, indeed, to pay 
 the minmum public-land price. Of course, the land would have to 
 be designated before it could be purchased ; but nothing would help 
 us so much, nothing would so add. to our taxing power, and thereby 
 make easier our burdens; nothing would so help in making beau- 
 tiful these homes along the little streams, as an opportunity on the 
 part of the man already there to get, under some reasonable terms, 
 considerable areas of pasture land, up at least to a section. And 
 every dollar we can get that way would be utilized in our country 
 for the irrigation of other lands. 
 
 I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the com- 
 mittee, for having listened to me so patiently. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I desire to have inserted in the hearings a telegram 
 signed by J. M. Eumsey, president, and George S. Walker, secretary, 
 which I have received from the Wyoming Wool Growers' Association, 
 
 which is as follows : 
 
 Cheyenne, Wyo., March 10, 191}. 
 Congressman Frank W. Mondell, 
 
 Washington, D. C: , 
 
 V Leasing of the public domain for a period of years, even with provision for 
 ^.liomesteading the leased areas, would retard development of this State long 
 after leasing had been abandoned as impracticable. Threatened leasing, with- 
 
454 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 drawal of land for forest reserves, coal, oil, etc., has already caused Wyoming 
 serious losses, and if leasing is now extended to the unsettled grazing lands of 
 tlJe State, it will be a serious blow to our growth and settlement of said lands. 
 Older and more favored States of the Union were permitted to settle the public 
 lands which passed to private ownership and our people feel they should be 
 given the same opportunities and not have fastened upon them a system that 
 can not but prove obnoxious and detrimental in the extreme, and which will 
 benefit no one except the large live-stock concerns that propose to lease these 
 lands. Since leasing agitation was started a few years ago thousands odd acres 
 of land surrounding Cheyenne and supposed to be fit only for grazing, has been 
 settled by dry farmers and the country is blossoming as the rose. Under a 
 leasing, under a system, this section still would be utilized only by a few 
 wandering head of cattle. What is true of this part of the State also is true 
 of other sections of Wyoming. Agriculturists of the East who seek homes 
 in Wyoming, our business and professional men, and others, save a few live- 
 stock outfits seeking to monopolize large areas for grazing purposes, are opposed 
 to any form of Federal leasing, and you are respectfully urged to do everything 
 in your power to prevent the passage of the Kent or any other so-called leasing 
 measure. 
 
 Wyoming Wool Growers' Association. 
 
 J. M. Rumsey, President. 
 
 Geo. S. Walker, Secretary. 
 
 I also present for the consideration of the committee a letter 
 signed by L. E. Vivian, president, and W. W. Daley, secretary, of 
 the Carbon County Wool Growers' Association, confirming telegram 
 which was placed in the record of the hearings day before yesterday 
 and an additional statement in opposition to the passage of leasing 
 legislation, as follows : 
 
 Carbon County Woolgrowers' Association (Inc.), 
 
 Rawlins, Wyo., March 9, 1914. 
 Hon. F. W. Mondell, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 Dear Mr. Mondell : After a meeting lasting throughout the day of the sheep 
 men of the Carbon County Woolgrowers' Association, we wired you as follows: 
 " Carbon County woolgrowers in meeting assembled to-day are opposed to 
 leasing of public domain for the reason that their livelihood is at stake. The 
 range now used by the sheep in Carbon and Sweetwater Counties, and a large 
 portion of Fremont and Natrona Counties is absolutely fit for nothing else, and 
 a large percentage of the public domain can only be used when snow is on the 
 ground. The sheep have to be trailed great distances to the ranges for the 
 various seasons, as you know. We feel that it would be a simple matter to 
 convince a congressional business committee that it is not feasible to lease 
 these ranges and still maintain the business. The increased cost of running 
 sheep on account of forest-reserve fees, compulsory winter feeding, etc., have 
 already made the business one of questionable profit. Letter follows. 
 
 " J. H. Clause. " H. Rasmussen. 
 
 "A. F. Thode. " Louis Seaverson. 
 
 " F. A. Hadsell. " Ernest Sundin. 
 
 " Wm. Daley. " E. M. Tierney. 
 
 "John J. Cullen. " L. E. Vivian. 
 
 " R. H. Hopkins. " Wm. A. McKay. 
 
 "J. M. Rumsey. "John A. Donnell." 
 
 " R. C. Middlewood. 
 We beg to impress upon you that the commercial life of this community 
 and of Carbon and Sweetwater Counties is dependent upon the sheep industry, 
 and there is no way in which thoughtful men can figure that the range in 
 Carbon, Sweetwater, Natrona, and Fremont Counties can be leased without 
 annihilation of the sheep industry. 
 
 Carbon and Sweetwater Counties are arid counties absolutely, and can be 
 used for nothing but the sheep business. Wherever there is a valley, such as 
 Snake River Valley and the Platte, the raising of cattle is pushed to the full 
 extent of the possibilities. 
 
 In Carbon and Sweetwater Counties, as well as the others mentioned, feed 
 may this year be good in one place and absolutely afford no use another season, 
 so allotments that would permit the industry to live would be impossible. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 455 
 
 Ar least five years ago, when we were having active conferences with the 
 Forestry Department, the able assistant chief forester, Mr. Potter, stated, that 
 probably the only way a lease proposition Could be exercised in Carbon and 
 Sweetwater Counties would be so much per head for the sheep going on the 
 range and the leaving of it ' open as it is. If under any other arrangement 
 probably the industry could not live, and if the sheep industry was unable 
 to live there is nothing that would take its place in this arid country. 
 
 It is also a fact that the expenses of running and raising of sheep have 
 grown so rapidly within the last few years as to make the expense account 
 a burden to the industry. The forest reserve fees are a heavy expense, like- 
 wise the necessary feeding of sheep in the winter, and the compulsory pur- 
 chase of the Union Pacific lands within the land grant of the Union Pacific 
 has made the burden so heavy that profits in the business are questionable. 
 Any further burden placed upon the industry means annihilation. 
 
 We urge and appeal to you to make an untiring fight against the leasing 
 of the public domain that we, the pioneers of the country, devoting our lives 
 and means to its development wherever it is possible, may live, and that the 
 chief industry that has built the towns and interests in Carbon and Sweet- 
 water Counties, as well as the others mentioned, may still continue to exist. 
 Yours,, very truly, 
 
 Carbon County Wool Geowees' Association, 
 
 L. E. Vivion, President. ■ 
 
 W. W. Daley, Secretary. 
 
 I also present for your consideration a letter signed by Charles 
 Miller, president of the Rawlins Board of Trade, setting forth con- 
 ditions in the territory tributary to Rawlins, Wyo., giving reasons 
 in opposition to leasing legislation, as follows: 
 
 Rawlins Board or Trade, 
 
 Rawlms, Wyo., March 10, 1914. 
 Hon. F. W. Mondell, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. 0: 
 
 Dear Me. Mondell : The attention of the members of the Rawlins Board of 
 Trade has been called to the action proposed to be taken by the present ad- 
 ministration in regard to the leasing of the public domain. This is a matter 
 in which the merchants and residents of the city of Rawlins are vitally inter- 
 ested, owing to the fact that the principal resources of this section consist of 
 the stock industry. Failure for the stockmen means loss of business and 
 financial embarrassment to the citizens of this community generally. 
 
 There are several reasons why any action tending to prevent free use of 
 the public range would be in derogation of the interests of the stockmen of 
 this vicinity. 
 
 1. The National Government many years ago granted to the Umon Pacific 
 Railway Co. a right to acquire title to the alternate sections embraced in a 
 strip of land extending 20 miles on either side of its railroad. In accordance 
 with the teims of the grant the railway company acquired title to these 
 alternate sections. At that time the land was practically valueless. As late 
 as 20 years ago these alternate sections of railroad land could not have been 
 sold for 20 cents an acre. While these conditions existed stock were allowed 
 to range over these railroad sections as freely as over the public domain. 
 The time arrived when the railroad proposed to prevent stock from ranging 
 upon its land, and thereby it obliged the stockmen to purchase its alternate 
 sections. ' Necessity alone forced the stockmen to make the purchase, as they 
 realized that by reason of the way in which these sections were located, alter- 
 nating with Government sections, that exclusive use of the Government sec- 
 tions by outsiders might destroy the value of their own railroad sections for 
 grazing purposes. The stockmen were finally forced to buy, however and to 
 rely upon the belief that the Government would continuously grant to the 
 western settlers the same privileges that it had always granted to the set- 
 tlers in the United States from the earliest history of the country, to wit, the 
 right of the unlimited use of the public domain. These stockmen now hold 
 the alternate railroad sections to a large extent, and if a leasing law for the 
 public domain is adopted by Congress, it will place these stockmen m the 
 position where they will have to add additional burdens to their already 
 
456 DISPOSITION OP GBAZING LANDS. 
 
 heavy expense of maintaining a business or lose the benefit of their investment 
 in the railroad sections. 
 
 Second. In Carbon, Sweetwater, and Natrona Counties, in this State, ex- 
 perience of many years has demonstrated that storms are by no means general 
 in their operation. A strip of country 10 miles wide may during the winter 
 months be covered with 2 or 3 feet of snow, while a strip of country adjacent 
 thereto would have no snow upon it. During this existing winter the lands 
 north of the Union Pacific Railroad and west of the Continental Divide have 
 • been covered with snow, while the lands east of the Continental Divide and 
 north of the railroad, extending as far east as the Platte River, have practically 
 had no more snow than usual. Under existing conditions, when snow be- 
 came too deep in one section, the stockmen have been able to drive their 
 sheep to other .sections of the country embraced, in the public domain. If the 
 leasing law,, as proposed, is put into effect, no stockman would have the right, 
 in the. event that snow covered his range, ,to drive his stock from his snow- 
 covered and inaccessible ranges to other sections of the public domain which 
 were open, free from snow, and good for grazing purposes. If he attempted 
 such action, he would be trespassing and would be soon involved in a T lawsuit 
 
 The stockmen of Carbon County- generally are obliged to use the forest 
 reserve during the summer months, as other portions of the public domain 
 generally are not supplied wi,th ,water. . For the privilege of using the forest 
 reserve a gracing fee is imposed. The stockmen of this section are also 
 obliged to go into Colorado to graze their stock, the forest reserve used by 
 this section extending over both Colorado and Wyoming. The State of Colorado 
 taxes the stock so driven into it for. two or three months during the summer for 
 taxes for the full year based upon the value of the stock as assessed against all 
 stock in Colorado. The stockmen during the same year have to pay full year's 
 taxes in Wyoming. They are thus obliged by reason of the creation of the re- 
 serves to go to the additional expense of the forest-reserve fee and the Colorado 
 taxation fee. In the event that public-leasing law is adopted, there would be 
 imposed an additional fee for .this purpose. The business of the stockmen is 
 rapidly reaching a point, owing to the increase in expenses and the nonadvance- 
 ment in prices for the stock and products of the stock, where a deficiency will 
 stare the stockman in the face each year. ,. 
 
 Conditions in the sheep business, which is the principal stock-raising busi- 
 ness of Carbon County, are now such that the; payment of an additional fee, 
 by reason of the leasing law, would tend to render the business of raising 
 sheep prohibitive. During the past winter the heavy snowfall has, involved 
 expense of feeding the sheep and cattle, which is so heavy that there are no 
 prospects of any returns in the business for the coming year. The price paid 
 for wages, provisions, and materials used in the business are as high as ever, 
 if not higher. The charges for taxation and forest-reserve fees are increasing 
 each year. The price for wool is low. The price for mutton is not above 
 normal. Under these conditions the creation of an additional burden will un- 
 _doubtedly result in the bankruptcy of some of those now engaged in the sheep 
 business. 
 
 The termination of the sheep business , in this country would mean that 
 practically the only use to which the public domain can be put would be ended 
 through inability of anyone to handle stock upon it and obtain a reasonable 
 return upon his investment. The termination of the sheep business means heavy 
 loss and depreciation in the value of real estate in this city and loss. to the 
 merchants and those engaged in business, either as owners or employees. 
 
 Under these conditions we respectfully submit that every effort of our con- 
 gressional delegation should be given to prevent the passing of a public-leasing 
 law, as it would be detrimental to our interests. We therefore respectfully 
 ask that you will do your utmost to prevent the adoption of any legislation 
 such as is now proposed along these lines. 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 [seal.] Rawlins Board of Trade, 
 
 By Ch^.s. Miller, President. 
 
 Attest : 
 
 E. A. Dueant, Secretary, 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 457 
 
 . I also present an editorial from the Colony Coyote, of Colony, 
 Wyo., dated February 25, 1914, opposing the passage of leasing 
 legislation : 
 
 [The Colony Coyote, Feb. 25, 1914.] 
 
 SHALL WE SUBMIT WITHOUT OPFEBING ANY PROTEST? NOW IS THE LAST CHANCE 
 
 TO SPEAK AGAINST THE GRAZING LEGISLATION WHICH THE CATTLE, HORSE, AND 
 SHEEP BABONS WOULD FORCE UPON US. 
 
 No piece^ of legislation ever proposed lias been of as much importance to 
 the West as the proposed grazing law which is soon to be taken up by Congress. 
 If passed it will put a seal upon the development of the West. It will effect- 
 ually reserve this vast semiarid region as a stock range for the wealthy few 
 who are in a position to make use of it, and the homesteaders will disappear, 
 leaving behind all their present bright prospects to seek a home elsewhere. 
 
 We people of the West know how the large outfits manage the public domain 
 if, given a chance. We know how they welcome a homesteader. We know 
 ft^t the settlement of the public domain means an end to their profitable monop- 
 oly of the free, range. We know that if given this opportunity they will drive 
 out. the small stockman, the homesteader, the farmer, and will divide up the 
 range among themselves as in days of old. Do we want it? 
 
 ■ These wealthy stockmen have employed convincing speakers to go to Wash- 
 ington and present their side of the matter to the Public Lands Committee, 
 and they have used their influence to make people believe that the legislation 
 they propose will be of benefit to homesteaders and small stockmen. Some of the 
 Members of Congress are from the West, understand the conditions, and know 
 what would happen if the Lever grazing bill were passed. Most of them do 
 not. 
 
 The House Committee on the Public Lands has set March 3 as the dats.on which 
 they will hear any who wish to present objections to the Lever grazing bill, or 
 to offer protest to its passage. It is now or never and unless the homesteader* 
 and > small stockmen of this country want to confine their operations entirely 
 to their own land and have immense herds of stock ranging all around them 
 they should sit right down now and write a letter to their Congressman or 
 Senator asking that the Lever bill be killed. People in Wyoming should write 
 Hon. F. W. Mondell, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Full information concerning this bill can be obtained from this office by 
 calling, or upon receipt of stamp to cover postage. 
 
 I also present an editorial from the Snake River Sentinel, of Baggs* 
 Wyo., in favor of the grazing-homestead bill, introduced by me, and 
 stating why its passage would be helpful : 
 
 [Editorial in the Snake River Sentinel, Baggs, Wyo.] 
 THE STOCKMAN'S HOMESTEAD. 
 
 There is now before Congress a bill introduced by Mr. Mondell providing 
 for a grazing homestead of not less tha 1,280 acres, and there are other bills 
 providing for various things looking to the development of the great West. 
 Out of these numerous measures let us hope that Congress will have sufficient 
 wisdom to evolve an act that will make it possible for a settler to take sufficient 
 acreage of public land to keep himself and family in the stock business. Of 
 real good grazing land it is probable that 640 acres would make a living for 
 a small stockman. , 
 
 From all that we are able to learn, the Interior Department will favor a 
 640-acre homestead and urge that it be passed by this session of Congress. 
 If such a law is passed practically all the public land will pass into private 
 ownership during the next decade. The best of it would be taken very rapidly, 
 as it would afford an opportunity for thousands of small tenant farmers 
 throughout the Middle West to locate upon a tract of land large enough to 
 insure him independence for life; with good management it would make him 
 a comfortable living from the start, provided he had sufficient means to procure 
 a few head of stock. 
 
458 DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 With the public lands m private ownership there is no question but that 
 the capacity of the range lands of Wyoming for carrying stock would be more 
 than doubled and there would be a tremendous increase in the production of 
 live stock of all kinds. When our lands are fenced and the grasses properly 
 conserved, feed will be doubled and trebled. There will also be much less 
 loss from the storms of winter, the loco of spring, and the depredations of 
 wild animals. Incidentally, the wealth would be enhanced. (Mart Christensen, 
 editor. ) 
 
 I also present a letter from Paul S. Kichards, who has had much 
 experience with western live-stock business and development and who 
 is a recognized authority on these subjects, in favor of the grazing 
 homestead bill introduced by me, which is as follows : 
 
 Western Ranch Exchange, 
 Douglas, Wyo., March 8, 1914. 
 
 Hon. Prank ,W. Mondell, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Dear Sir: I see that hearings on your grazing homestead bill began on 
 March 3. If possible I wish that you would advise me as to what you consider 
 the probable fate of this bill. I should also be greatly obliged if you would 
 send me a copy of the bill which Secretary Lane has fathered as a substitute 
 for your bill. 
 
 I wrote an article entitled the " Golden Fleece " some time ago, which was 
 published in the Forum, and was later commented on at length in the Review 
 of Reviews, and have had it In mind to write another on " Grazing homesteads 
 and our meat supply." If there is a published report of the hearings on your 
 bill I should be very grateful If I might receive one. 
 
 I believe that your bill embodies the best medicine that was ever mixed for 
 the range country. With best wishes for Its success, I am, 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 PAtu, S. Richards. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. A. A. JONES, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE 
 
 INTERIOR. 
 
 The Chairman. Gentlemen of the ' committee, we have invited 
 Assistant Secretary Jones to come before us this morning, and I 
 think it might not be out of place to tell him of the progress of things 
 here. 
 
 As you know, Mr. Secretary, several weeks ago a hearing was 
 ordered on H. R. 9580 and H. R. 10539. The Kent bill is a leasing 
 bill and the Fergusson bill is an enlarged homestead grazing propo-. 
 sition. We have had extensive hearings, having had statements from 
 the cattlemen and others regarding the conditions there, and pre- 
 senting their views of the matter, and Mr. Fergusson has likewise 
 presented at great length the views of his people, and we have had 
 before us your report on the enlarged homestead grazing bill and 
 your substitute bill, with your views in regard to the matter. 
 
 Our minds, T think I may properly say, have drifted along two 
 lines : First, I think it is in the minds of at least some of us that we 
 would like to know whether there is such a thing possible as to 
 divide the land clearly agricultural from that which is clearly graz- 
 ing, and that which is neither. And granted that that could be done, 
 we were anxious of course to have the views of the department with 
 reference to the administration of it and likewise with reference to 
 what sort of law or regulations might be applied in each particular 
 case. 
 
 Mr. Kent. I think it should be mentioned that the view held by 
 members here who favor a leasing bill is that there should be three 
 classes in anv land classification. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 459 
 
 <■ The Chairman. That was my suggestion, and the question which 
 arose here in substance, was, first, whether it was possible for the 
 department to lay off certain areas which had agricultural possi- 
 bilities, and second, was it possible to lay off areas which, from 
 geographical or other reasons, were impossible of agricultural de-' 
 velopment, and also, third, might there not be a classification made 
 of lands that were in doubt, and allow a certain period of time after 
 which the remainder might be covered into the leased area. And it 
 was our thought that we should not have such a detailed or critical 
 classification which should require a great deal of time. 
 
 Mr. Kent. As a matter of course, if such a rough classification 
 were made, it should not in case, in any ultimate case, exceed the 
 limit of the maximum length of time of the lease which, by this bill, 
 is 10 years. At the end of 10 years it would be automatically sub- 
 ject to reclassification, all of it. 
 
 The Chairman. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, I believe before I undertake to answer 
 the question that I ought to make some explanation to the com- 
 mittee as to why the Department of the Interior has not made an 
 official report on the Kent bill. 
 
 Last summer the Department of the Interior was requested by 
 the Department of Agriculture to name a committee to meet with a 
 like committee from the Department of Agriculture for the purpose 
 of considering the leasing idea. A committee from the Interior 
 Department was named, and after it was named, I got into communi- 
 cation with the Department of Agriculture, and asked to be advised 
 as to the person who would call the committee together. I was ad- 
 vised that the Department of Agriculture would attend to that and 
 see that the committee were convened. 
 
 Nothing further was heard of the matter until the 5th of January. 
 On that day I received a letter from the Department of Agriculture 
 wishing to know if it would be convenient for our committee to meet 
 with their committee the next day. It was not convenient, but we 
 did meet on the 7th of January. We were in session probably an 
 hour and a half or two hours, and the trouble seemed to be that we 
 were lacking information, and after making some arrangement for 
 securing additional information, we adjourned. There was no 
 further meeting until the 17th of February, and some additional in- 
 formation had been obtained at that time, but it was rather meager. 
 
 Knowing then that this committee was intending to have hearings 
 upon these matters, and that various people would be here, we 
 thought it advisable to defer making a report until after we should 
 have had the benefit of the testimony which might be produced here. 
 We thought it advisable to get all the light on the subject that we 
 could. That will explain why the report has not been made. 
 
 I have, in a very cursory way, tried to keep track of the proceed- 
 ings before this committee, and I think I have a general idea of the 
 testimony which has been presented here, but no critical examination 
 of it has been made. 
 
 I have been thinking along these lines. There is a well-known rule 
 for constructing a statute, and that is that you first try to ascertain 
 the mischief which existed before the statute was passed, and then 
 ascertain the remedy which was sought to be applied. 
 
460 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 I have had more experience in construing statutes than I have had 
 in constructing them, but it seems to me that in the construction of a 
 statute the same general principles should underlie the efforts made; 
 that we should first ascertain the mischief which exists, and then, 
 secondly, get a remedy, if possible, to meet that difficulty. 
 
 Now, as to the mischief which exists in this situation, it seems to 
 me we are all practically agreed. Some of the witnesses have given 
 more emphasis to certain phases of the situation than others. But 
 generally speaking I think that we all recognize that along two gen- 
 eral lines there is an existing mischief. We know that the prices of 
 commodities have been increasing, the cost of living has increased, 
 especially the meat supply, and we also are advised, and I think cor- 
 rectly so, that the western ranges are not put to the best use to which 
 they might be put for the purpose of increasing the production of 
 beer cattle. 
 
 We also notice that a number of citizens of the United States have 
 been going out of our country for the purpose of making homes in 
 Canada, and engaging in agricultural pursuits there. We notice also 
 that the making of homes upon the remaining public lands has been 
 arrested. While applications for homestead entries under existing 
 laws are now being made at the rate of about a little less than 60,000 
 a year, we observe that the people who are making those homestead 
 entries, in many cases, are not prospering. We have noticed many 
 failures. 
 
 Mr. Church. We had a record here yesterday which showed that 
 there were 138,000 applications made during the year 1913 for home- 
 steads, and some one volunteered the statement that that was the 
 greatest number that had ever been made in any one year. Is that 
 correct ? 
 
 Mr. Jones. I think the information is not correct. 
 
 The figures which I gave were given to me by Commissioner 
 Tolman yesterday or the day before. But we know that these home- 
 steaders are not prospering as they should. 
 
 Now, the question is, Where is the mischief? That the public 
 domain is not being used to the best advantage has probably been a 
 known fact since there has been a public domain. And that until 
 recent years the purpose of the Government has been not to itself 
 utilize the public domain, but to establish homes upon the public 
 domain. 
 
 Since 1801 the settler upon the public domain has had some kind 
 of a preference right, and the purpose of all legislation since that 
 time has been to establish upon the public domain prosperous homes. 
 It was so with the preemption law of 1841, and you will doubtless 
 remember that in 1852 it became a political question as to whether 
 or not public lands should be given or should be used only for the 
 purpose of supplying proper free homesteads. That agitation sub- 
 sequently resulted in the homestead law. And, as I take it, the 
 general purpose— all the testimony which I have read from the 
 people who have appeared before you seems to bear out the idea- 
 should be the establishment of homes. They are not agreed as to 
 the method, and the proposed leasing law seems to be put forward 
 simply as a temporary matter rather than as a permanent policy of 
 the country. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 461 
 
 Now, the question which it seems to me is presented to the com- 
 mittee is whether you shall not undertake at this time to deal with 
 the permanent disposition or utilization of the public domain, or 
 whether you will simply deal only with the temporary use of it. 
 
 I think it appears by "all of the testimony that there is a con- 
 siderable area of country which is suitable only for grazing. I believe 
 the general consensus of opinion seems to be that upon such lands 
 it will require from 20 to 30 or 40, and in some cases, 50 acres of that 
 land to support an animal. The testimony does not seem to be clear 
 as to what shall be the permanent disposition of such lands. It is 
 admitted, I think, that the 640-acre homestead law will not apply 
 to a considerable area of the public domain. 
 
 Now, it is not contended, I believe, that we ought to adopt as a 
 permanent policy the leasing of those lands. Some may have con- 
 tended for it, but all who have done so have based their remarks 
 upon the theory that we can not discover at this time a proper way 
 of getting those lands into such use as shall mean the permanent 
 establishment of homesteads. 
 
 I am not disposed to believe that the difficulties are insurmountable. 
 The only objections which I have seen to getting those grazing lands 
 into permanent homesteads have been two : First, that we do not know 
 the future agricultural possibilities of these lands; and, second, that 
 it is unwise to get such a large body of land into a single ownership 
 as would be necessary to support a family. Those are the only two 
 objections that I have seen suggested. Now, as to the first, the 
 unknown future agricultural value, it seems to me that that can be 
 met. I believe we are all of the opinion that the grazing value of the 
 land, or the value for agricultural purposes, could not be enhanced, at 
 the outside, more than 100 per cent of its present value for grazing 
 purposes. 
 
 As to the agricultural lands, or the possible irrigable lands, they 
 could be taken care of in this way : You could, in passing a grazing 
 homestead into private ownership, provide that the Government 
 should have the right at any time in the future, to take those lands 
 for irrigation purposes upon the payment of the then value for graz- 
 ing purposes, or, the then value for agricultural purposes, other than 
 irrigation purposes. If that were done it seems to me that that 
 objection would be overcome. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Mr. Secretary, would not that include such improve- 
 ment as the tenant or the owner might have placed upon those homes ? 
 !■ Mr. Jones. Certainly; if it were necessary to take any improve- 
 ments, those should be paid for. 
 
 '-_ . And I might go further and state that if it is the desire to protect 
 the home maker to the full extent, so as not to deprive him of any- 
 thing or to injure him, from the fact that he would be required to 
 find another home; you might add an additional percentage as a 
 profit which he might make upon the transaction, because the then 
 value of the land for irrigation purposes would be so much greater 
 than for any other agricultural use that we could very well afford 
 to be liberal with the home maker. 
 
 i Now, as to the objection that such a large area — say four, six, or 
 eight sections of land— should not be in private ownership, I have 
 never heard advanced any good reasons for that, because we know 
 that an acre of such land is not worth and will not sell for as much as 
 
462 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 a square foot of land in many of the residence sections of the city 
 of Washington. So that, so far as accumulating wealth in the 
 hands of any one individual is concerned, it seems to me it would 
 not have that effect. It could not have the effect of creating a 
 monopoly, because the stock-raising or farming industry in this coun- 
 try is so large that no man can obtain a monopoly of it. 
 
 If a man had even 25,000 or 50,000 acres of land, in no sense could 
 he build up a monopoly in the raising of live stock. 
 
 Now, the leasing system, as I say, is only temporary in its nature. 
 There are objections to it as a temporary measure. I believe that all 
 economists agree that the smallest unit of successful operation of 
 an enterprise of this kind is the most profitable one. The man who 
 has a sufficient body of land on which to make his business successful 
 will make it much more successful and more productive relatively 
 than the man with a large area. 
 
 The natural tendency in the West, and especially in New Mexico, 
 where we have a great many private land grants to deal with, has 
 been to divide those large holdings, and it is noticeable there — I 
 think generally throughout the State — that the man with the smaller 
 area is getting more out of it in proportion than the man with the 
 large area. The man with a small area will manage in many ways to 
 
 fjet more out of his property. He will develop the water in different 
 ocalities, so that the cattle will not have to go so far for it. He will 
 build trenches out of little draws so that the water will spread over 
 a considerable area and increase the grazing capacity, or perhaps 
 enable him to grow some forage crops upon it. He will take better 
 care of his animals, he will breed them up better, he will get a 
 larger percentage of increase than a man handling live stock on a 
 larger scale. 
 
 Now, the leasing system will not, in my opinion, tend to bring 
 about the most desirable condition, for some of the reasons which 
 I have mentioned. A lessee will not devote his whole time or his 
 best effort in increasing the productiveness of the property as he 
 would if he owned it. The proposed leasing law seems to contem- 
 plate the leasing of these lands and tracts of very much larger area 
 than is necessary to support a family, and to that extent would not 
 tend to produce the highest and best result. 
 
 So, after all, if we can so frame a measure as will tend to the estab- 
 lishment upon the public domain of permanent homes, we will have 
 followed out what has been the general policy of this country, at 
 least since 1801, and unless there be some controlling reason to change 
 that general policy it seems to me that it is not advisable, because 
 that policy was built up after much thought and after long years of 
 experience. 
 
 As I said a while ago, I think this is the first time, or, rather, the 
 agitation of this measure some years ago was the first time, that an 
 attempt has been made to have the Government itself control the use 
 of the public domain, notwithstanding the fact that since we have 
 had a public domain it has not been used to its fullest capacity or put 
 to its best use. 
 
 For instance, for years the grazing lands of the country were only 
 utilized by the buffalo, with some scattering herds of other animals, 
 and no attempt was made by the Government to use that to any 
 better advantage, but it satisfied itself by the building of homes. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 463 
 
 And I think that the present greatness of our country is a sufficient 
 testimonial to the wisdom of that policy. 
 
 •Now, as to the question which the chairman asked me, I believe 
 might reply in this way: There are large sections of the West 
 where, owing to the climatic conditions, the lands are not suitable 
 for any purpose other than for grazing. Owing to those same con- 
 ditions there are large areas which are susceptible to the growing of 
 some kinds of crops. There is considerable demand at the present 
 time for the land under the enlarged-homestead act. About 500 ap- 
 plications a month are made to the Geological Survey for the classi- 
 fication of lands under the enlarged-homestead act, and I think the 
 applications for homesteads made to the General Land Office are 
 largely made under that statute. 
 
 But we know that in sections where those lands are being taken up 
 under the enlarged-homestead act that the settlers, the homesteaders, 
 are not as prosperous as they should be. 
 
 This question of classification, generally speaking, it strikes me, is 
 not a very difficult one until you reach the debatable zones or the twi- 
 light zones. There it will require a considerable amount of time and 
 study to classify such lands. 
 
 \ But all the testimony which has been presented to you, so far as I 
 have observed it, relating to the administration of the leasing law 
 itself contemplates what seems to me a classification about such as 
 would be necessary in order to determine the nature of these lands 
 for grazing purposes or for entry under the Fergusson bill or the 
 640-acre bill. 
 
 I believe it is contemplated that one of the great inducements for 
 the passage of the leasing law is that the administration will have 
 an opportunity to restrict grazing to the carrying capacity of the 
 range. When you do that you must necessarily determine whether 
 it will take 20 acres to support an animal or whether it will take 30 
 or whether it will take 40 acres to support an animal. In order to 
 put a leasing law into operation, it seems to me at the very thresh- 
 old you are met with a classification of that kind. 
 
 Now, there are vast areas of land where the rainfall is above 12 
 inches, where these various crops, such as are contemplated in the 
 Fergusson bill, can be raised. The farmer will doubtless build his 
 silo, preserve that forage, and make the best use of it. 
 ■ After this hearing was ordered I thought that I would try to get 
 some information along that line and give the committee the benefit 
 of it. So I prepared a letter, which I sent to all the land-office 
 officials and to the chiefs of field divisions in the western country, 
 together with a copy of the letter to your chairman, inclosing a copy 
 of the proposed substitute bill, and asking for information upon it. 
 s I have a copy of the letter which I sent out, and I have received up 
 to date a number of answers to the questions propounded in that 
 letter. Those letters are now being tabulated in my office, and they 
 will probably be available to the committee in a short time— that is, 
 the information contained in the letters which have been so far 
 received. 
 
 I think it is the universal opinion— there may be one or two dis- 
 senting voices in the number— but practically all of those letters state 
 that the 640-acre bill will operate in a very satisfactory manner 
 throughout the various sections of the different States, especially 
 
464 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 in all those sections east of the Kocky Montains, in Montana, Wyo- 
 ming, and, Colorado, and New Mexico, and in the D&kotas. In the 
 other localities,^ according to those letters, the bill seems to be very 
 desirable, but it will probably not apply so generally as in, those 
 sections of the States which I have mentioned. I think in nearly 
 all cases the parties spefak of certain sections of their States where 
 this bill would operate very satisfactory. There are instances here 
 and there where the owners could raise crops on a portion of their 
 land and use the remaining portions for grazing purposes. I believe 
 that those letters which I have received all indicate that if there 
 should be a leasing law at all, that the agricultural lands should be 
 eliminated from the leasing districts. They, I believe, without ex- 
 ception — there may be one or two exceptions which I do not now 
 recall — express the opinion that if the homesteader were required to 
 go within a pasture, or upon leased lands, he would meet with very 
 much more difficulty than if the lands were not leased, and in that 
 way the settlement would be very materially retarded. 
 
 Now, as to the leasing itself, there are various opinions expressed 
 in these letters, and also in the testimony which has been produced 
 here. For instance, I recall now one of those letters in which it was 
 urged that if you were going to lease land at all, it should be for 
 at least 20 years, and that the area should be absolutely definite. The 
 reason for th&t, of course, is apparent. You want permanency. A 
 man would develop water upon a tract of that kind, and he would 
 build such improvements as would make himself comfortable enough, 
 and practically get out of it what a man would if he owned it, only 
 there would be still the uncertain tenure and the uncertainty as to 
 what would happen at the end of 20 years. I think every American 
 citizen, at least, feels that he would like to own something and trans- 
 mit it to his posterity. 
 
 The other extreme idea is that we shall only build drift fences and 
 grant permits. That would have some advantages over the present 
 condition, but you can see at once it would not bring about what you 
 want as a permanent condition. A man would not have the induce- - 
 ments to improve the property ; he would not develop water upon it, 
 he could not breed his herd upon that kind of a system, because he 
 would still have his cattle mixed with his neighbor's cattle — and in 
 many ways it would not meet what you want. 
 
 Mr. Fttrgtjsson. It would also be worse than the actual leasing sys- 
 tem, as to inviting homesteaders to come in and try to make homes. 
 
 Mr. Jones. It would carry with it all the objections which a regular 
 lease would cause if you have a group of people in a section of the 
 country who are grazing their cattle there; it is a case of human 
 nature. You can not avoid it. People acting under a permit, or 
 a lease would endeavor in a very reasonable way, possibly, sometimes 
 in unreasonable ways to prevent the fellow from getting in and 
 taking the best he had. I do not think there is any doubt about that 
 proposition. 
 
 If you want to lease these lands definitely and erect a fence around 
 them, why, of course, you retard settlement there, if there are any 
 lands in the area dealt with which would come within the settlement 
 laws. 
 
 My secretary, Mr. John Harvey, has tabulated the substance of 
 the replies which I have received in a very creditable form. I things: 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 465 
 
 he is entitled to considerable credit for getting this information up 
 in as attractive a way as he has, and I present it to the committee 
 for its examination. 
 •>>,, The Chairman. Might it not be well to first insert the letter which 
 
 the Secretary has addressed to the registers and receivers and chiefs 
 l of the field division, and then incorporate this abstract of the replies? 
 
 IJnless there is objection, those documents will be inserted at this 
 
 point. 
 
 Mr. Graham suggests that inasmuch as this matter is tabulated, 
 | which will necessitate a folding page to preserve it intact, that we 
 
 niake a request of the Printing Office that it shall be printed just as 
 I it is here in the tabulated form, and unless there is objection that 
 jj^ill be done. 
 '* (The matter referred to is as follows :) 
 
 Department op the Interior, 
 Washington, February 21, 191.$. 
 
 Registers and Receivers and Chiefs of Field Divisions. 
 
 s Gentlemen : I inclose herewith copy of draft of measure prepared in this 
 
 department, designed to provide for stock-raising homesteads covering an area 
 
 of 640 acres, also of letter explanatory thereof. 
 
 1 In order that the department may be advised as to the extent to which this 
 
 law will likely be availed of in the event of its passage and have such general 
 
 information with respect thereto as may be called for by Congress, you are 
 
 ieauested to promptly submit answers to the following questions (refer only 
 
 to number of question in answering) : 
 
 1. Are there vacant public lands in your district of such character as would 
 probably be applied for under this law; and if so, of what approximate area? 
 ' 2. What is the approximate area of the public lands in your district now 
 subject to the homestead laws, suitable only for grazing, and which w|U prob- 
 acy not be entered under any existing homestead law or the inclosed bill if 
 
 3. To what extent and in what general manner are lands subject to existing 
 homestead laws or the inclosed bill interspersed among the lands suitable only 
 for grazing purposes' and which probably will not be used in the future for any 
 purpose other than grazing? . 
 
 4. A bill has been introduced in Congress which proposes to authorize the 
 President to establish grazing districts upon the public lands of the United States 
 which, when established, can be modified or revoked only at five-year Pen°°X 
 the districts to be under the charge of the Secretary of Agriculture and leased 
 for grazing with the right in lessees to fence the lands leased. The bill also 
 irovides that the homestead and other public-land laws shall continue ^opera- 
 five within such districts, except that 40-acre tracts upon which ™P™| em ents 
 other than fences, of the value of more than $100 have been placed shal 1 nor be 
 subject to settlement without the consent of the lessee HJ*» J"" 1 * *» 
 should be enacted, to what extent, if any, would it retard or P^ent the settle- 
 ment of public lands in your district under existing homestead laws or the 
 
 ^XSfZ^^&FtE^**" are leased and fenced by 
 ££&%S PurpTes interfere with, hampei -or f impede > the segment 
 and entry of public lands within the areas leased; and if so, to . w bat extent 
 
 6. Which one of the following methods for using or disposing ; of ^ the : land 
 within your district suitable only for grazmg would the residents ot your 
 
 ''(af Totl^w such lands to remain as at present, uncoupled and open to 
 public general use and occupation? . . n!lto . referred to' 
 
 (6) To enact a leasing law such as the one hereinabove teferred to. 
 
 i only? 
 
 35074— pt 1—14 30 
 
466 
 
 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 (e) To have the remaining public lands classified and divided into such units 
 as will be sufficient in area to comfortably support a family, such units to be 
 subject to homestead entry only? 
 
 7. Considering the difficulties which would be involved in classifying the 
 lands as above indicated and the objections which may exist to the operation 
 of a leasing law as above suggested, do you think it advisable to enact the 
 inclosed 640-acre stock-raising bill and permit the same to be in operation for 
 one or more years prior to the enactment of other legislation seeking to control 
 the use or disposition of the remaining public lands? 
 
 Any other suggestions or comments which may occur to you or which you 
 may receive should be reported to the department along with answers to the 
 foregoing questions. 
 
 A prompt reply will be appreciated. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 First Assistant Secretary. 
 
 Department of the Interior, 
 Office of First Assistant Secretary, 
 
 Washington, March 17, 1911). 
 
 Hon. Scott Ferris, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Public Lands, 
 
 House of Representatives, United States. 
 My Dear Mb. Ferris : In compliance with the request of the clerk of your 
 committee, made by telephone on Saturday last, I send you herewith the original 
 reports so far received in response to the list of questions submitted to the 
 chiefs of field divisions and registers and. receivers of local land offices by cir- 
 cular letter of February 21, in regard to the proposed 640-acre stock-raising 
 homestead law recommended by this department, and the bill introduced by 
 Representative Kent providing for the establishment of districts and the leasing 
 of the lands therein for grazing purposes. As will be seen from the following 
 list, replies have been received from about two-thirds of the offices to which the 
 list of questions was sent : 
 
 State. 
 
 Number of 
 offices. 
 
 Number of 
 
 replies 
 received. 
 
 Land offices: 
 
 1 
 7 
 
 10 
 5 
 2 
 
 10 
 6 
 2 
 6 
 4 
 7 
 6 
 2 
 7 
 6 
 9 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 ?, 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 S 
 
 Utah 
 
 1 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 R 
 
 
 
 It is respectfully requested that these reports be returned to the department 
 when they shall have served the purposes of the committee. 
 Cordially, yours, 
 
 A. A. Jones, 
 First Assistant Secretary. 
 P. S. — I also inclose for your use a brief tabulation of the replies received 
 from chiefs of field divisions. 
 
 Mr. Jones. We have not received replies from all of the persons 
 to whom those letters were sent, and if the committee would like to 
 have the information, as the remaining letters come in we will have 
 
ABSTRACT OF REPLIES RECEIVE^. 
 
 md er tt* law; and if so, of ^^S^XW not be entered S3 fa^^SpSS^ S e ether than ^ 
 
 •= .7. M -7 ^Sj^^a^^aSS^fe^^ - ^ 1 
 
 district of such character as , 
 
 would probably 'be applied for ™°%^ b Te" 'nlyTor"gra S ing. 
 now subject to the homestead ^srowj"^,^ am0; 
 ixisting homes 
 
 your aismci ui _»"»" J^TiJfjJS now subject to the _. 
 pted, to what extent, 
 
 Lsed 640-acre stock-raising homestead law? 
 the areas leased; and if so, to what extent? 
 
 at ^^^^ 
 
 Koh as the one hereinabove referred to? 
 facto as tn« ^ exceeding 10 86c tioiK 
 the terms last above specified to 
 
 P Wd^ m »gg» ^ oASSion of the — 
 
 which to pay for the same, 
 
 jrith interest at 3 per cent per annum? 
 
 ods for usinf 
 
 to be in operation for one 
 
 public lands? 
 
 Ether legislation 
 
 14,000,000 acres. 
 
 Practically all the vacant lands in the 
 district. 
 
 4,000,000 acres 
 
 Yes; about 500,000 acres .... 
 
 Over a million acres. More than 2,500,- 
 000 acres are of character contem- 
 plated by 640-acre law. 
 
 All; 3,500,000 acres. 
 
 No. 
 
 210,000 acres, about ?»tartk f 
 which would be applied tor. Resi- 
 dence requirements could not be 
 met on balance. 
 
 2,000,000 acres 
 
 About 3,000,000 acres... 
 
 A very small proportion would prob- 
 ably not be entered. 
 
 Very little . . . 
 
 None.. 
 
 uitable only for 
 with small 
 tracts'of agricultural lands. 
 All are grazing lands 
 
 Thousands of acres 
 grazing, interr 
 
 impossible to say. In course jol : few 
 vears 640-acre law would doubtless 
 take most all the land. 
 
 Entirely so; vacant lands generally 
 suitable only for grazing; exceptions 
 are lands along small streams or 
 gulches. 
 
 Entire district rough and mountain- 
 ous, and lands referred to are inter- 
 spersed generally throughout drs- 
 
 Lands are suitable only for grazing and 
 growing forage crops. 
 
 Leasing law would practically stop 
 settlers from coining m. 
 
 Would be extremely detrtaental to 
 settlement of lands and of no imme- 
 diate benefit to any present resi- 
 
 l/wou'ld doubtless almost suspend 
 further settlement. 
 
 i Tt would act as an almost absolute 
 ! bar to settlement of public lands m 
 this district. 
 
 Would retard settlement to cei tarn ex- 
 tent under present Homestead laws 
 and retard very materially under 
 proposed 640-acre law. 
 
 Would undoubtedly prevent settle- 
 ment of the lands. 
 
 Yes; to a great extent. 
 
 Yes; few entries would be made. 
 
 Would impede settlement almost to 
 total exclusion. 
 
 See answer to 4 
 
 Method shown in (i) or («) would be 
 preferable. 
 
 Method (e) would meet approval of 
 practically all residents. 
 
 To sell land in restricted areas to actual 
 settlers would be preferred if any 
 
 We do, by all means. 
 
 Would very materially interfere with 
 and impede settlement. 
 
 sale l&w is 
 lr) With proper restrictions, in eon- 
 { unction with a 1,280-acre grazing 
 
 homestead law, which should not 
 
 interfere with the proposed 640-acre 
 
 law. 
 Prefer lands remain as at present than 
 
 dispose of under any method stated, 
 
 other than 640-acre plan. 
 
 Unqualifiedly, yes; 640-acre law m op 
 ation for two years would solve < 
 tire problem of settlement of vac< 
 
 If 640-acre law is tried for a few ye 
 there will be no need for leasing 
 sale law. . , 
 
 Yes; or the 1,280-acre grazmg hoi 
 stead, or both. 
 
 It would, absolutely. 
 
 157,500 acres. 
 
 All grazing and agricultural lands are 
 amply provided for under Kinkaid 
 
 No lands that will not be entered un- 
 der existing laws, 
 and'isolated-tract laws. j . , 1() ()0() acres vacant, mostly suit- 
 
 ' able only for grazing and in scattered 
 
 UO-acre tracts. Probably be sold as 
 isolated tracts. 
 
 None 
 
 None. 
 
 One-half of all vacant land of no value 
 except for grazing. One-fourth is 
 i Sv-Farm land and may some time 
 ! be profitably tilled. One-fourth 
 mixed assortment and probably 
 would pass to patent under existing 
 laws. 
 All this land will be entered under 
 
 Kinkaid law. 
 Answer to 2 appears to cover this ques- 
 tion. 
 
 Lands not subject to Rec femaHoh l Act 
 may be entered in 640-acre tracts 
 under Kinkaid Act. 
 
 Only two or three 1-section tracts re- 
 main. About 50,000 acres remain in 
 this district. 
 
 700,000 acres. 
 
 Very little. 
 
 800,000 acres. 
 
 Amount so small as to be not worth 
 considering. 
 
 All remaining lands except nriRu 
 lands are suitable only '»r fazing 
 and are of little value for that pro- 
 pose. 
 There are entire townships containing 
 but few entries. Practically all va- 
 cant land would be entered under 
 the 640-acre law. 
 500 000 or 600,000 suitable only lor graz- 
 ing; interspersed by small draws 
 and flats on which forage crops 
 might be grown . 
 
 Would not affect materially as lands 
 nearly all taken. Such a law 10 
 vears ago would have seriously re- 
 Cded settlement. Practically im- 
 possible to farm a tract within stock- 
 man'sinclosure. .. t H»~ 
 
 Strife between lessees and settlers 
 would be inevitable, but lessees hav- 
 ing the better of the argument w odd . 
 soon freeze the settlers out. I he 
 two laws could not exist in peace 
 
 together. 
 
 Would not affect lands in this district 
 to appreciable extent. ! 
 
 Serious complications would arise be- 
 tween ranchmen and settles . n 
 •unicultural districts the lands 
 should be held for actual settlers 
 or homes. Many evils would arise 
 under such a law requiring large 
 field force at great expense. 
 
 No effect whatever in 1 his district 
 
 It would hamper settlement very ma- 
 terially. 
 
 Opposed to methods (6), (c), and((J), (e) 
 not advisable at this time Lands 
 should remain subject to entry under 
 present or proposed 640-acre laws. 
 
 First choice (a); second choice («) B f™mt 
 
 Would be highly advisable to ei 
 640-acre bill and operate it one 
 more years prior to enactment 
 other legislation. 
 
 We do. It is peculiarly adaptec 
 lands of this district. 
 
 640-acre law would be a g 
 to wilder country west o 
 
 Yes- to the extent of stopping all set- 
 tlement within the leased areas. 
 
 There would be no lands to lease in 
 this district. 
 
 Answered by 4 
 
 Leasing system not favored here. It 
 stops' settlement and keeps land oft 
 tax rolls. «J) Plan preferable if con- 
 struction of term "actual settlers 
 be liberal; otherwise (o). 
 
 No need of additional legislation as to 
 this district. 
 
 (c).. 
 
 Most feasible way 
 highest bidder. 
 
 is to sell lands to 
 
 Yes; but see no objection to 640 
 law and plan ((f) being enacte 
 same time. 
 
 No answer. 
 
 This would prove undesirable, 
 there should be a repeal of law, 
 meut proceedings might have 
 resorted to. Lands in this d 
 should stand subject to norm 
 entry, or be appraised and si 
 auction. 
 
 No answer. 
 
 Would seriously retard development 
 of this section of country. 
 
 Would practically prevent homestead 
 entries and is not at all_uc3iied ; L> 
 
 Yes, to a large extent, as much trouble 
 would ensue. 
 
 Same answer as to question 4 
 
 people of district. .......... ■- . 
 
 ■ i ... .._,,... 640-acre law would 
 
 100,000 acres 
 
 600,000 acres ' | 
 
 1 600,000 acres, all of which would be 
 
 Yes -. token under the proposed 640-acre 
 
 law. 
 1 
 
 I Practically all would be applied for 
 1,800,000 acres under proposed act. 
 
 Yes; approximately 450,000 acres I 450,000 to 500,000 acres 
 
 142,000 acres.. 
 
 No 
 
 40,000 acres.. 
 
 Practically none.. 
 
 Very slight extent 
 
 Answered under question 2 | 
 
 1 
 
 All of same general character 
 
 All lands in district suitable only for 
 grazing, and practically none would 
 be used for agriculture for years to 
 come. 
 
 Mountainous lands, reasonably spot- 
 ted with "skinned" land and slopes 
 of good soit. 
 
 All land subject 
 foentrv under ' 
 be taken in less than one 
 
 Hie "leasing law would be of no value I 
 
 to this district. 
 Mo (but means "Yes"; seen). 
 
 if large tracts are fenced, homesteaders 
 will keep away. 
 
 Yes; almost to extent of shuttini 
 
 settlement entirely. 
 Yes 
 
 off 
 
 Homesteaders will keep away as they 
 do now when large tracts are fenced. 
 
 No. 
 
 No land left suitable only for grazing .. 
 10 000, but some of this might betaken 
 under proposed law. 
 
 Not to any appreciable extent. 
 
 Would only make trouble. Few 
 wuuld have the temerity to ente 
 land within an mclosure. 1 he set- 
 would be unwelcome. 
 
 None.. 
 
 No. 
 
 No. 
 
 21,400 acres. 
 
 Nil. 
 
 Practically' ail 'would be taken under 
 640-acre law. 
 
 None.. 
 
 None — 
 
 No answer . 
 
 To no extent. 
 
 ?e°rhaptaVhomesteadiaw"sno'wexiVt,' 
 leasing would not greatly impede 
 settlement. Under the 640-acre law 
 land would be taken by actual set- 
 tlers. 
 
 No answer 
 
 No effect unless made applicable to 
 swamp lands when drained. 
 
 Yes; would make settlement practi- 
 cally impossible. 
 
 No. 
 
 We think the 640-acre stock raising 
 law is just the thing for this country, 
 impossible to make living on 160 
 acres in this district. , 
 
 (a) Yes; (6) no; (c) yes;.b„t not until 
 640-acre law has been in effect 2 or 3 
 vears Land should then be sold to 
 actual settlers and adjoining owners; 
 I (c() same as to (c) ; (e) not necessary 
 in' this district. , 
 Residents would prefer method (e). . . . 
 
 640-acre law would meet with unquali- 
 fied approval of residents of this dis- 
 trict («) Yes; (0), (O, (a 1 ), and «•), 
 No. 
 Id) Seems best plan for this district, 
 'but practieallv all would be taken 
 
 under 640-acre law. 
 In our opinion it would be to best 
 interests of people in this district to 
 dispose of public lands by method 
 (c). 
 
 (a) Looked upon with favor; (6) posi- 
 tively objectionable to great major- 
 ity of people; (c) objectionable be- 
 cause it eliminates little fellow; (d) i 
 sold at all, should be to actual settle^ 
 (e) would be ideal, but classification 
 would be expensive. 
 No land suitable only for grazmg 
 (a) Unsatisfactory; (»), unsatisfactory 
 
 Yes. 
 
 "(c) unsatisfactory; (<Z) better than 
 
 The remaining 75,000 acres are scat- 
 tered in small tracts over a large 
 area. 
 
 The 21,000 acres are rolling sandhill 
 lands best adapted to stock raising. 
 
 No answer . 
 
 It would practically put a , stop to set- 
 tlement Our experience of over 2o 
 vea?s in West convinces us the stock- 
 ' ^ has no sympathy for the small 
 
 Practically all vacant land would be 
 taken under 640-acre law. w "but "indefinite and vague . 
 
 I I anything but feasible, and certain to 
 
 create great deal of dissatisfaction 
 No lands that would not ultimately be 
 | No answer j taken up under present laws. 
 
 i Present methods best, lands being lim- 
 
 I Yes ber, meadow, and swamp. 
 
 i 
 
 i No grazing lands 
 
 No answer 
 
 The passage of the proposed law 
 be a blessing to western Sou 
 kota and rapidly close up the 
 land business in this district, 
 unhesitatingly recommend l 
 sage. 
 
 Yes. 
 
 The stock-raising bill seems tt 
 tirely suitable to this countrj 
 
 Yes- then sell remaining lands 
 viduals in areas not exceedm 
 tions at not less than 11.25] 
 with 20 years in which to I 
 interest at 3 per cent. 
 
 Yes. 
 
 Would not affect this district. 
 Yes. The bill is a powerful 8 
 in favor of itself. 
 
 Yes; practically entirely j (a) or (e) . 
 
 No answer. 
 
 Do not believe such a law 
 beneficial under conditions 
 in this district. 
 
 Law would not be applieab 
 district. 
 
 Yes For Kansas the maxim 
 be 320 acres and apply onl 
 hill lands. 
 
/ 
 
 ABSTRACT OF REPLIES RECEIVE 
 
 1. Are there vacant public lands in your district of such character as would probably be applied for under this law; and if so, of what approximate area? 
 
 2. What is the approximate area of the public lands in your district now subject to the homestead laws, suitable only for grazing, and which will probably not be entered under any 
 
 3. To what extent and in what general manner are lands subject to existing homestead laws or the inclosed bill interspersed among the lands suitable for grazing purposes and whicl 
 
 4. If this leasing law should be enacted, to what extent, if any, would it retard or prevent the settlement of public lands in your district under existing homestead laws or the prop 
 
 5. In your opinion, would the fact that lands are leased and fenced by lessees for grazing purposes interfere with, hamper, or impede the settlement and entry of public lands within 
 
 6. Which one of the following methods for using or disposing of the lands within your district suitable only for grazing would the residents of your district prefer: 
 
 (a) To allow such lands to remain as at present, uncontrolled and open to public general use and occupation? ' ' | 
 
 (o) To enact a leasing law such as the one hereinabove referred to? i 
 
 (c) To sell such lands in quantities not exceeding 10 sections to any one individual and at not less than $1.25 per acre, giving 20 years' time in which to pay for the same, with interest at 3 per cent per annum' 
 
 (d) To sell such lands upon the terms last above specified to actual settlers only? 
 
 0. 
 
 jxisting homestead law or the inclosed bill 
 -probably will not be used in the future for 
 ,sed 640-acre stock-raising homestead law? 
 he areas leased; and if so, to what extent? 
 
 if enacted? 
 
 any purpose other than grazing? 
 
 (c) To have the remaining public lands classified and divided into such units as will be sufficient in area to comfortably support a family, such units to be subject to hom 'stead entry only? 
 dering the difficulties which would be involved in classifying the lands as above indicated, and the objections which may exist to the operation of a leasing law as above su, tested, do' you till 
 
 7. Considerint 
 more years prior to the enactment of other legislation seeking to control the use or disposition of the' remaining public lands? 
 
 think it advisable to enact the inclosed 640-acre stock-raisin 
 
 Wyoming: 
 Evanston. 
 
 Buffalo (register). 
 
 Cheyenne . 
 Lander. . . . 
 
 Nebraska: 
 
 North Platte. 
 
 Alliance . 
 
 South Dakota: 
 
 Bellefourche (receiver) . 
 
 Rapid City . 
 
 Timber Lake . 
 Lemmon 
 
 New Mexico: 
 Fort Sumner. 
 
 Tucumcari. 
 
 Washington: 
 
 North Yakima . 
 
 lifoenia: 
 Independence. 
 
 |ontana: 
 Havre. . 
 
 Miles City. . 
 
 |ew Mexico: 
 Roswell— 
 
 (Receiver) . 
 
 (Register). 
 
 OBADO: 
 
 Sterling. 
 
 D»lMBrte. 
 
 4,000,000 acres . 
 
 Practically all the vacant lands in the 
 district. 
 
 4,000,000 acres 
 
 Yes; about 500,000 i 
 
 Colorado: 
 
 Glenwood Springs 
 
 Pueblo 
 
 Hugo 
 
 Durango. 
 
 Over a million acres. More than 2,500,- 
 000 acres are of character contem- 
 plated by 010-acre law. 
 
 All; 3,500,000 acres 
 
 1,875,000 acres 
 
 None 
 
 2,000,000 acres 
 
 About 3,000.000 acres 
 
 A very small proportion would prob- 
 ably not be entered. 
 
 210,000 acres, about one-fourth of 
 which would be applied for. Resi- 
 dence requirements could not be 
 met on balance. 
 
 AH grazing and agricultural lauds are 
 amply provided for under Kkikaid 
 and isolated-tract laws. 
 
 None 
 
 Lands not subject to Reclamation Act 
 may be entered in 640-acre tracts 
 under Kiukaid Act. 
 
 700,000 acres. 
 
 800,000 acres. 
 
 Very little . 
 
 157,500 acres. 
 
 No lands that will not be entered un- 
 der existing laws. 
 
 Only 10,000 acres vacant, mostly suit- 
 able only for grazing and in scattered 
 140-acre tracts. Probably be sold as 
 isolated tracts. 
 
 Only two or three 1-section tracts re- 
 main. About 50,000 acres remain in 
 this district. 
 
 Very little. 
 
 Amount so small as to be not worth 
 considering. 
 
 600,000 acres 100,000 acres 
 
 Yes , ! 600,000 acres, all of which would be 
 
 taken under the proposed 640-acre 
 law. 
 
 Olympia (register) 
 Spokane 
 
 North Dakota: 
 Bismarck 
 
 I Minnesota: 
 
 Crookston 
 
 Duluth (register).. 
 
 |nsas: 
 Dodge City 
 
 pRTH Dakota: 
 Dickinson 
 
 1,800,000 acres 
 
 Yes; approximately 450,000 acres. 
 
 142,000 acres.. 
 
 No 
 
 40,000 acres.. 
 
 Practically all would be applied for 
 under proposed act. 
 
 450,000 to 500,000 acres 
 
 Practically none. . 
 
 No land left suitable only for grazing.. 
 10,000, but some of this might betaken 
 under proposed law. 
 
 No. 
 
 No. 
 No. 
 
 21,400 acres. 
 
 res; all lands of this district; 400,000 
 acres. 
 
 580,000 acres, not including large area 
 of unsurveyed land. 
 
 Yes; 750,000 to 1,000,000 acres . 
 
 5,000,000 acres vacant lands, one-third, 
 fit to be taken under present home- 
 stead law; remaing two-thirds pure- 
 ly grazing land. 
 
 Yes; but not possible to establish the 
 area. 
 
 Yes; approximately a million acres. 
 
 None. . 
 
 Nil.... 
 
 None.. 
 
 None. . 
 
 None. Believe all would be taken in 
 short time under 640-acre law. 
 
 We believe the lands mentioned in an- 
 swer 1 suitable only for grazing, being 
 in a semiarid region without water. 
 
 50,000 to 150,000 acres.. 
 
 3,300,000 acres. 
 
 7,760,077 acres. 
 
 3,000,000 acre; 
 
 150,000 to 175,000 acres 150,000 to 175,000 i 
 
 600,000 acres About 500,000 e 
 
 . .1 Practically all vacant land to district, 25 per cent . 
 approximately a»,000 acres. 
 
 Thousands of acres suitable only for 
 grazing, interspersed with small 
 tracts of agricultural lands. 
 
 All are grazing lands 
 
 Impossible to say. In course of few 
 years 640-acre law would doubtless 
 take most all the land. 
 
 Entirely so; vacant lands generally 
 suitable only for grazing; exceptions 
 are lands along small streams or 
 gulches. 
 
 Entire district rough and mountain- 
 ous, and lands referred to are inter- 
 spersed generally throughout dis- 
 trict. 
 
 Lands are suitable only for grazing and 
 growing forage crops. 
 
 None. 
 
 One-half of all vacant land of no value 
 except for grazing. One-fourth is 
 dry-farm land and may some time 
 be profitably tilled. One-fourth 
 mixed assortment and probably 
 would pass to patent under existing 
 laws. 
 
 All this land will be entered under 
 Kiukaid law. 
 
 Answer to 2 appears to cover this ques- 
 tion. 
 
 All remaining lands except irrigable 
 lands are suitable only for grazing 
 and are of little value "for that pur- 
 pose. 
 
 There are entire townships containing 
 but few entries. Practically all va- 
 cant land would be entered under 
 the 640-acre law. 
 
 500,000 or 000,000 suitable only for graz- 
 ing; interspersed by small draws 
 and fiats on which forage crops 
 might be grown . 
 
 Very slight extent 
 
 Answered under question 2. 
 
 All of same general character. 
 
 All lands in district suitable only for 
 grazing, and practically none would 
 be used for agriculture for years to 
 
 . come. 
 
 Mountainous lands, reasonably spot- 
 ted with "skinned" land and slopes 
 of good soil. 
 
 None 
 
 Practically all would be taken under 
 640-acre law. 
 
 No answer . . . 
 To no extent. 
 
 The remaining 75,000 acres are scat- 
 tered ' in small tracts over a large 
 area. 
 
 The 21,000 acres are rolling sandhill 
 lands best adapted to stock raising. 
 
 Remaining areas all "Bad Lands." 
 Should stock-raising bill become a 
 law, entire area would be taken in a 
 year, except few small tracts. 
 
 Grazing lands of district are inter- 
 spersed to some extent with desert 
 lands on which desert entries prove 
 failures, owing to inability of entry- 
 men to secure water. 
 
 Throughout nearly every portion of 
 this district. 
 
 Land fit for homesteading is inter- 
 spersed quite generally among that 
 suitable only for grazing. 
 
 Remaining lands are strictly 
 ing" in character. 
 
 "graz- 
 
 All nonirrigable lands, except in high 
 altitudes in the mountains, are more 
 profitable for grazing than for agri- 
 culture. 
 
 They are separate and distinct, con- 
 fined to two ranges of sand hills with 
 valleys interspersed. 
 
 interspersed with appropriated lands 
 in tlje proportion of 4 to 1. 
 
 r ^S«?3S laad sub Joot to entry 
 
 Sg tod mg Uw that fa not sS 
 
 Leasing law would practically stop 
 settlers from coming in. 
 
 Would be extremely detrimental to 
 settlement of lands and of no imme- 
 diate benefit to any present resi- 
 dents. 
 
 It would doubtless almost suspend 
 further settlement. 
 
 It would act as an almost absolute 
 bar to settlement of public lands in 
 this district. 
 
 Would retard settlement to certain ex- 
 tent under present homestead laws, 
 and retard very materially under 
 proposed 640-acre law. 
 
 Would undoubtedly prevent settle- 
 ment of the lands. 
 
 Would not affect materially as lands 
 nearly all taken. Such a law 10 
 years ago would have seriously re- 
 tarded settlement. Practically im- 
 possible to farm a tract within stock- 
 man's inclosure. 
 
 Strife between lessees and settlers 
 would be inevitable, but lessees hav- 
 ing the better of the argument would 
 soon freeze the settlers out. The 
 two laws could not exist in peace 
 together. 
 
 Would not affect lauds in this district 
 to appreciable extent. 
 
 Serious complications would arise be- 
 tween ranchmen and settlers. In 
 agricultural districts the lands 
 should be held for actual settlers 
 for homes. Many evils would arise 
 under such a law requiring large 
 field force at great expense. 
 
 No effect whatever in this district 
 
 Would seriously retard development 
 of this section oi' court try. 
 
 Would practically prevent homestead 
 entries and is not at all desired by 
 people of district. All land subject 
 to entry under 640-acre law would 
 be taken in less than one year's 
 time. 
 
 Tlie leasing law would be of no value 
 to this district. 
 
 No (but means "Yes"; see 5) 
 
 Yes; to a great extent 
 
 Yes; few entries would be made.. 
 
 Would impede settlement almost to 
 total exclusion. 
 
 See answer to 4 
 
 Would very materially interfere with 
 and impede settlement. 
 
 It would, absolutely. 
 
 It would hamper settlement very ma- 
 terially. 
 
 Yes; to the extent of stopping all set- 
 tlement within the leased areas. 
 
 There would be no lands to lease in 
 this district. 
 
 Answered by 4. 
 
 Yes, to a large extent, as much trouble 
 would ensue. 
 
 f f large tracts are fenced, homesteaders 
 will keep away. 
 
 Not to any appreciable extent 
 
 Would only make trouble. Few 
 would have the temerity to enter 
 land within an inclosure. The set- 
 would be unwelcome. 
 
 No effect 
 
 Perhaps, as homestead laws now exist, 
 leasing would not greatly impede 
 settlement. Under the 640-acre law 
 land would be taken by actual set- 
 tlers. 
 
 No answer 
 
 Same answ r er as to question 4. 
 
 Yes; almost to extent of shutting off 
 
 settlement entirely. 
 Yes 
 
 Homesteaders will keep away as they 
 do now when large tracts are fenced. 
 
 No. 
 
 Yes; would make settlement practi- 
 cally impossible. 
 
 No 
 
 Practically all vacant land would be 
 taken under 640-acre law. 
 
 No answer . 
 
 No effect unless made applicable to 
 swamp lands when drained. 
 
 No answer 
 
 It would practically put a stop to set- 
 tlement. Our experience of over 25 
 years in West convinces us the stock- 
 man has no sympathy for the small 
 farmer. Stockmen dislike to have 
 their range cut up by farms of set- 
 tlers, and would prevent settlement 
 as far as they are able. 
 
 Would retard development of district 
 and discourage hundreds of intend- 
 ing homesteaders. 
 
 Establishment of grazing districts 
 would prevent settlement to some 
 extent, because of fence-breaking 
 and crop-destruction by cattle, but 
 a considerable portion of the area, 
 owing to lack of sufficient moisture, 
 offers no inducements to settlers. 
 
 In our opinion, the 640-acre law would 
 be far preferable to the leasing sys- 
 tem, as it would work greatest good 
 to greatest number and make per- 
 manent homes. Under leasing sys- 
 tem the lands w r ould sooner or later 
 be practically under control of a few 
 individuals or corporations. 
 
 We do not favor a leasing law of any 
 kind or description. It would very 
 much retard settlement and develop- 
 ment, favor the large stockmen and 
 scare out of the settler. 
 
 Do not believe it would retard settle- 
 ment of other lands. The stockman 
 must develop water for his stock; 
 the settler as a rule can not afford the 
 expense. 
 
 See answer to 5 . 
 
 We are opposed to any grazing or leas- 
 ing bill, as not being to best interests 
 of tlie people of this district. 
 
 We are of the opinion that a leasing law 
 is not wanted by any class of our 
 people. It would retard settlement, 
 prevent acquisit ion of title, and pay- 
 ment of taxes. 
 
 Would practically put a stop to fur- 
 ther settlement. Leasing of ranges 
 would drive away settlers. Leasing 
 
 Yes. 
 
 No answer . 
 
 Yes; practically entirely. 
 
 The leasing law would undoubtedly 
 impede settlement and entry to some 
 extent. 
 
 It would interfere with and hamper 
 settlement to a considerable extent. 
 
 Yes, causing trouble between large 
 holder and small farmer, as it has al- 
 ways done in the past. 
 
 Yes; very much . 
 
 No. The stockman must develop 
 water; the prospective settler seeing 
 water would have good reason to be- 
 lieve he also could secure water on 
 his claim and would be induced to 
 file. 
 
 Leasing would interfere with and ham- 
 per settlement; such a clause in the 
 law would be impracticable. 
 
 They would to a great extent 
 
 We believe that it would to some ex- 
 tent. 
 
 Method shown in (d 
 preferable. 
 
 Method (e) would i 
 practically all resic 
 
 To sell land in restric 
 settlers would be 
 sale law is passed. 
 
 (c) With proper re; 
 junction with a 
 homestead law, ^ 
 interfere with the 
 law. 
 
 Prefer lands remain 
 dispose of under a: 
 other than 640-acr 
 
 Opposed to methods 
 not advisable at 
 should remain sub 
 present or propose 
 
 First choice (a); sec 
 
 Leasing system not 
 stops settlement e 
 tax rolls, (d) Plai 
 struction of terra 
 be liberal; otherw 
 
 No need of addition 
 this district. 
 
 W- 
 
 Most feasible wav i 
 highest bidder. " 
 
 We think the 640-e 
 law is just the thin 
 Impossible to ma 
 acres in this distrit 
 
 (a) Y'es; (6) no; (c) ; 
 640-acre law has bt 
 years. Land snou 
 actual settlers and 
 (d) same as to (c); 
 in this district. 
 
 Residents would pre 
 
 640-acre law would rr, 
 tied approval of re.< 
 trict. ' (a) Yes; (5) 
 No. 
 
 id) Seems best plan 
 but practically all 
 under 640-acre law 
 
 In our opinion it v 
 interests of people 
 dispose of public ! 
 (c). 
 
 (a) Looked upon wit 
 tively objeetionabl 
 ity of people; (c) o 
 cause ft eliminates J 
 sold at all, should b 
 (e) would be ideal, 
 would be expensivi 
 
 No land suitable onh 
 
 (a) Unsatisfactory; (t 
 (c) unsatisfactory; 
 (c), but indefinite 
 anything but feasib 
 create great deal oi 
 
 No lands that would i 
 taken up under pre 
 
 Present methods best 
 ber, meadow, and 5 
 
 No grazing lands 
 
 (a) or (c) . 
 
 («). 
 
 (o) would meet app 
 many, especially st 
 would meet appro vi 
 more if land was of 
 port a family. 
 
 Passage of 640-acre 1 
 lands to remain ope 
 
 It would be satisfactc 
 laws remain as at pn 
 then apply the 640 
 bill, making desig: 
 unnecessary. But - 
 to the enactment of 
 at once. 
 
 I am not in favor of an 
 sitions, but favor a 1 
 ting the settler to 
 pasture but requiri 
 his claim. 
 
 The sheep industry w 
 inglands to remain a 
 tie industry favorat 
 prehensive leasing s 
 leasing should be to 
 of the State. 
 
 Decidedly of the opin 
 would be preferable 
 
 (e) or id) would be 
 think the proposed 
 would best suit the 
 better for the counti 
 
 Answered in 4 i By all means plan (e) i 
 
 factory to the people 
 
I 
 
 Practically none.. 
 
 ! Mountainous lands, reasonably spot- 
 ted with "skinned" land and slopes 
 of good soil. 
 
 / No land left suitable only tor grazing . . 
 1 10,000, butsome of this might Betaken 
 under proposed law. 
 
 Would only make trouble. Few 
 would have the temerity to enter 
 land within an inclosure. The set- 
 would be unwelcome. 
 
 ' None Noeffect 
 
 Practically all would be taken under Perhaps, as homestead laws now exist, 
 640-acre law. | leasing would not greatly impede 
 
 settlement. Under the 640-acre law 
 land would be taken by actual set- 
 None I No answer I No answer... 
 
 Nil To no extent. 
 
 Yes. 
 
 this district; 400,000 
 
 including large area 
 fad. 
 
 None.. 
 
 None. Believe all would be taken in 
 short time under 640-acre law. 
 
 We believe the lands mentioned in an- 
 swer 1 suitable only for grazing, being 
 in a semiarid region without water. 
 
 10,000 acres. 
 
 nt lands, one-third, 
 ider present home- 
 lg two-thirds pure- 
 
 50,000 to 150,000 acres.. 
 
 1,300,000 acres. 
 
 le to establish the 7,760,077 acres 
 
 a million acres 
 
 3,000,000 acres. 
 
 >8 150,000to 175,000 acres.. 
 
 ; land in district, 25 per cent. 
 000 acres. 
 
 About 500,000 acres.. 
 
 )0 acres. 
 
 10 acres. . 
 
 ' farming can be 
 suted. In such 
 >e or onr million 
 
 Approximately 4,000,000 acres. . 
 
 50,000 acres.. 
 
 6,000,000 acres. 
 
 About 35,000,000 acres. 
 
 None to speak of. 
 
 140,000 acres . 
 
 000,000 acres.. 
 
 00 of 
 1,000,0< 1n - 
 ltivatio >- 
 
 Nearly 6,000,000 acres vacant land in 
 district. In my opinion 3,000,000 
 acres should be classified as suitable 
 only for grazing. 
 
 Approximately 1,250,008 acres. . 
 
 ~T 
 
 ..res, not in- 100,000 acres.. 
 
 of remaining Approximately % 
 
 The remaining 75,000 acres are scat- 
 tered ' in smali tracts over a large 
 area ; 
 
 The 21,000 acres are rolling sandhiil 
 lands best adapted to stock raising. 
 
 Remaining areas all "Bad Lands." 
 Should stock-raising bill become a 
 law, entire area would be taken in a 
 year, except few small tracts. 
 
 Grazing lands of district are inter- 
 spersed to some extent with desert 
 lands on which desert entries prove 
 failures, owing to inability of entry- 
 men to secure water. 
 
 Throughout nearly every portion of 
 this district. 
 
 Land fit for homesteading is inter- 
 spersed quite generally among that 
 suitable only for grazing. 
 
 Remaining lands are strictly "graz- 
 ing" in character. 
 
 All nonirrigable lands, except in high 
 altitudes in the mountains, are more 
 profitable for grazing than for agri- 
 culture. 
 
 They are separate and distinct, con- 
 fined to two ranges of sand hills with 
 valleys interspersed. 
 
 Interspersed with appropriated lands 
 in the proportion of 4 to 1. 
 
 There is little land subject to entry 
 under existing law that is not graz- 
 ing land. 
 
 50 per cent of mountain and hill land is 
 suitable for entry under existing 
 laws and proposed 640-acre law. Of 
 valleys and plains, suitable only for 
 grazing, not more than 10 per cent 
 could be so taken. 
 
 Greater portion of vacant land is inter- 
 spersed among grazing lands. 
 
 Under the proposed new law home- 
 steads would be interspersed among 
 the stock-raising homesteads. 
 
 Such land exists in all parts of State 
 and is distributed through and sur- 
 rounded by grazing land. 
 
 Not to any appreciable extent. Prac- 
 tically all vacant land in district 
 chiefly valuable for grazing. 
 
 any large area 
 d for under pro- 
 
 Anraoximately 408 t ownships in this 
 ^strict, exclusive of those in na- 
 tional Wests; not. probable more 
 than one-third of these would be ap- 
 plfed for under ousting laws and 
 - J act. 
 
 •esopenGovern- 
 •t. 40 per cent on 
 . ' After its pas- 
 would be under 
 
 is me cent of lands of district suitable 
 7 ^ P rJvS grazing, and unless entered 
 - under Proposed grazing law would 
 remain vacant. 
 
 Most of the grazing lands are sepa- 
 rated by themselves. 
 
 Perhaps million acres irrigable land 
 and million acres dry farming land 
 interspersed among lands suitable 
 only for grazing. 
 
 More or less in each township. Larg- 
 est body of land in district, probable 
 future use of which will be only for 
 grazing, is Steins Mountains. 
 
 Such lands distributed generally 
 throughout the district. 
 
 Approximately 29,500 acres. , 
 
 Such lands are to some extent inter- 
 spersed among lands suitable only 
 for grazing, and will probably not be 
 used in the future for other purposes. 
 
 Grazing and homestead lands not in- 
 terspersed at all. 
 
 No effect unless made applicable to 
 swamp lands when drained. 
 
 No answer I No answer . 
 
 Yes; would make settlement practi- 
 cally impossible. 
 
 Practically ail vacant land would be 
 taken under 640-acre law. 
 
 No answer. 
 
 It would practically put a stop to set- 
 tlement. Our experience of over 25 
 years in West convinces us the stock- 
 man has no sympathy for the small 
 farmer. Stockmen dislike to have 
 their range cut up by farms of set- 
 tlers, and would prevent settlement 
 as far as they are able. 
 
 Would retard development of district 
 and discourage hundreds of intend- 
 ing homesteaders. 
 
 Establishment of grazing districts 
 would prevent settlement to some 
 extent, because of fence-breaking 
 and crop-destruction by cattle, but 
 a considerable portion of the area, 
 owing to lack of sufficient moisture, 
 offers no inducements to settlers. 
 
 In our opinion, the 640-acre law would 
 be far preferable to the leasing sys- 
 tem, as it would work greatest good 
 to greatest number and make per- 
 manent homes. Under leasing sys- 
 tem the lands would sooner or later 
 be practically under control of a few 
 individuals or corporations. 
 
 We do not favor a leasing law of any 
 kind or description. It would very 
 much retard settlement and develop- 
 ment, favor the large stockmen and 
 scare out of the settler. 
 
 Do not believe it would retard settle- 
 ment of other lands. The stockman 
 must develop water for his stock; 
 the settler as a rule can not afford the 
 expense. 
 
 See answer to 5 , 
 
 We are opposed to any grazing or leas- 
 ing bill, as not being to best interests 
 of the people of this district. 
 
 We are of the opinion that a leasing law 
 is not wanted by any class of our 
 people. It would retard settlement, 
 prevent acquisition of title, and pay- 
 ment of taxes. 
 
 Would practically put a stop to fur- 
 ther settlement. Leasing of ranges 
 would drive away settlers. Leasing 
 would be mainly by well-to-do cattle- 
 men, whose policy ever has been and 
 will be to keep all settlers out. 
 
 Depends largely upon the class of land 
 included in grazing districts; if land 
 suitable only for grazing is included, 
 settlement of adjacent agricultural 
 land might be retarded to some ex- 
 tent, and to a great extent if districts 
 include any considerable areas of 
 agricultural land, if not absolutely 
 prevented. 
 
 It would prevent further settlement or 
 entry under present laws. 
 
 Do not believe it would retard home- 
 steader in entering lands under the 
 ordinary homestead. 
 
 None. . 
 
 It would retard the entry of such lands 
 from 1 to 5 years. 
 
 The leasing law would effectually 
 block development of this district. 
 Don't believe in 640-acre stock-rais- 
 ing homestead law unless great care 
 be given to proper designation, but 
 think the latter the lesser of the two 
 evils. Existing laws seem sufficient 
 for the present, under which a great 
 deal of land will yet be taken up. 
 
 Yes; undoubtedly retard settlement 
 under homestead laws to some ex- 
 tent. 
 
 Such a law, if enacted, would, in our 
 opinion, retard or prevent settle- 
 ment of public lands in this district 
 to a very great extent. 
 
 Do not know that settlement would 
 be retarded or prevented except so 
 far as lessees would be able to cause 
 apprehension or fear on the part of 
 prospective settlers or entrymen by 
 causing them to believe lessees had 
 exclusive right to leased lands. 
 
 There would be no homestead entries. 
 Grazers would allow their cattle to 
 overrun the homesteads and home- 
 stead entrymen would be helpless, 
 as before, when large tracts were 
 fenced. 
 
 We think the proposed leasing system 
 would directly and materially'inter- 
 fere with development under home- 
 stead settlement and entry. 
 
 Law establishing grazing districts 
 would be the proper method of 
 making these lands revenue produc- 
 ing. Enactment of this leasing law 
 will not retard or prevent settlement. 
 
 Yes; practically entirely. 
 
 The leasing law would undoubtedly 
 impede settlement and entry to some 
 extent. 
 
 It would interfere with and hamper 
 settlement to a considerable extent. 
 
 Yes, causing trouble between large 
 holder and small farmer, as it has al- 
 ways done in the past. 
 
 (a) Looked upon with favor; (6) posi- Yes. 
 tively objectionable to great major- 
 ity of people; (c) objectionable, be- 
 cause it eliminates little fellow; (d) if 
 sold at all, should be to actual settle*' 
 (e) would be ideal, but classification 
 would be expensive. 
 
 No land suitable only for grazing 
 
 (a) Unsatisfactory; (t>) unsatisfactory; 
 (c) unsatisfactory; (d) better than 
 (c), but indefinite and vague; (c) 
 anything but feasible, and certain to 
 create great deal of dissatisfaction. I 
 
 No lands that would not ultimately be No answer, 
 taken up under present laws. 
 
 Would not affect this district. 
 Yes. The bill is a powerful argument 
 in favor of itself. 
 
 Present methods best, lands being tim- 
 ber, meadow, and swamp. 
 
 No grazing lands 
 
 (a) or (e) . 
 
 («). 
 
 Yes; very much . 
 
 No. The stockman must develop 
 water; the prospective settler seeing 
 water would have good reason to be- 
 lieve he also could secure water on 
 his claim and would be induced to 
 file. 
 
 Leasing would interfere with and ham- 
 per settlement; such a clause in the 
 law would be impracticable. 
 
 They would to a great extent.. 
 
 We believe that it would to some ex- 
 tent. 
 
 Answered in 4. 
 
 There would be no settlement of lands 
 likely to be included in grazing dis- 
 tricts if surrounding lands were occu- 
 pied by grazing icaccs; 
 
 Leasing and fencing public lands 
 would practically stop further set- 
 tlement and entry of lands so leased. 
 
 I do not think so. It may be the 
 means under the proposed act of 
 populating this arid country. 
 
 No. 
 
 Yes; to an almost prohibitive extent. . 
 
 Yes; decidedly so. 
 
 Yes, undoubtedly retard settlement 
 to some extent as to lands at all suit- 
 able for settlement. There are large 
 areas valuable only for grazing, 
 where a leasing plan would seem to 
 be a proper solution of the problem. 
 
 Yes. The large corporations, etc., 
 own nearly all springs and water 
 holes in district on high plateaus 
 and would be the only real benefi- 
 ciaries of such a law. 
 
 Only as stated in answer to question 4. 
 
 Homestead entries would cease. 
 
 Yes; in our judgment, prevent home- 
 steading almost entirely in localities 
 where fencing for the purposes 
 named had become general over a 
 large area. 
 
 No. 
 
 (6) would meet approval of a great 
 many especially stockmen, and (e) 
 would meet approval of a great many 
 more if land was of character to sup- 
 port a family. 
 
 Passage of 640-acre law, or to allow 
 lands to remain open as at present. 
 
 It would be satisfactory to us to have 
 laws remain as at present for one year 
 then apply the 640-acre homestead 
 bill, making designation of land 
 unnecessary. But we do not object 
 to the enactment of the 640-acre law 
 at once. 
 
 I am not in favor of any of these propo- 
 sitions, but favor a lease law permit- 
 ting the settler to file within the 
 pasture but requiring him to fence 
 his claim. 
 
 The sheep industry would prefer graz- 
 inglands to remain as at present; cat- 
 tle industry favorable to some com- 
 prehensive leasing system, and such 
 leasing should be to resident citizens 
 of the State. 
 
 Decidedly of the opinion that plan (e) 
 would be preferable. 
 
 (e) or (d) would be preferable. We 
 think the proposed homestead law 
 would best suit the people and be 
 better for the country. 
 
 By all means plan («) is the most satis- 
 factory to the people. 
 
 Method proposed in paragraph (d). 
 
 (e); second choice (c). 
 
 Believe public would prefer to have 
 lands remain as at present. The 
 danger of the proposed 640-acre law 
 would be tendency to give large in- 
 terests opening to secure stock-rais- 
 ing homesteads and therby control 
 greater portion of public domain. 
 
 Yes; if you combine (6), (c), (d), and 
 (e). 
 
 (<•). 
 
 Prefer the laws as they are, but method 
 (e) would be preferable to any other 
 new law which has been suggested. 
 
 Hard to say which method the resi- 
 dents of this district prefer, but I be- 
 lieve plan (6) would be the most 
 popular of the methods proposde. 
 
 We believe majority of residents of this 
 district would prefer that lands be al- 
 lowed to remain as at present, un- 
 controlled and open to general use 
 and occupation, unless classified and 
 divided into units as set forth in (e) 
 which plan we are convinced would 
 meet the indorsement of the people 
 of this district. 
 
 (a), Yes; (5) and (c), no; (d), no; but 
 would say yes if limited to 640 acres 
 instead of 10 sections, as stated in 
 ( c ); («), yes, although in some in- 
 stances such units might cover sev- 
 eral sections of land. 
 
 Enact a law permitting purchase of 
 adjoining tracts by resident owners, 
 limiting aggregate acreage to 640 
 acres, and providing that if one or 
 more of the purchased tracts shall 
 be contiguous to the present-owned 
 land the whole acreage purchased 
 shall be deemed within the require- 
 ment of contiguity. 
 
 We think the residents of this district 
 would prefer to allow lands to re- 
 main as at present. 
 
 Enactment of leasing law referred to 
 most sensible and profitable method 
 of handling unoccupied Government 
 lands. 
 
 Do not believe such a law would be 
 beneficial under conditions obtaining 
 in this district. 
 
 Law would not be applicable to this 
 district. 
 
 Yes , For Kansas the maximum should 
 be 320 acres and apply only to sand- 
 hill lands. 
 
 Yes. We are of the opinion that the 
 posed stock-raising homestead law 
 would do the greatest good to the 
 greatest number, so far as this part of 
 North Dakota is concerned. 
 
 We believe lands should first be classi- 
 fied, during which time could be con- 
 sidered any objections the people 
 might have to the 640-acre law. 
 
 Yes. This law would stimulate estab- 
 lishment of creameries, one of the 
 best revenue producers to the small 
 farmer; also stimulate raising of beef 
 cattle and mutton. It would aid in 
 the settlement and development of 
 this western country. 
 
 In this district the present law will do 
 very well for a while, but we would 
 not oppose the immediate application 
 of the 640-acre homestead bill; con- 
 sidering all circumstances, we favor 
 its passage and we believe it would 
 be an excellent measure for this sec- 
 tion of the country. 
 
 At best a 640-acre law would be an ex- 
 periment. I believe it would not bene- 
 fit the country and would be a failure. 
 I have been a resident of New Mexico 
 over 15 years. I have been engaged 
 in the sheep business. I am in favor' 
 of a lease law. 
 
 We fully indorse the provisions of the 
 proposed stock-raising homestead 
 bill. It would be very much prefer- 
 ble to any leasing or sale of lands for 
 grazing purposes. 
 
 We do. We believe that one who has 
 proved up on less than 640 acres 
 should be allowed to file on additional 
 land of the character mentioned to 
 to make 640 acres wherever it could 
 be found. 
 
 The advisability of the enactment of 
 the 640-acre stock-raising bill is in our 
 judgment unquestionable. 
 
 Yes; public sentiment in this State 
 strongly favors any policy calculated 
 to promote settlement and sale of 
 public lands. - — ' — „„„ „„ 
 
 Yes; pending classification of land 
 under plan 6 (e). 
 
 See 6. 
 
 Do not think this law would be of any 
 value to Arizona stockmen, and cer- 
 tainly not to homesteaders until dry 
 farming becomes a success. 
 
 No. So far as landsin this district are 
 concerned, we firmly believe all va- 
 cant lands will be entered within a 
 very reasonable time under existing 
 laws. 
 
 No. 
 
 Would recommend enactment of pro- 
 posed stock-raising homestead law 
 and also a leasing law contemplating 
 establishment of grazing districts, in- 
 cluding lands valuable only for graz- 
 ing. I see no reason why a 640-acre 
 stock-raising homestead law could 
 not be administered jointly with a 
 leasing law, which should give prefer- 
 ence to actual settlers. 
 
 Yes; or until it becomes necessary to 
 enact other legislation for disposal of 
 such lands. 
 
 Yes. This would give an opportunity 
 to see how the public favored the 640- 
 acre law, and allow ample time for 
 such entries before enacting a leasing 
 law. 
 
 See answer to 6. 
 
 We fear that the enactment of the pro- 
 posed 640-acre law, and permitting 
 same to be in operation for one or 
 more years, would, under the pe- 
 culiar conditions existing in this dis- 
 trict, act as a severe check upon 
 homestead settlement. 
 
 Yes; and permit same to operate per- 
 haps two years, and in meantime pre- 
 pare proper legislation giving those 
 who invest in a grazing homestead a 
 right to lease adjoining lands. 
 
fed< 
 
 s 
 
 n 
 
 
 © p + 
 
 W 
 
 Eh 
 
 3 a 
 
 OS 03 
 
 5 fe s 
 
 a 
 
 C3 
 
 
 :.sl 
 
 go* 
 
 o ss 
 
 fefc 
 
 t^ — 
 
 
 
 
 
 CD CO 
 
 rfi d 
 
 
 8 s 
 
 «.:' 
 
 
 OJ= 
 
 £■£ 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 CQ13 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J3a 
 
 -fl+- 
 
 
 $ ^.S 
 
 PI §'5 
 •s g 8 
 
 d.9oS 
 
 gl 1 1 
 
 S3 O =0+-= 
 13 O o ft 
 
 Is! 3 
 
 .Sa 8 - 
 3 2 fe« 
 
 £S.2o 
 +> s as 
 H S'B'S 
 
 +^® t- o3 • 
 13 O 03 
 
 a -a *„ s 5 
 
 .3 a -.» 
 
 •a S a3 § 
 
 1 gs-g i 
 
 I 1 
 
 a 
 
 <-H © 
 
 rt C3 . 
 
 a « <- 
 
 cd O"^ 
 
 3 a 
 
 SCO 
 
 II 
 
 
 45 
 
 •A 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 a 
 
 03 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 ft 
 
 
 fl 
 
 
 5 
 
 i: 
 
 
 
 
 
 = 
 
 
 t3 
 
 d 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 -^ 
 
 a 
 
 C3 
 
 
 
 sib 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 d 
 
 u 
 
 ."./ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .s 
 
 £11 P. 
 
 *£ 
 
 Sa 
 
 d 
 
 +-- 
 
 fci^ 
 
 r3| 
 
 03 
 
 
 .SS 
 
 SS bo**-' lh +» 
 
 ■3.3°.2 g 
 
 safest 
 
 ^3 <a 
 
 
 as 
 
 
 
 d o^ 
 
 g a ft 
 
 ft o 
 
 a a 
 
 XI o 
 
 
 ft? =3 
 
 
 
 £ a, 
 
 
 £>d co 
 
 5a 
 a" 
 
 fl 
 
 Eg* 3 
 
 ■3 s 
 
 dJ 
 
 •a h a 
 
 cert . 
 
 * S d 
 
 M 
 
 Sfi 
 
 1§II §5 
 I! §^f^ 
 
 o- »( a » 
 
 9 a 
 
 J 03 
 
 a S 
 
 •II 
 
 gft 
 
 ^ W CO 
 
 S am 
 
 5 F2 
 
 d&a 
 
 ^d,d 
 
 lii 
 
 Q.-d * 
 ftd *h 
 
 d w+= 
 
 
 
 
 
 gg 
 
 ft 
 
 «* 
 
 P4 TO 
 
 to 
 
 >« a 
 
 o a 
 
 ."^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 d fl &b 
 
 C3 
 
 MM. 
 03 B'g 
 
 no a 
 
 03+^ 6JD 
 
 a* 3 
 
 ■si 
 
 8 a 2 
 
 «"-* fl 
 
 <©^ So 
 
 ^^ fe 
 ■Sfl£ 
 
 OcJtD 
 b 03 .o 
 ft> 03 
 
 so 
 fl 
 
 
 
 
 ^™a 
 
 •ill 
 
 £ C3 ^i 
 
 3 >■>£* 
 
 
 ©13 
 
 4*3 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 a 
 
 
 S^a 
 
 «s§ ■ 
 §S S S 
 
 rzJ O ? H 
 
 oo a ^5 
 
 ft" 2 
 ti fl d fl 
 
 P-fl 
 ^ be 
 
 §1 
 
 03 OT3 
 
 ggg. 
 
 ^ o ft 
 
 T3r^ StJ 
 
 ■*4 ■ 
 
 
 9-9 m- 
 
 c3 ^ s 
 
 i-as 
 
 .2 <3 O 
 & t! t- 
 
 a ta 
 
 sSl 
 
 _J s 
 
 <D O 
 
 fl^! 
 
 I 
 
 '■3 
 a . 
 
 ■93 
 
 OT3 
 
 a p 
 
 
 ■ s ^ 
 
 ft 9 
 P 
 
 OJ4 
 
 a 
 
 H 
 
 +g 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 w.ss 
 
 B 2 
 
 3 
 
 -< o 
 
 o 
 
 r 
 
 H 
 
 ■4 
 
 fe 
 
 a 
 
 
 M 
 
 °9 
 SI 
 
 ^ fl 
 
 -x 5 
 
 a. 
 
 •a a 3 
 S"Sm 
 
 en ©£2 
 
 PSll 
 
 03 <3> S-3 
 ° ^ S? m 
 
 3 
 S 
 
 03 03 
 Kg 
 
 £* 
 
 P. 
 pi 
 
 
 & 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 £> 
 
 ^3 fl 
 
 
 
 
 
 fl 
 
 da 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 a 
 
 . o 
 
 
 s 
 
 ® fe 
 
 
 
 d as 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -d 
 
 o+3 
 
 
 'T:- 
 
 ft^ 
 
 
 
 XI 
 
 
 °3f 
 
 
 
 w5 ft 
 
 
 ^H 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 flO « 
 
 S3 
 
 111 
 
 SB 
 
 o w j2 a 
 S aij'l 
 
 i ii 
 
 to -g-og o 
 
 fe 
 
 
 Jh 1 
 03 
 
 si 
 
 ® 
 
 
 &0 
 
 S-SS3 
 ■SflflS 
 
 ao»« 
 
 t3 . 
 
 II 
 
 
 if 
 
 'I 
 
 •91 
 
 
 §t 
 
 S 3K 
 
 _« 
 
 fP-W+3 OS 
 
 O cd.£ Euo 
 
 3« 
 
 ■** O fc< «P 
 
 «£.2S 
 
 tog &0.-3 
 
 1 s a.g g 
 
 j 
 
 ter- 
 nly 
 
 tbe 
 ses. 
 
 a 
 
 ent in 
 able 
 olyno 
 purpo 
 
 a 
 
 ext 
 
 suit 
 oba 
 ther 
 
 a 
 
 oaSS 
 
 
 03 
 s 
 
 ?5^g 
 
 
 re tc 
 ong 
 and 
 tutu 
 
 
 "Si!! 
 
 m cs tic 
 
 a * 
 
 03 OQ i 
 
 — SmiJ 
 
 a 0. 
 
 
 •3 2 
 
 2S 
 
 02 
 
 O 
 
 .3 es £ a' 13 
 3ao.a 
 
 r it) fc 
 
 
 "I'S'S-a 
 
 ■S-fl^^sp 
 
 .SSiS 1 
 
 .2 3n 
 o S 6 
 
 03 tjO 
 
 fl 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 -O 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 30 
 
 CD 
 O 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 
 
 ? 
 
 i; 
 
 Si 
 
 
 S^m a £ 
 
 aSaSS 
 
 o a 
 -<o3 
 
 fe 
 •3 
 fl 
 
 "I 
 -4 
 
 IS 
 
 ..a 
 
 
 
 II 
 
 tj^t*- 
 
REPORTS OF CHIEFS OF FIELD DIVISIONS. 
 
 Division. 
 
 No. 1. Louis L. Sharp. Oregon, Wash- 
 ington, and Lewiston and Coeur 
 d'Alene districts, Idaho. 
 
 No. 2. Geo. Hayworth. Nevada and 
 California, except Los Angeles dis- 
 trict. 
 
 No. 4. Ira Lantz. Montana.. 
 
 No. 5. M. D. McEniry. Colorado, Kan- 
 sas, and Oklahoma. 
 
 No. 6. G. W. Helm. Arizona, and Los 
 Angeles district of California. 
 
 No. 8. S. J. Colter. Michigan, North 
 Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota 
 and Wisconsin. 
 
 N °jlO. Geo. E. Hair. Utah, and Boise, 
 Idaho 7, aQd Blaekfoot districts; 
 
 N «. U. Theo. N. Espe. New Mexico. 
 
 Approximately 6,000,000 acres, greater 
 portion of which I believe would he 
 applied for as stock-raising home- 
 steads. 
 
 To answer questions 1, 2, 3, would re- 
 quire obtaining data from registers 
 and receivers. 
 
 8,000,000 acres. 
 
 Now about 18,500,000 acres vacant 
 public land in Colorado; 75,000 in 
 Kansas; 40,000 in Oklahoma. Of 
 this probably 8,000,000 would be 
 applied for in Colorado, and prac- 
 tically all in Kansas and Oklahoma. 
 
 Considerable area but impossible to 
 estimate. 
 
 Yes; all bad lands of North Dakota 
 rough gumbo lands of South Dakota 
 within breaks of Cheyenne, Belle- 
 fourche and Missouri rivers. 
 
 Yes; many thousand acres in Idaho, 
 Utah, and northern Arizona. 
 
 Yes. approximately 25,000,000 acres. 
 
 Unable to estimate. Believe only 
 lands in high altitudes would not 
 be entered under this law. 
 
 See answer to 1. 
 
 Less than 1,000,000 acres will not be 
 entered under existing homestead 
 law or the proposed law. 
 
 No appreciable area in Colorado would 
 remain vacant under proposed 640- 
 acre law outside of areas above tim- 
 ber line. 
 
 Impossible to estimate without search 
 of land office records and field ex- 
 amination. 
 
 100,000 acres Rapid City district, and 
 same ratio as to Bellefourche, Lem- 
 mon, Dickinson, and Williston dis- 
 tricts. 
 
 Approximation almost impossible, 
 but area very large due to lack of 
 water. 
 
 Approximately 5,000,000 acres. 
 
 35074—14. (To face page 466.) No. 2 
 
 Drfficult to answer. Land suitable 
 only for grazing situated on moun- 
 tain tops, and practically all with- 
 in national forests. 
 
 See answer to 1. 
 
 At least 90 per cent of vacant lands 
 suitable only for grazing are inter- 
 spersed with small arable tracts 
 which will produce forage and other 
 crops without irrigation. 
 
 About 4,000,000 acres in Colorado are 
 interspersed among lands suitable 
 only for grazing. 
 
 Same answer as No. 2. 
 
 Narrow strips through breaks of riv- 
 ers mentioned in 2, and bad lands 
 of North and South Dakota except- 
 ing these, all lands would be entered 
 under the 640-aere bill if enacted. 
 
 Arable lands in vallevs between 
 mountains, dry-farming lands on 
 benches; both classes surrounded by 
 rougher lands good only for grazing. 
 
 Strictly speaking, all vacant lands 
 very valuable for grazing; 5,000,000 
 acres referred to in 2 are sandy, 
 rough, rocky, and devoid of possi- 
 bilities of cultivation, and generally 
 interspersed with other public land. 
 
 Am generally opposed to leasing any 
 public lands for grazing; believe it 
 would retard settlement and de- 
 velopment of country, work to 
 detriment of settler and small stock 
 raiser and to advantage of large 
 stock growers. 
 
 Having only recently assumed charge 
 of this division, am not familiar 
 with character of lands of Nevada 
 and California. Assuming Nevada 
 lands similar to Arizona lands, be- 
 lieve leasing law and stock-raising 
 homestead law would find consid- 
 erable application in Nevada, and 
 to limited extent in California. 
 Leasing law would undoubtedly 
 retard settlement to small extent; 
 its greatest objection would be cost 
 of classification and administration 
 
 Would greatly retard settlement of 
 this State at the present time. Now 
 great influx of settlers from eastern 
 States, and land considered fit only 
 for grazing by older settlers now 
 being entered under homestead 
 laws, on which experience last few 
 years has shown profitable crops 
 can be raised. 
 
 The bill referred to in this question 
 would completely stop the home- 
 steading of land in such areas, and 
 create more irritation and vexation 
 in the West than did the first regu- 
 lations of the Forest Service 6 to 10 
 years ago. 
 
 j Proposed leasing law would reduce 
 to a minimum settlement and en- 
 tries within leased areas, as settlers 
 would be denied range on public 
 domain for stock. 
 
 No, as such lands could be utiliized by 
 farmers by addition to present hold- 
 ings; noncontiguous bad lands 
 would remain unsettled, or be taken 
 by speculators under isolated-tract 
 or other laws; 640-acre act might 
 assist some claimants on edge of 
 grazing districts. 
 
 Will retard settlement and prevent 
 actual settlers from establishing 
 homes and nullify to great extent 
 benefits possible from 640-acre bill 
 if enacted. 
 
 Leasing and fencing for grazing pur- 
 poses would greatly interfere with 
 and impede settlement and entry of 
 lands within leased areas; in some 
 instances would practically nullify 
 operation of the law. 
 
 Yes; but not to any appreciable extent 
 provided homestead and other laws 
 continue operative within grazing 
 districts. Undoubtedly fencing 
 leased lands would tend to discour- 
 age homesteaders who, in some in- 
 stances, might be intimidated or 
 threatened in attempting to file on 
 fenced lands. 
 
 Leasing of large bodies of lands for 
 grazing purposes would hamper, 
 interfere with, and impede settle- 
 ment and entry of public lands. 
 
 In my judgment it would completely 
 stop the settlement, of public lands 
 within such areas. 
 
 Yes; totally, for reasons stated in 
 answer 4. 
 
 Only as stated in 4. It might and 
 undoubtedly would impede entrv 
 as under 640-acre act areas within 
 bad lands would be taken more for 
 speculation. 
 
 Donotbelievealeasinglawwould bea 
 goodone. Itwould pave thewayfor 
 controversies without end; would 
 put vast tracts into hands of few 
 men which I think should not be 
 permitted; would retard settlement; 
 with lands fenced homeseeker would 
 have but little incentive to make 
 settlement. 
 
 Yes, to an extent probably governed 
 by amount of tillable land within a 
 grazing district, as such are lands 
 people are constantly looking for for 
 homes. Leasing would be provoca- 
 tive of conflicts between settlers and 
 lessees. "Range troubles" in the 
 W est in past years (and even now) 
 have been excedingly serious. 
 
 Yes. Homeseeker w'ould be timid 
 about entering fenced domains. 
 
 Believe method (e) would be preferred 
 by the larger percentage of people 
 interested, and that method (a) 
 should be added to this. 
 
 Having so recently taken charge of 
 this division, am unable to intelli- 
 gently answer this question. 
 
 The logical and only successful way of 
 disposing of remaining public lands 
 is to classify and divide into such 
 units as will be sufficient in area to 
 comfortably support a family, such 
 units to be subject to homestead 
 entry only. 
 
 Believe people generally would be 
 better satisfied to allow lands re- 
 main as at present. Plan (e) has 
 many good features. 
 
 Plan (a) presents only condition under 
 which settlers and entrymen can 
 secure livelihood pending subduing 
 the land. Other plans would work 
 great hardship on bona fide settlers 
 an entrymen. 
 
 Divided between (d) and («). Resi- 
 dents now here would prefer (d) if 
 able to buy, or if entire purchase 
 price were in deferred payments 
 For average person («) would be pre- 
 ferred. 
 
 I most assuredly believe it advisable 
 to enact the stock-raising homestead 
 bill modified by method («) of ques- 
 tion 6, and permit operation for 5 
 years prior to other legislation. This 
 would tend to segregate lands suit- 
 able only for grazing purposes from 
 those suitable for settlement and 
 farming. 
 
 Believe stock-raising homstead bill 
 well adapted to meet conditions for 
 which designed, and should be tried 
 one or more years prior to enactment 
 of any other legislation. 
 
 Believe plan (c) preferable provided 
 lands are sold to actual settlers only 
 as provided in (d). Possibly 10 sec- 
 tions would be too much to sell to 
 an individual. Perhaps not to ex- 
 ceed 5 sections would be preferable. 
 
 Believe that if 640-acre homestead 
 law be enacted lands should be al- 
 lowed to remain as at present. Do 
 not believe in a leasing law Plan 
 (c) impracticable. As to plan (d) 
 any land sold should be to actual 
 settler, and not more than 5 sections 
 Do not believe plan (e) practicable. 
 
 Believe enactment proposed stock- 
 raising bill will do much toward 
 remedying deficiencies in existing 
 laws, and am strongly of opinion 
 would result in satisfactory disposi- 
 tion of practically 90 per cent of pub- 
 lic lands now in Montana. 
 
 Yes; would be incomparably better to 
 enact 640-acre bill than the other 
 proposed legislation, although am 
 not in favor of the 640-acre bill as 
 applied to public lands generally. 
 It unquestionably would have great 
 merit in certain sections but should 
 not apply to Colorado as a whole. 
 
 Believe proposed 640-acre stock-raising 
 law would encourage small stock- 
 men and should be operative two or 
 more years. The leasing of remaining 
 public land should then be consid- 
 ered. 
 
 Only in case a suitable leasing law 
 could not be enated; then 640-acre 
 act would be best for disposal of 
 lands under question 1 at present 
 time, and would end trouble and dis- 
 pute over desert entries in Rapid 
 City and Bellefourche districts as 
 entrymen would relinquish and take 
 the land under 640-acre homestead 
 act. 
 
 Yes; and give it a thorough try-out for 
 2 or 3 years before enacting other 
 legislation. 
 
 I have strongly advocated and still 
 favor a 640-acre homestead entry 
 160 or 320-acre homestead entry in 
 New Mexico insufficient. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 467 
 
 them tabulated in a similar manner and we will send them to the 
 committee. 
 
 The Chairman. I am sure that will be very acceptable to the com- 
 mittee, and we will be glad to have you do that when the other re- 
 plies come in. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Mr. Secretary, I think if I understand the attitude 
 of the committee, we are all agreed with you that a leasing law cover- 
 ing all the public domain, and at the same time permitting the op- 
 eration of the homestead law, the 640-acre law in the same area will 
 not work. I think we are absolutely agreed on that. The two propo- 
 
 j sitions can not be applied to the same area. But I have wondered 
 whether there could be certain areas where you would designate the 
 lands as subject to entry under the 640-acre grazing homestead law 
 and certain other lands you would designate for entry under the leas- 
 ing, the two areas to be separate and distinct. 
 
 I had this further idea in mind, whether we were doing the legit- 
 imate homestead any kindness in permitting him to enter land where 
 it was impossible for him to make a living, and holding out that 
 kind of a hope to him where there was no chance of it ever coming 
 to fruition. 
 
 As it is now, or under this proposed law, you say this land under 
 the enlarged homestead act is incapable of making a living for a man 
 in a quarter section of the land. If there is land in there that can 
 be irrigated and put to a higher use than ordinary dry farming you- 
 limit him to one side. But there is no limit on the other. As it is 
 now, you simply designate on one side. He may be foolish enough 
 to think that he can get out on the desert and make a homestead there, 
 but he can not do it. Would we not be doing him a kindness to put 
 a limit on both sides of it ? I would like your idea on that line. 
 
 Mr. Jones. I think, Mr. Hayden, that the one great objection to 
 the present enlarged homestead bill and to the proposed 640-acre 
 law is that under any classification which is contemplated it will 
 
 » include all grazing lands, and that settlers will go upon sections 
 where they can not make a living on the 320-acre or 640-acre tracts, 
 and, if it meets with the approval of Congress, I certainly feel if we 
 
 ' could limit the operation of this 640-acre law to definite sections of 
 the country it would be a good thing. 
 Mr. Hatden. I have in mind definite sections in Arizona where I 
 
 ' am satisfied it will work, and I know there are other definite areas 
 where it will not work at all. 
 
 Mr. Jones, As to. the leasing laws of the other areas there is a point 
 which has not been brought out, I think. That is, what are you 
 going to do with the State lands? In New Mexico four sections out 
 of each township belong to the State. If you are going to have any 
 general leasing area, it seems to me that some arrangement should be 
 made with the State, so that there would not be any interference with 
 the State. 
 
 ; Mr. Hayden. We have that same situation with the alternate sec-. 
 
 tions belonging to the Santa Fe Kailroad in Arizona and New Mexico. 
 
 Mr. Jones. Here is another point which I have not seen mentioned 
 
 - anywhere, and that is as to the price of these lands for leasing pur- 
 
 i poses. It seems to be the idea that the price shall be put down as 
 
 I'iow as the cost of administration will permit, and it is in any case to 
 be put at a very low price. That would bring these lands into com- 
 
463 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 petition with the State lands, where the State lands are owned in con- 
 siderable areas. Where a State has taken up a section of the coun- 
 try in lieu of the other land it would bring that land in direct compe- 
 tition with the State lands, and the State would be trying to get 5 as 
 much revenue as possible out of its lands. With the Government 
 lands the idea seems to me that they should be leased at as small a 
 price as possible. 
 
 If you are going to lease the lands at all, let me suggest this 
 your consideration — that you classify these lands into such areas i 
 will adequately support a family, and lease the lands only to actual 
 bona fide settlers on such tracts. The cost of classification for that 
 purpose of large areas of those lands can not be very excessive. You 
 can ascertain without a vast amount of work and expense the num- i 
 ber of animals which a man should have in order to comfortably ] 
 support a family. After' you have done that, then it is not very dif- 
 ficult to take the next step and ascertain how many acres of this given 
 tract of land is necessary to support a given number of animals, and 
 then permit those lands to be leased in such quantities and avoid the ] 
 expense of administration after they are so leased. Let him lease 
 that tract of land for a considerable period, and let it be an absolute 
 lease for that period, if you make a lease at all. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. That would work very well, perhaps, in the cattle 
 business. Take the sheep business, in Arizona and New Mexico, both, 
 where the winter grazing range is 150 miles or more from the sum- 
 mer range. There must be some way of permitting a man to pass 
 from one place to another. If this land is all plastered by leases, it 
 would simply put the sheep industry out of business in those two 
 States. 
 
 Mr. Kent. It would be the same way in Nevada. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. The sheep industry could not operate in that man- 
 ner at all, as I see it. 
 
 Mr. Jones. In those particular sections there may be sections where 
 such conditions exist that it would not be feasible to lease the lands 
 at all. I am not sufficiently familiar with all sections to state that 
 any of these features should be applied to every section of the West. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. Would there be any objection to a common lease of 
 a community pasture, so to speak? I have in mind certain tracts of 
 country in Arizona where there are a dozen small stockmen running 
 their cattle together, and they are very anxious to make a community 
 lease covering that area. They have no desire to divide it up into 
 particular tracts among themselves, and they get along very well 
 together, and they conduct their business without friction. If they 
 could get a community lease covering that, it would be perfectly 
 satisfactory to them. Have you any objection to that? 
 
 Mr. Jones. There may be exceptional cases where that would be 
 the best course to pursue. It certainly involves the general prin*| 
 ciple that you do not get the highest use out of the land unless one 
 individual has a permanent tenure and has sufficient inducement to 
 develop the property. I think in the case you mention each one of 
 those individuals would much prefer to have the control absolutely 
 of an area that would be sufficient to support a family, rather than 
 to have the arrangement which you have just outlined. k 
 
 Mr. Hayden. If you fixed it in that shape it would necessitate! 
 for instance, a great, long, narrow strip of country, because there 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 469 
 
 would be some high and some low, where it would be laid out in these 
 long strips so that a man could have a range at different seasons of the 
 year for cattle and sheep. It would be very expensive to fence each 
 man's separate holding off from that of the other man, while the erec- 
 tion of a community fence would make it a business proposition 
 which would be very attractive to all the men. 
 
 Mr. Jones. There are doubtless localities where not all of these 
 general ideas would apply equitably, and I think your bill should 
 give great discretion in that respect if you want to deal with the sub- 
 ject; that it should make it specific as to the classes of land with 
 which you intend to deal, and after the law has operated as to this 
 
 land 
 
 Mr. Kent. On this proposition, what are you going to do with the 
 man who has only about 300 sheep. Suppose there are 10 men each 
 with 300 sheep. Those sheep have to be looked after. If you force 
 every individual man to handle his own 300 sheep separately you 
 will inflict an impossible burden on him in regard to those 300 sheep, 
 in the matter of expense. 
 
 Mr. Jones. I doubt if that is so, Mr. Kent, in all cases, especially 
 if a man had a definite area of land on which to run those sheep. 
 
 In New Mexico we have a large number of small sheep owners. 
 The Spanish- American people down there, as a rule, the farmers, 
 have small flocks of sheep, and I do not believe that they have had any 
 great difficulty. They generally get a larger percentage of lambs and 
 they generally take care of the sheep pretty well. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Do they make a family living, a living which would 
 Support the average American family, off those small flocks? 
 Mr. Jones. I do not think they do. 
 
 Mr. Kent. There are one or two other matters which I wanted to 
 bring up. You spoke about eventually selling the surplus of the pub- 
 lic domain. What would you do with lands which people refuse to 
 take at the present time at a rental of a cent an acre? In certain 
 parts of Nevada the Central Pacific Railroad rents certain sections 
 of land at the rate of a cent an acre, and that practically includes 
 the Government land. I have known of many cases where- people 
 refused to rent those lands. If the Government started to sell that 
 land at the present time, how would you capitalize the valuation of 
 the land that is worth only a cent an acre a year in rental value i 
 
 Mr. Jones. I have not stated 
 
 Mr. Kent (interposing) . I think you said that the eventual tnmg 
 to do would be to turn this land into private ownership. 
 
 Mr. Jones. I did; that is, as to homestead entries, I would. I do 
 not know whether anything can be done with those lands you have 
 in mind. There are other areas which are not being used now to any 
 considerable extent. You take the Mojave Desert and the desert in 
 Utah and some other sections of the country. 
 
 Mr. Kent. It is practically all pasture m the State of Nevada. 
 It is all pretty well covered with stock. 
 , Mr. Jones. I would say this: That as to those lands I would not 
 ' try to make any provision at the present time for their disposition. 
 Mr. Kent. Not even a temporary lease? a u n „iA 
 
 Mr. Jones. Well, they might be leased temporarily, but I should 
 say that under any form of grazing homestead ^Jich might be de- 
 vised now that I would not have it to exceed eight sections m area, 
 
470 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING lands. 
 
 and any land which would not be sufficient to support a family on 
 that area I would deal with in some other way, by leasing it or leave 
 it open, as it is now ; that is, until you see what it is. 
 
 Mr. Kent. You object to the proposed classification; you think, 
 that is too difficult; that is, leasing the land on the basis of what stock 
 it would support to the acre ? 
 
 Mr. Jones. No; I do not think that is so very difficult. 
 
 Mr. Kent. In the Forest Service do they not do that thing ? They 
 realize that their classifications are tentative. They have tried it as 
 they went along, and I think they have been successful. 
 
 Mr. Jones. I think the proposed classification is the only basis of 
 classification on which you can handle those lands, whether it is a 
 homestead or anything else. You must find out the number of acres 
 which will be required to support an animal, and then you go a step 
 further and ascertain how many animals are necessary to support 
 a family, and I think then you have the practical, proper classifica-i 
 tion. % 
 
 Mr. Kent. Take land where you have this necessity for seasonable 
 migration of flocks, and a man could not possibly support his flocks 
 the year around, either on the desert or in the mountains. Do you 
 think the policy of permitting homesteads would be advisable under 
 those conditions where the land had no real agricultural value in 
 either case? 
 
 Mr. Jones. No, sir ; I do not. I think I would exclude homestead 
 entries from such classes of lands, if the condition which you men- 
 tion assuredly obtained and would permanently be so; but I have 
 had this thought as to that class of lands that perhaps ultimately the 
 lands adjacent to the summer range might be homesteaded and the' 
 summer range used in connection with those, and that the lands 
 adjacent to the strictly winter range might be homesteaded and the 
 winter range used in connection with those lands. 
 
 Mr. Kent. This is merely, as you stated in the beginning, working 
 toward a continuing reclassification under wiser provisions than we 
 can now make. I do not think that anybody contends that a leasing 
 bill should be permanent, and I think people would be willing to 
 take land for 10 years, but I know localities where 10 years would 
 not be sufficient. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Is it not the testimony before this committee that 
 they have worked on this bill, that this is the bill they wanted, that 
 they have worked on it for 20 years? They want all the remaining 
 public domain to be put in this bill? 
 
 Mr. Kent. That is not my understanding of it at all. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You can not draw any other conclusion. 
 
 Mr. Kent. No; I think you are mistaken about that. That is not 
 my understanding of it. 
 
 Mr. Church. I want to ask you a hypothetical question which has 
 been brought up here before. 
 
 Suppose this leasing bill were in operation, and suppose a person 
 had a tract of land, we will say, of five, ten, or fifteen thousand acres, 
 and had it fenced, and suppose a homesteader comes in and locates 
 at one of the springs and builds his home, feeds his domestic animals 
 within the inclosure, and at the. end of the current year receives a 
 permit to graze enough stock to support his family, not to exceed 
 a hundred head of stock in all, within this inclosure, would that lead 
 
DISPOSITION OF GBAZING LANDS. 471 
 
 to prosperity and peace between the two parties, or would it lead 
 to confusion, and would it be practicable or impracticable ? 
 
 Mr. Jones. That question involves, it seems to me, two funda- 
 mental principles underlying this whole question. 
 
 I have had some experience in leasing lands to stockmen, and I 
 found that in each case if a man had stock cattle, that he wanted 
 to lease that land for a long period of years. He wanted a long-term 
 lease, and he wanted to know how much land he could depend upon 
 that would enable him to increase his herd naturally and in a proper 
 way. Leases which are indefinite of tenure can only be utilized 
 advantageously by the man who is handling steers but not stock 
 cattle. That business is temporary. He can take those steers and 
 put them on the market, but with stock cattle that is a difficult thing 
 to do. You can not handle your stock cattle at all times of the year, 
 and it takes three, four, or five years in which to do anything with a 
 bunch of stock cattle, and if you permitted a homesteader to come in 
 and take a part of his range you would simply make his tenure at 
 least uncertain as to a part of it. 
 Mr. Church. And work a hardship on the cattleman? 
 Mr. Jones. And work a hardship on the cattleman. 
 Mr. Church. What would it do in reference to homesteading ? 
 Would it stimulate homesteading or not? 
 
 Mr. Jones. I would like to answer the other part of your first 
 question, and that will answer what you now suggest. In my own 
 particular case, at the present time, we do not permit — that is, my 
 cattle partner does not permit — anybody to go in our pasture off of 
 the public road, and the reasons for that are quite obvious. 
 
 And so in the case of the cattleman, with the homesteader coming 
 in there, he would not know whether he was a homesteader or not. 
 He at any rate would not want anybody prowling around over his 
 range, and if the homesteader could come in and turn loose his 100 
 head of cattle in the pasture there would be a mixing of the cattle, 
 and one man might not want to brand at the same time as the other 
 man, and there would be at least some of the objections which now 
 obtain to running cattle upon the public domain, one man going in 
 and " chousing around " the cattle of his neighbor and all that sort 
 of thing. It is very objectionable. 
 
 Mr. Church. I would not have asked you that simple question, but 
 I agree with every word you have stated, were it not for the fact that 
 a very distinguished witness had advocated that before this com- 
 mittee. . mil 
 
 Mr. Raker. Mr. Jones, I want to ask another question. Take the 
 leasing system for the large cattleman and supposing him to be the 
 possessor of 1,000 or 2,000 head of cattle, do you believe that the leas- 
 ing system as provided for in a leasing bill that would give him a 
 permanence would be a detriment to the cattleman or not? 
 Mr. Jones. The large cattleman? 
 
 Mr. Raker. Yes ; take a large cattleman with 1,000 or 2,000 head 
 
 of cattle and a general leasing bill giving him the right to go out and 
 
 take 10,000 or 15,000 acres of public domain and fence it, would it be 
 
 a detriment or an advantage ? 
 
 Mr. Jones. I think all those big cattlemen would want it. 
 
 •Mr. Raker. Well, I will not say my own conviction on the matter. 
 
in 
 
 DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Jones. I think that is what they want. That is, to my mind, \ 
 one of the objections that might be urged to this bill. It would have 
 a tendency to fix grazing in the public lands as they now exist, and 
 1 think that the large cattlemen would appreciate that very much. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You can not see where he would be losing very much 
 by such an arrangement, could you ? 
 
 Mr. Jones. No ; I think he would be the gainer by it. 
 Mr. Raker. Well, it has been published in my country since this 
 bill came out that the large cattlemen who are advocating this bill- 
 would lose from $10,000 to $15,000 apiece if such a leasing bill were 
 enacted. 
 
 Mr. Jones. If you were to pass a leasing bill which would provide 
 that these lands would only be leased in quantities sufficient to sup- 
 port a family, the large cattlemen would feel that they would have to 
 go out of business. 
 
 Mr. Raker. No ; it is the other way. It has been published in my 
 country that the large cattlemen with from 1,000 to 2,000 head of cat- 
 tle, if permitted to obtain a lease — and large leases are provided in 
 this bill— would be the losers from $10,000 to $15,000 a year. It does 
 not look as though they would be advocating this bill, does it? 
 
 Mr. Jones. Well, no; I think each man tries to act according ^ 
 his own interests when it comes to dealing with live stock. Of course, 
 when a man is put in the position of a Member of Congress, I can see 
 how he would act for the public good, regardless of any private in- 
 terests. 
 Mr. Raker. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Jones. Now, answering your question, I think in some ranges 
 the large cattlemen would probably be injured by the adoption of 
 this leasing law — that is, localities which they now control. If they :; 
 at present control a given locality, then, I think, the new law would ' 
 probably be a disadvantage — they would have to pay for the lease 
 privilege. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Unless they could lease under the priorities provided 
 in this bill. 
 Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I hold in my hand this brief or ab- 
 stract of the correspondence that has been going on between yourself 
 and your several registers and receivers and likewise each of the 
 various field divisions, and I want to compliment you on it and thank 
 you for bringing it to the committee, and also to thank your clerk, to 
 whom you were generous enough to give credit for it. I notice under 
 questions 4 and 5 that you ask your registers and receivers, as to the 
 effect of the leasing law and the effect on the settlers of fences put 
 up on the pastures. It seems important to me to know what the 
 effect would be, and as I run down these two columns, practically all 
 these gentlemen seem to say that it would prohibit and stop further 
 settlement of the lands if a leasing law should be in vogue. Is that 
 your version of it, after hearing from the various parties and reading 
 various letters from them? 
 
 Mr. Jones. That is the impression which I got, Mr. Chairman. 
 The Chairman. Now, that, of course, has reference to a leasing 
 law that would apply to all the lands, as I assume. 
 Mr. Jones. Yes. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 473 
 
 The Chairman. That is on the assumption that the homesteader 
 Would be able to go on the leased land to make his entry. For in- 
 stance, in the State of Wyoming, pursuant to the questions the 
 answers run something like this: A leasing law would practically 
 stop development and settlement." That is No. 4. In answer to No, 
 5, it says, " Yes ; to a great extent." That was answering the ques- 
 tion, "Would it permit settlement without fences?" Now, that runs 
 down about the same through Wyoming and Colorado. In Nebraska 
 they seem to say that it will have no effect. I take it that that is so 
 because the Kinkaid homestead act has taken up all the land there. 
 
 Mr. Jones. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. In South Dakota the answers run the same as they 
 do in Wyoming. As I run down I find the answers practically the 
 same, although in one or two instances they differ somewhat. 
 
 Mr. Jones. I will speak about that New Mexico situation. From 
 the Roswell land office there come two letters — one from the register 
 and the other from the receiver. One of them incloses with his letter 
 a copy of a resolution that was adopted by some stockmen down there 
 who have been anxious to get drift fences built, and in reading the 
 resolution of those stockmen I understand that the one thing they 
 are anxious for is that there should be some kind of control, so that 
 the stockmen may know what they can use. That seems to be the 
 burden of their inquiry. Whether it will be a lease law or drift 
 fences or selling the land or what not, they do not care very much as 
 to the how, but they do feel that they should have control of the land. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, passing over to the State of Washington, 
 the report seems to be from the North Yakima office, where there 
 are 142,000 acres of land. The answers are to questions 4 and 5 of 
 your letter. The answer to question 4 is, " Would only make trouble. 
 Few would have the temerity to enter land within an inclosure. The 
 settler would be unwelcome." Now, the answer to question 5 is, 
 " Yes ; would make settlement practically impossible." Now, it runs 
 that way down to North Dakota. I do not understand North Dakota, 
 The Bismarck office says, "No answer." None," "No," and "No 
 answer" again 
 
 The Chairman. In Minnesota they say 
 
 Mr. Jones (interposing). There is no land up there on which it 
 would have any effect. 
 
 The Chairman. Well, they say it would have no effect, but they 
 do say, in answer to section 5, that the fencing would have the effect 
 of retarding the settlement of public lands. In Kansas they say 
 it would practically exclude settlers. In North Dakota they say 
 that the leasing law would impede the settlers. In California they 
 say it will impede and hamper settlement to a certain extent. That 
 is at Independence. The answer to question 4 from California is that 
 the establishment of grazing districts would prevent settlement to 
 some extent because of fence breaking and crop destruction by cattle, 
 but a considerable portion of the area, owing to lack of sufficient 
 moisture, offers no inducements to settlers. 
 
 Mr. Church. Have you any other reports from California ? 
 
 The Chairman. No. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I would like to say that that district is east of the 
 Sierra Nevada Mountains and practically in the Nevada Territory— 
 the greater part of it. 
 
474 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Jones. These officials in their letters generally describe condi- 
 tions in their various districts and they tell where the law would 
 operate and would not operate, and so on. It would impede settle- 
 ment in one section of the country and in the other, where it is only 
 susceptible of a certain amount of settlement, the law would not have 
 any effect. 
 
 The Chairman. That is the reason why this has such supreme 
 value to the committeej because so many of our witnesses have come 
 here with their own little local communities in mind and nothing 
 else. 
 
 Mr. Raker. May I call attention to the fact that this one little 
 land office in California is a very small place. We have not yet re- 
 ceived a report from the great land office at Los Angeles. There is 
 no report from the San Francisco office. In the Sacramento Valley, 
 which includes practically the entire northern part of the State, the 
 land office has not been consolidated there. The northwestern dis- 
 trist has not reported. The Humboldt district has not reported. 
 
 Mr. Church. How many land offices are there in California ? 
 
 Mr. Raker. Well, there are Los Angeles, Visalia, San Francisco, 
 Eureka, and Susanville. 
 
 Mr. Church. And Independence. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, we come to Montana, and under your ques- 
 tions 4 and 5, which strike at the effect it will have on settlers, your 
 answer to question 4, is, " In our opinion the 640-acre law would be 
 far preferable to the leasing system, as it would work greatest good 
 to greatest number and make permanent homes: Under leasing 
 system the lands would sooner or later be practically under the con- 
 trol of a few individuals or corporations." Your answer to question 
 5, as to whether fencing would have any effect upon the situation, is, 
 " Yes ; causing trouble between large holder and small farmer, as it 
 has always done in the past." Now, passing over Montana, there 
 are some other reports from Montana which are all the same; we 
 have had New Mexico before and we have it again. Colorado sends 
 two reports, and their reports are very much adverse to the leasing 
 law. Idaho seems to say the same thing. They say it would practi- 
 cally stop settlement and that the leasing of ranges would drive away 
 settlers. They say that leasing would be mainly to well-to-do cattle- 
 men whose policy ever has been and will be to keep all settlers out. 
 Again, we have another report from Washington and one from 
 Nevada, which run along about the same. Now, Arizona seems to 
 differ slightly. We have a report from the Phoenix office. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. That is the only one in the State. 
 
 The Chairman. Your answer to question 4 is " None." It would 
 have no effect. The answer to question 5 is " No," it would not retard 
 the country. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. They say there are some 35,000,000 acres of public 
 domain remaining in Arizona, and that this 640-acre law could not 
 possibly apply to more than three or four million. 
 
 The Chairman. That is true. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. That is the reason for it. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, Mr. Secretary, granting that the home- 
 steader can not go into a big leased area and take up land and carry 
 it on—and I think the committee has arrived at that conclusion 
 undoubtedly— and that they can not work together, is there not still 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 475 
 
 a possibility that the Interior Department, with the data, with their 
 registers and receivers and special agents, could divide the land into 
 areas, for instance, first into No. 1, that is, lands that have clearly- 
 agricultural possibilities, and in No. 2 would be included lands that 
 have clearly no possibilities of agricultural developments in the near 
 futre? 
 
 Mr. Jones. Oh, I think without any great delay and without the 
 obtaining of very much more information, that land could be divided 
 into those two general classes if you include the debatable area. 
 
 The Chairman. There would undoubtedly then be a larger area 
 whose water sources you may not know about, and it might not be 
 clear to you whether it was agricultural land sufficient to enable it 
 to pass into private ownership, or whether it was grazing land suffi- 
 cient to use for grazing purposes. Now, could there not be applied 
 to that a 1, 2, 3, or 4 section homestead law for a year or two which 
 would allow the settler to make a natural classification of this 
 debatable land, and then with a provision that the residue might 
 be passed over into class 2 as grazing land? Is that practicable or 
 possible ? 
 
 Mr. Jones. Yes; I think it is, Mr. Chairman. I think that is 
 practicable and I do not believe it would be so very expensive. I 
 certainly think it would not be as expensive as the administration of 
 a leasing law. 
 
 The Chairman. For instance, we have before us certain plats that 
 come from the Land Office in your department which show that cer- 
 tain rough classifications have been made with reference to the 320- 
 acre homestead law, so that they do know something about what 
 the conditions are. 
 Mr. Jones. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. And there are some of us around the table here 
 that feel that it is the duty of all of us to take each acre of land 
 and put it to the highest use possible. If we could get the areas 
 useful for grazing separated from the areas that have possibilities 
 for small grazing nomesteads and those that have agricultural possi- 
 bilities, I think it would be easy: 
 
 Mr. Jones. There is this one trouble about that: In certain sec- 
 tions of rough country there would be places where, according to 
 climatic conditions, you would not think that the land would be sus- 
 ceptible of growing any crops — we will say where the rainfall is 10 
 inches — but there might be in those places little valleys or corners 
 where a man could grow some crops from irrigation, and in such cases 
 a man might be able to make a good living on a smaller area, but I 
 do not think it would hurt him in such case if he got the larger area. 
 The Chairman. Undoubtedly the very thing you say would be 
 true. Those of us who live in the West know that you can not go 
 out and find 1,000,000 acres without any good land on it at all, 
 scarcely. 
 Mr. Jones. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. But where the land is practically all of one char- 
 acter and there are only small parts interspersed with land of an- 
 nother character, it would be fair, at least, to let the inferior use be 
 subordinate to the other — let the grazing use, for example, be subordi- 
 nate to the homestead use, or the other way. I do not know whether 
 it is possible for the department to do that. 
 
476 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Jones. Your suggestion amounts practically to this : That we 
 classify the lands where 640 acres would be sufficient for a homesteadlj 
 to support a family, and so on. » h 
 
 The Chairman. That is right. 
 
 Mr. Jones. And we also classify other lands where we think it 
 would take four sections to support a family, and allow those re- 
 spective classes of lands to be homesteaded in their respective areas. 
 
 The Chairman. That is right. 
 
 Mr. Jones. As to the remainder, we could classify them and either 
 make them generally subject to lease or else designate the quantity of 
 the remainder which ) would be necessary to support a family and 
 lease those lands in such quantities as the department might work 
 out. I think that would work. 
 
 The Chairman. For instance, Mr. Secretary, we have had a great 
 multitude of testimony here of the cattlemen, who have shown to 
 us — at least, pretty well to my satisfaction — that there was some 
 great necessity for them to have the right to fence up an area for 
 horse pasture and some for bulls and some for thin cattle in certain 
 periods of the year or for breeding or weaning purposes; and as the 
 law now stands it is a criminal offense to fence up the public domain. 
 
 Mr. Jones. I think that existing conditions are unsatisfactory to 
 everybody. 
 
 The Chairman. If yourself and Secretary Lane and the Commis- 
 sioner of the General Land Office or any or all of you could conie to 
 us or let it be known to us that you could make a rough classifica- 
 tion, I think the committee's task would be an easy one. I do not 
 think there is anybody around this table that wants a few cattle- 
 men to lease up the remaining acres of land, but on the other hand 
 it does seem to me that we could let homes be had on areas where 
 there is enough good land to support a family and to lease the land 
 that could not possibly support a family, and let some large home- 
 stead plan be applied to the debatable land about which you are in 
 doubt, it seems to me it would bring you western people a lot more 
 settlers. 
 
 Mr. Jones. That is what we want. We want home builders. 
 
 The Chairman. I know it. You are entitled to them ; you are en- 
 titled to have taxable land. 
 
 Mr. Hayden. I gather from the remarks you have made that you 
 are of the opinion that, so far as the Fergusson 640-acre homestead 
 bill is concerned, we ought to limit the area to which that homestead 
 bill is applicable, both ways, as to lands that in the department's 
 opinion this act will fit; that you do not want people to enter land 
 that they can clearly never live on, neither do you want them to enter 
 this land which is clearly available for irrigable purposes. 
 
 Mr. Jones. When I considered the report upon this bill the ques- 
 tion of classification was not given any great attention for the rea- 
 son that it was something which has never been attempted heretofore, 
 and, of course, the work of administration and classification would 
 be extended if that restriction were put there. The ' thought was 
 when the report was made on the Fergusson bill that the 640- acre 
 measure, if it became law, that the people themselves, through the 
 selection of land under it, would classify the land. There is not 
 any question but that too many people have thought they could make 
 a living off of 160 acres and many more in 320 acres. I feel quite 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 477 
 
 sure that there are many who would try to make a living off of 640 
 acres of ground and fail. If it could be limited to specific sections 
 where it was thought that a man may make a living off of a 640-acre 
 tract, it wouiu avoid inviting disaster in many cases. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I notice in your list of questions that you sent 
 out to the receivers and land office officials that you had under sec- 
 tion 6, Article C — 
 
 to sell such lands In quantities not exceeding 10 sections to any one individual 
 and at not less than $1.25 per acre, giving 20 years' time in which to pay for 
 the same, with interest at 3 per cent per annum. 
 
 Now, that struck me as being along my ideas of the way to handle 
 the public grazing land eventually, and I wanted to ask you if you 
 would not consider that that was fair to the entire people of the 
 country, if it would not be better to lease it to a few individuals — I 
 do not blame the men who own the stock — at a very low rental, and 
 the only benefit that I see the general public would be able to get out 
 of it would be in the hypothetical supposition that they were going to 
 get an increased supply of meat from it very much above that which 
 they get at the present time, and I question very much whether it 
 would ever work out. In other words, are we not, when we lease 
 these lands to stockmen, -conferring a special privilege out of which 
 the general public can never expect to get anything but a hypo- 
 thetical benefit? 
 
 Mr. Jones. I can not see why the Government should try to derive 
 revenue from the selling of these lands any more than it has of the 
 lands in the past. You may take 4 sections, 6 sections, 8 sections, 
 or 10 sections, and there will not be nearly the value that there is on 
 160 acres of good land in the State of Illinois or in the State of Iowa, 
 and if it has proven oeneficial to the country to give the 160 acres of 
 land in Illinois and Iowa to the farmers, I do not see why it would 
 not be as profitable to give 4, 6, or 8 sections of this land as a home- 
 stead and not make the homesteader pay anything. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. I agree with you on that, Mr. Secretary. My 
 idea was to cover this land that is not suitable for homesteads, that 
 would be disposed of for grazing. 
 
 Mr. Jones. I think that any land where 40 acres will support an 
 animal is suitable for a grazing homestead ; and that the area which 
 would pass into the individual ownership would not be so ex- 
 cessive as to make people — even those who are not familiar with the 
 country — feel that one man wa s getting too much. 
 
 Mr. La Follette. In a case like that it would be a question as to 
 whether or not you were slipping something over on him if he had to 
 take that class of land and pay taxes on it. 
 
 Mr. Jones. Sure. Now, answering your question further, I believe 
 upon the whole that it would be better for the different States where 
 these lands are located to let them get into the hands of bona fide 
 homemakers than to lease them or sell them. 
 
 Mr. Johnson- Mr. Secretary, I can not intelligently ask the ques- 
 tion which I desire to ask without first stating as a preliminary all 
 the conditions existing to which the questions would be applicable. 
 In my State we have a large number of small farms. I assume that 
 the average area of each farm will be less than 100 acres. In addi- 
 tion to their farms, they have also engaged to a very limited extent 
 in keeping a few head of stock, so that there are a few farmers there 
 
478 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 who have a few head of stock, from a half dozen to a dozen and up. 
 Heretofore this stock they have grazed upon the public domain, per- 
 haps adjacent to their farms. 
 
 Now, if this public domain should be disposed of, what I wish to 
 know is would it be practicable to permit these farmers to obtain a 
 small portion of the public domain adjacent to their farms — I will 
 say in tracts of from 40 acres up to 100 acres, or perhaps more. I 
 mean by that, such land as is not susceptible of cultivation, so that 
 each farmer could have, as it were, a kind of back-yard pasture upon 
 which to pasture his stock, which he had heretofore grazed upon the 
 public domain. Would it be feasible to provide in a law or in this 
 bill or some other bill some way whereby he might obtain title to that 
 so as to be able to improve it, and I mean by that also a provision 
 that he would not have to go and reside on the land in the way of a 
 homestead, because having already a homestead and residing upon his 
 land, he would not like to bring his family there for the purpose of 
 living on this land, but to acquire the title to that land either by pur- 
 chasing it at a nominal price or by a homestead not requiring resi- 
 dence. Would such a law as that be feasible ? 
 
 Mr. Jones. Mr. Johnson, I think some provision should by all 
 means be made to meet just the conditions you outline. I was im- 
 pressed with the remarks of Mr. Mondell, which he made after I came 
 in here to-day, in regard to the owners of small tracts of irrigable 
 land with these grazing lands adjacent. I think by all means some 
 provision should be made whereby those people referred to by Mr. 
 Mondell and those referred to by you should be taken care of. I do 
 not know that there is any reason why they should not acquire a 
 reasonable area of grazing land adjacent to their inclosure. I think 
 it would be profitable to them and it would tend to their individual 
 welfare and to the benefit of the State. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. Should they not obtain that without the necessity 
 of establishing residence upon the land? 
 
 Mr. Jones. I think so. 
 
 Mr. Graham. Section 4 of the Mondell bill covers just what you 
 speak of and provides for the payment of $1 an acre in five annual 
 payments. 
 
 Mr. Jones. As a means of meeting that very condition I think I 
 can make a suggestion by referring to the substitute bill which 
 was proposed. In section 4 of the substitute bill the words " of the 
 character herein described " should be stricken out. Then that idea 
 is carried through other sections of the bill, in sections 5, 6, and 
 wherever that expression occurs. I think that would be a very salu- 
 tary provision. 
 
 Mr. Church. May I ask you a question that I am sure you can 
 not answer, but which may be inserted in the record afterwards? 
 How many homestead applications have been made annually in the 
 past 10 years, and how many acres of land have gone to patent in 
 the last 10 years ? 
 
 Mr. Jones. I can get that data without much trouble. 
 
 Mr. Church. And have it inserted in your remarks ? 
 
 Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Would you object, Mr. Church, to having him include 
 in that the number of desert-land patents ? 
 
 Mr. Brown. And the number of failures? 
 
DISPOSITION OP GBAZING LANDS. 
 
 479 
 
 Mr. Jones. As to the desert-land inquiry, Mr. Tallman told me 
 day before yesterday that he did not believe that over 8,000 of those 
 had ever gone to patent. 
 
 Mr. Raker. But is it not a fact that in 90 per cent of the desert- 
 land entries that have been applied for and some work has been done, 
 going back for 15 years, you will find that 90 or 95 per cent of that 
 desert land is practically covered with bona fide homesteads at the 
 present time? 
 
 Mr. Jones. Well, I could not answer that. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That was my observation. 
 
 Mr. Jones. It is very probably true. 
 
 Mr. Church. Mr. Brown suggests that in that question which I 
 asked you that you also include the number of failures. 
 
 Mr. Brown. That is,, abandonments. Have you any such record? 
 
 Mr. Jones. I doubt if we have. We have a record of the number 
 of applications to enter, the number of entries made, and the num- 
 ber of claims which have gone to patent, but how many were aban- 
 doned or how they were abandonee! I am not sure, but we will en- 
 deavor po give you the data. 
 
 Statement of filings, homestead applications, proofs, and homestead proofs 
 made in each land office from July 1, 1911, to Dec. SI, 1913. 
 
 
 Original tilings. 
 
 Homestead filings. 
 
 Final proofs. 
 
 Final homestead 
 proofs. 
 
 
 Fiscal year. 
 
 Fiscal year. 
 
 Fiscal year. 
 
 Fiscal year. 
 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 Frac- 
 tional 
 1914. 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 Frac- 
 tional 
 1914. 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 Frac- 
 tional 
 1914. 
 
 1912 
 
 1913 
 
 Frac- 
 tional 
 1914. 
 
 July .... 
 
 7,761 
 7,310 
 6,813 
 7,898 
 6,699 
 6,401 
 5,778 
 7,338 
 7,114, 
 9.627 
 9,373 
 8,771 
 
 7,720 
 7,908 
 7,509 
 8,229 
 7,684 
 7,081 
 6,072 
 6,242 
 9,463 
 10,349 
 8,963 
 8,955 
 
 7,628 
 7,394 
 7,727 
 8,125 
 8, 000 
 7,440 
 
 5,647 
 5,387 
 4,854 
 5,527 
 4,772 
 4,483 
 4,017 
 5,627 
 5.281 
 7,303 
 7,286 
 6,350 
 
 5,749 
 6,099 
 5,574 
 6,427 
 5,995 
 5,301 
 4,747 
 5,049 
 7,919 
 8,641 
 7,271 
 7,486 
 
 6,172 
 5,994 
 6,395 
 6,007 
 6,222 
 6,005 
 
 6,596 
 6,265 
 5,413 
 5,619 
 5,699" 
 5,413 
 4,370 
 3,356 
 3,920 
 3,888 
 4,443 
 3,684 
 
 4,498 
 6,027 
 8,081 
 9,119 
 8,993 
 8,191 
 6,588 
 5,043 
 5,628 
 6,270 
 6,579 
 5,776 
 
 6,984 
 6,359 
 6,345 
 6,418 
 6,201 
 6,230 
 
 5,659 
 5,487 
 4,717 
 4,806 
 4,939 
 4.300 
 3,331 
 2,641 
 3,071 
 . 3, 154 
 3,239 
 2,996 
 
 3,935 
 5,444 
 7,330 
 8,308 
 8,101 
 7,142 
 5,662 
 4,430, 
 4.756 
 5,559 
 5,749 
 5,068 
 
 6,137 
 5,527 
 
 September 
 
 October...:,... 
 November j !..>. 
 December. ..„ . . 
 
 January..'...... 
 
 5,712 
 5,678 
 5,315 
 5,296 
 
 $fc::::::: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total...!... 
 
 90,883 
 
 96, 175 
 
 46,314 
 
 661 434 
 
 76,303 
 
 36,795 
 
 58, 666 
 
 80,793 
 
 38,537 
 
 48.340 
 
 71,484 
 
 33. 665 
 
 Note.— Figures for January, 1914, are not given for the reason that a number of offices have net yet 
 transmitted their reports for that month. 
 
 Mr. Church. When they get ready to abandon a homestead they 
 simply get up and walk out. 
 
 Mr. Brown. But it is subject to entry again as public domain? 
 
 Mr. Church. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. If, roughly speaking, there were 130,000 applications 
 for lands made last year, in 1913, covering roughly 15,000,000 acres 
 of land, is it not fair to assume that if that rate continues that within 
 the next 20 years there will be but very little remaining public land 
 to dispose of? 
 
 Mr. Jones. That would undoubtedly follow if they were to con- 
 tinue. I think the greatest trouble now is in preventing the people 
 from taking up these lands under laws which are not applicable and 
 under which they can not support families.' I think we are inviting 
 disaster in many, many cases, and these lands will go to patent under 
 existing law, a great many of them ; I certainly feel that that simply 
 
480 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 indicates the great demands that there is for homes and that we ought 
 to provide some means for giving them good homes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Now, the idea I wanted to convey was, not on the 
 homestead feature but on some other feature, that if during the year 
 1913 there were 15,000,000 acres of land, in round numbers, applied 
 for by about 139,000 applicants ; that would indicate a desire to gain 
 hon es on the public lands and improve them. Now, if by enlarging 
 the tract you can make it more enticing to the homesteaders and to 
 the applicant that he might better maintain his family, that ought 
 to be done, ought it not? 
 
 Mr. Jones. That is my opinion. 
 
 Mr. Baker. But if you put the land in another class or in any 
 other condition, either homestead entry or desert-land entry, and it 
 should retard this development that is now going on, it would not be 
 a good thing for the country, would it? 
 
 Mr. Jones. I do not think so. 
 
 Mr. Eaker. Now, if you would have the enlarged homestead, say, 
 640 acres, or a multiple thereof, which would be sufficient to support; 
 a family in some locality, and if the same quantity of land is taken 
 Up in the next 20 years in comparison with the amount taken up for 
 the year 1913, there would not be very much public land remaining, 
 would there? 
 
 Mr. Jones. I believe this: Judging from the demand which there 
 is for the public lands under existing law, that if you were to classify 
 the lands, all lands where 40 acres or less would support an animal, 
 into homesteads of sufficient area to support a family, I believe that 
 practically all of such lands would be taken up by bona fide home- 
 steaders within the very next few years. The new law should re- 
 quire the development of water upon the given area as well as the 
 fencing of it, and the actual living on it for a period of five years. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Mr. Jones, from your knowledge and experience in 
 New Mexico, from 20 acres to 40 acres in a canyon that would make 
 a good place for a home, where a garden could be had and an orchard 
 could be had and water could be applied with an additional tract of 
 from 640 to 2,000 acres, would it not be better for one man to own 
 that — if that is all that it will support — if he can work his little 
 farm of 40 acres and use the balance of it for grazing and for the 
 Upbuilding of the country, than to lease all of that land ? 
 
 Mr. Jones. I think the general principle would apply that you 
 should get the best use out of the land from the man who owns it. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I see it developed every day that in the canyons that 
 have been considered worthless we find men going in with homesteads, 
 of from 5 to 20 acres, with orchards and gardens with more success 
 than the man with 100 acres, provided the man with the orchard can 
 get his goods to market. 
 
 Mr. Jones. Oh, yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Is not the question of transportation one of the great- 
 est difficulties with us in the West? 
 
 Mr. Jones. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And we are eliminating that to some extent as time 
 goes on? 
 
 Mr. Jones. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And the more we can eliminate it the more homes 
 there will be and the better the results will be; is not that correct? 
 
DISPOSITION OP GBAZING LANDS. 481 
 
 Mr. Jones. I think that is certainly along the correct line. 
 Mr. Church. Now, taking into consideration this third class of 
 land, where the land is not productive of enough vegetation so as 
 to produce enough to support an animal, and taking into considera- 
 tion the cost of administration of this worthless country, do you 
 not think it would be more of a practical proposition to let that 
 worthless country remain as it is than to place it in the hands of a 
 bureau to classify and cause the expense of administering it? 
 
 Mr. Jones. There might be a debatable area there. But it prob- 
 ably would not be. 
 
 Mr. Church. But just take it as a whole. Do you not think that 
 the administrative cost of administering it — and I have traveled over 
 it on horseback — do you not think the cost of it would be a greater 
 detriment to the country than to place it under the administrative — — 
 
 Mr. Jones (interposing). I do not believe that I could answer that 
 question with any certainty of the accuracy of my answer. I am not 
 sufficiently acquainted with such areas. I think in New Mexico, with 
 the exception of a very small portion of the State, that 40 acres will 
 support an animal. 
 
 The. Chairman. Not at this moment knowing how we will finally- 
 come out with this, Mr. Secretary, we want to look for a soft place 
 to alight on, and I will ask you a question : Some time ago there was 
 a joint commission organized between your department and the 
 Agricultural Department, the personnel of which was, on the part of 
 the Agricultural Department, Dr. Galloway, Mr. Graves, and Mr. 
 Potter, I believe; land on the part of the Interior Department,. your- 
 self, the Commissioner of the General Land Office, Mr. Tallman, 
 and who was the third ? 
 
 Mr. Jones. Mr. Bruce, the Assistant Commissioner of the General- 
 Land Office. 
 
 The Chairman. As yet you people have not been able to get to- 
 gether and solve this problem to its last analysis and bring to us 
 anything as the combined judgment of the two departments, have 
 you? 
 
 Mr. Jones. No, sir ; we have had only two meetings. 
 
 Mr. Kent. Mr. Secretary, I see in your question No. 4 that you 
 state that all such districts can not be reclassified or revoked, except 
 in five-year periods. I do not see that in the bill. 
 
 -Mr. Raker. It should be 10 years. , 
 
 Mr. Kent. I think the implication of the question would be rather 
 unfortunate to imply that the whole question of leasing all public 
 domain will be tied up for five years. I did not understand the bill 
 that way. „ . , . 
 
 Mr. Jones. The provision in regard to the five-year period is 
 
 found in section 8 of the bill. , 
 
 The Chairman. We thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, tor 
 coming up here. I will say this: I would like you, on behalf or 
 the committee, Mr. Secretary, to confer with the appropriate sub- 
 heads of divisions in your department and ascertain the tacts, how 
 large a task it is, and what accuracy and what time it would require 
 to give us a statement showing, for instance, what lands have clearly 
 agricultural possibilities, what lands have clearly no agricultural 
 
 35074— pt 1—14 31 
 
482 
 
 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS, 
 
 possibilities in anything like the immediate future, and, third, the 
 possible area that is doubtful in character, to see if we may not 
 work out something of a compromise. 
 
 Mr. Jones. We will endeavor to do so. 
 
 The Chahjman. The record will show that Mr. Hayden is ac- 
 corded the right by the committee to incorporate a certain abstract 
 of correspondence which he has in his desk. He has asked the privi- 
 lege of inserting it in the record, and, without objection, it is so 
 ordered. 
 
 There will be inserted at this point in the record such other state- 
 ments and communications as have already been admitted. Theyl 
 are as follows : 
 
 (Thereupon the committee adjourned.) 
 
 Live stock in 17 western range States on Jan. 1, 1910, and Jan. 1, 191S. 
 
 [ Statistics from United States Department of Agriculture.] 
 
 State. 
 
 Cattle.i 
 
 Sheep. 
 
 Horses. 
 
 1910 
 
 1913 
 
 1910 
 
 1913 
 
 1910 
 
 1913 
 
 
 f 626,000 
 1 25,000 
 
 778,000 
 34,000 
 
 1,020,000 
 2,372,000 
 1,729,000 
 4,248,000 
 278,000 
 5,747,000 
 
 ■ 393,000 
 1,585,000 
 
 ■4,729,000 
 
 ■ 621,000 
 108,000 
 
 1,570,000 
 2,603,000 
 1,737,000 
 2,951,000 
 
 316,000 
 5,111,000 
 
 382,000 
 1,487,000 
 3,300,000 
 
 293,000 
 71,000 
 
 115,000 
 420,000 
 280,000 
 163,000 
 
 1,187,000 
 319,000 
 
 1,045,000 
 
 98,000 
 
 133,000 
 
 712,000 
 
 804,000 
 
 108,000 
 
 
 651,000 
 
 812,000 
 
 California 
 
 1 1,120,000 
 452,000 
 
 1,454,000 
 510,000 
 
 503,000 
 
 
 1,572,000 
 
 1,964,000 
 
 
 1,425,000 
 161,000 
 
 921,000 
 172,000 
 
 324,000 
 
 
 1,586,000 
 
 1,093,000 
 
 
 f 340,000 
 1 81, 000 
 
 340,000 
 102,000 
 
 223,000 
 
 
 I 421, 000 
 
 442,000 
 
 
 3,260,000 
 737,000 
 
 1,778,000 
 698,000 
 
 1,099,000 
 
 
 3,997,000 
 
 2,476,000 
 
 
 
 842,000 
 80,000 
 
 717,000 
 95,000 
 
 354,000 
 
 
 922,000 
 
 812,000 
 
 
 
 3,040,000 
 879,000 
 
 1,902,000 
 607,000 
 
 1,027,000 
 
 
 3,919,000 
 
 2, 509, 000 
 
 
 404,000 
 19,000 
 
 433,000 
 20,000 
 
 75,000 
 
 
 423, COO 
 
 453,000 
 
 
 f 901,000 
 1 29,000 
 
 891,000 
 56,000 
 
 191,000 
 
 
 1 930,000 
 
 947,000 
 
 
 
 f 616,000 
 247,000 
 
 437,000 
 277,000 
 
 712,000 
 
 
 863,000 
 
 714,000 
 
 
 f 1,637,000 
 355,000 
 
 1,155,000 
 484,000 
 
 758,000; 
 
 
 1,992,000 
 
 1,639,000 
 
 i In the cattle figures the first in each State shows the number of beef and miscellaneous cattle. The 
 second shows the number of milch or dairy cattle. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GBAZING LANDS. 483 
 
 Live Stock in 17 western range States on Jan. 1, 1910, and Jan. 1, 1913— Continued. 
 
 
 Cattle. 
 
 Sheep. 
 
 Horses. 
 
 
 1910 
 
 1913 
 
 1910 
 
 1913 
 
 1910 
 
 1913 
 
 
 f 698,000 
 174,000 
 
 452,000 
 187,000 
 
 2,581,000 
 
 829,000 
 
 [ 1,909,000 
 
 [3,177,000 
 
 783,000 
 
 ■7,316,000 
 
 2,644,000 
 593,000 
 
 2,073,000 
 
 1,990,000 
 501,000 
 
 4,472,000 
 
 308,000 
 612,000 
 1,369,000 
 130,000 
 330,000 
 148,000 
 
 292,000 
 
 
 872,000 
 
 630,000 
 
 
 1,341,000 
 656,000 
 
 894,000 
 384,000 
 
 702,000 
 
 
 1,997,000 
 
 1,278,000 
 
 Texas 
 
 7,131,000 
 1,137,000 
 
 5,022,000 
 1,034,000 
 
 1,181,000 
 
 
 8,268,000 
 
 6,056,000 
 
 Utah 
 
 327,000 
 88,000 
 
 352,000 
 85,000 
 
 135,000 
 
 
 415,000 
 
 437,000 
 
 Washington 
 
 f 358,000 
 ! 205,000 
 
 219,000 
 186,000 
 
 299,000 
 
 
 I 563,000 
 
 405,000 
 
 
 Wyoming 
 
 f 959,000 
 1 27,000 
 
 506,000 
 36,000 
 
 157,000 
 
 
 I 986,000 
 
 542,000 
 
 
 Total 
 
 30,377,000 
 
 23, 218, 000 
 
 39,425,000 
 
 32,124,000 
 
 8,173,000 
 
 8,190,000 
 
 
 Live stock in entire United States, numbers and values. 
 [Statistics from United States Department of Agricalture.l 
 
 
 Number. 
 
 Value. 
 
 
 1890. 
 
 15,952,883 
 36,849,000 
 
 1353,152,000 
 
 
 560,625,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 52,801,883 
 14,213,837 
 44,336,072 
 
 913,777,000 
 978,516,000 
 
 
 100,659,000 
 
 
 1901. 
 
 
 
 16,833,657 
 45,500,213 
 
 505,000,000 
 
 
 906,644,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 62,333,870 
 16,744,723 
 59,756,718 
 
 •1,411,644,000 
 855,200,000 
 
 
 178,072,000 
 
 
 1910. 
 
 21,801,000 
 47,279,000 
 
 780,308,000 
 
 
 917,453,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 69,080,000 
 21,801,000 
 57,216,000 
 
 1,697,761,000 
 2,276,000,000 
 
 
 233,664,000 
 
 
 1913. 
 
 20,497,0C0 
 36,030,000 
 
 922,783,000 
 
 
 949,645,000 
 
 
 56,527,000 
 20,567,000 
 51,482,000 
 
 1,872,428,000 
 2,278,000,000 
 
 
 202,679,000 
 
 
 
 Note.— Previous to 1901 the data concerning the number of live stock in the United States was extremely 
 unsatisfactory owing to the lack of systematic and uniform methods of securing it. With sheep the ques- 
 tion as to whether the lambs were or were not included in the total made serious differences in the results. 
 In 1901 the Department of Agriculture and the Census Bureau made an endeavor to harmonize i their ugures, 
 with the result that beginning with that year the figures are fairly reliable, and although secured by 
 different methods, when finally compiled, the census data agrees remarkably well with that secured by 
 the Department of Agriculture. The data for the year 1890 is generally considered as not very reliable. 
 Emm the best obtainable information the number of cattle in the United States between 1880 and 1890 was 
 between 65,000,000 and 70,000,000. The number of sheep about 40,000,000. In 1903 sheep reached the 
 maximum of 60,000,000 head. 
 
484 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Promontory Bay and Lone Rock Ranches, 
 
 Ogden, Utah, February 19, 19V,. 
 
 Mr. T. W. Tomlinson, Esq., 
 
 Denver, Colo. 
 
 Dear Sir: Yours of February 14 at hand, in reply will state that my views 
 on the grazing or leasing bill, it would work to good advantage to all stock- 
 men, especially the small stockman, who, as a rule, ranges from 1 to 300 cat- 
 tle. It would greatly increase the production of beef cattle in the western 
 grazing States; as most any stockman knows that you can raise more calves 
 from 250 cows in an inclosure than you can from" 500 head on the open range, 
 as conditions are at present. With the open-range system 50 per cent of 
 calves is about the best we can do ; while under a fence inclosure the same 
 number of cows will produce at least 80 per cent. A lease law would tend to 
 settle the unoccupied lands that are at present grazed by roaming bands of 
 sheep; the owners of which own no land and has no interest whatsoever in 
 localities, only for the grazing they can secure for their flocks. One can see 
 at a glance that a homesteader with 160 acres of land stands very little show 
 of making a living, or even subsisting, where he is surrounded by such con- 
 ditions. Whereas if he could lease 5 or 10 sections of grazing land he could 
 make a good living, from the fact that he could use part of the land in the 
 summer, the other in the winter season, and would improve and grow dry-land 
 forage crops which would insure him against winter losses. 
 
 I have talked with several small ranchmen and they nearly all favor some 
 kind of a lease law; this applies to ranchmen living in Fremont County, Wyo., 
 where my ranch is located, and also in other counties throughout the State. 
 
 Trusting that you will be able to do the ranchmen some good at the present 
 hearing of the Public Lands Committee, I am, 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 v D. J. Sheehan. 
 
 ) 
 
 Virgin River Stockmen's Association, 
 
 St. George, Utah, February 19, 191k. 
 To the honorable the Public Lands Committee of 
 
 the House of Representatives, }Yashington, D. C. 
 
 Gentlemen : Understanding that H. R. 10539, "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 before your committee for your approval or disapproval, 
 and as the officers of the Virgin River Stockmen's Association, an organization 
 with 185 small stockmen enrolled, acting for and in behalf of the members of 
 said association, we desire to express our approval of the said bill 10539. 
 
 We are in favor of the bill for the reason that if such becomes a law we can 
 see where the cattle industry, that was once the main industry in this section, 
 Washington County, Utah, and the part of Mohave County which lies north of 
 the Colorado River in Arizona, can be partly revived. 
 
 There are about 5,000 square miles in this district that heretofore has 
 been used only for grazing of cattle. The climate is very hot in summer, and 
 the water very scarce, no running streams, and the small springs that are used 
 for the watering of the stock have been developed by the owners of the cattle 
 or their predecessors in interest, and sometimes at quite an expense. 
 
 During the wintertime snow falls on the high ranges, which furnish water 
 for the wandering herds of sheep which come from all parts of the southern 
 200 miles of Utah, and which are grazed on the said district with no object 
 other than to feed the best parts, without any consideration for the cattlemen, 
 and the result has been that thousands of cnttle have starved to death, and 
 with the continual reclamation of the land therein and elsewhere the area over 
 which sheep can rove is being gradually diminished, and that forces more sheep 
 onto the range that has heretofore been grazed exclusively by the cattle, which 
 has forced quite a number of our cattlemen to go out of the business, so that 
 Where we have shipped from 6,000 head of cattle and upward each year in the 
 past we are now shipping less than one-half that number. When we speak of 
 shipping cattle we mean steers. 
 
 There is plenty of range to supply the sheep and cattle owned by the citizep 
 of the above district, providing the range could be controlled, so that each class 
 of stock could have a portion of said range set apart for that class and tran- 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 485 
 
 sient sheep kept off. By passing this bill the sheep industry would not be in- 
 jured, while the cattle industry would increase to such an extent that it would 
 double in two or three years from what it is at the present time, but if some- 
 thing is not done the cattle industry in this part will be killed. 
 
 The power lies with Congress to increase the stock industry by regulating 
 the grazing on the public range, giving to each class of stock that protection 
 that will insure a continuance of range right, free from destructive encroach- 
 ment. 
 
 The conditions that prevail on the above described district is practically the 
 same as prevails on all small ranges in the West, and if Congress will enact 
 some law that will give to each class of stock protection there can be no doubt 
 but what the number of stock will incrense from 20 to 50 per cent within the 
 next two or three years. 
 
 James Andrits, President. 
 D. H. Mokkis, Secretary. 
 
 Statement on Behalf of Western South Dakota, Presented by Harsy L. 
 Gandy, Receiver of the United States Land Office, Rapid City, S. Dak. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Public Lands Committee of the House of 
 Representatives, you have before you for consideration proposed bills for the 
 establishment of what shall be known as a 640-acre stock-raising homestead. It 
 is proposed that no cultivation shall be required, but that such permanent im- 
 provements to the value of $1.25 an acre as shall enhance the value of the tract 
 for stock-raising purposes shall be placed on the lands by the entryman. For 
 the reason that no statement on behalf of the public-land districts of South 
 Dakota has as yet been made before you, I desire to offer the following for your 
 consideration. 
 
 There remains to-day, unappropriated, approximately 1,000,000 acres of public 
 land in the Rapid City land district; 800,000 acres in the Belle Fourche land 
 district ; 300,000 acres in the Lemmon land district ; 225,000 acres in the Pierre 
 land district ; and 150,000 acres in the Gregory land district. The lands that 
 are appropriated in the foregoing land districts now having been entered for 
 some years, it is a safe assertion that the lands remaining constitute the poorest 
 of the lands in the districts. Without any disparagement to our section of the 
 country but in absolute fairness to the people there and to those who may come 
 hereafter, I want to say to you that it is my personal opinion, based on an inti- 
 knowledge of Western South Dakota and its conditions, that 160 acres as now 
 permitted to be entered under the homestead laws will not produce sufficient 
 returns to enable an entryman and his family to live thereon without other 
 means of support. In fact. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the 
 man who enters land in Western South Dakota to-day will, in the very near 
 future, find himself face to face with the proposition that he must either sell or 
 buy. If the entryman 'is unable to buy more lands or to rent them for the pur- 
 pose of keeping his stock thereon, then he must sell and thus becomes the prey 
 of the speculators. To all intents and purposes the entrymen are not receiving 
 the real benefits that are contemplated under the homestead laws. 
 
 Western South Dakota is very rough and broken from the fact that the beds 
 of the streams and dry draws are in each case very much lower than the sur- 
 rounding table-lands. Thus along and adjacent to the streams and dry draws 
 of western South Dakota there is the rough land between the bottom land and 
 the table-lands, which is known as the " breaks." Practically all of the land 
 remaining unappropriated to-day is situated in the rough belts along the streams 
 and draws and is of such character as will not permit of practical cultivation. 
 In that connection I may as well be plain with you and say that even on the 
 table-lands where the land is level, for quite a series of years past the entry- 
 men have been unable to raise on 160 acres of land sufficient crops to maintain 
 themselves and their families. With reference to the inability of entrymen to 
 maintain themselves and their families on their present homesteads, I would 
 cite you to the numerous letters from entrymen which are a part ot this state- 
 
 m in providing for stock-raising homesteads to the amount of 640 acres those 
 citizens of western South Dakota who have heretofore exercised then home- 
 stead rights and who are now much interested in the development ,° f j£„ 
 country and the maintenance of homes there should be taken into consideiation, 
 
486 disposition or gkazing lands. 
 
 as well as the entrymen who shall come hereafter. I want to call your atten 
 tlon to two classes of persons who have heretofore made homestead entries 
 and who should be provided for in this proposed measure. The country adja 
 cent to the Black Hills received its first homestead settlements in the lattei 
 seventies and early eighties. Following this, in the nineties, there came a 
 period of depression when the valuation of lands reached low watermark. Ir 
 those days crops were failures and quarter sections of land could be purchased 
 for from $150 up. I venture the assertion, without fear of successful contra, 
 diction, that in those days the average value of quarter sections of land was 
 from $200 to $400. Unless the poor man had some assistance, he could not 
 continue to pay taxes on the land acquired under his homestead entry; and 
 he, in scores of cases through no fault of his own but because of the adver- 
 sities which nature visited upon that section, lost the land acquired. So far as 
 being able to build up and maintain a home for themselves and their families, 
 they received no real benefit from the homestead laws. 
 
 Then again there is another class of citizens whose original entries are located 
 on the flats or table-lands of western South Dakota where the land is appro- 
 priated all around them, and who can not now make an additional homestead 
 entry adjacent to their original entry. 
 
 It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committees, that 
 in providing for this proposed stock-raising homestead, an entryman who has 
 formerly exercised his homestead right should be permitted to make such an 
 additional entry as when added to the lands heretofore acquired shall approxi- 
 mate 640 acres. 
 
 South Dakota generally has been greatly benefited by the very excellent class 
 of foreign-born citizens who have made homes within her borders, and profiting 
 by the experience of the past, I am of the opinion that entry under this pro- 
 posed act should be permitted by one who has declared his intention to become 
 a citizen of the United States, but that in all cases full citizenship should be 
 shown as a condition precedent to patent. 
 
 In western South Dakota 640 acres will be sufficient for an entryman thereon 
 to keep such a number of cows, his young stock, and his horses, together with 
 his hogs and his poultry, as will enable him to maintain a home for himself 
 and his family. Scattered through this rough land there are small flats and 
 draws -that upon his own initiative he can raise such forage crops as will enable 
 him to keep his stock through the winter. While our people have not been 
 able for several years to raise remunerative crops of grain without irrigation, 
 they have been able with the exception of one year to raise' forage feed crops. 
 
 If this proposed measure should be enacted into law there will be found in 
 the years to come scattered over this large acreage of now unappropriated 
 rough land in western South Dakota the homes of prosperous, contented, and 
 happy people, who will have been given the real benefit that our forefathers 
 contemplated in the enactment of the first public-land laws of this country. 
 Without any reservation, and feeling that I am speaking the unanimous opinion 
 of the citizens of western South Dakota, I urge you to favorably report to the 
 Senate and to the House of Representatives the proposed 640-acre stock-raising 
 homestead measure. 
 
 In order to in a measure substantiate the statements which I have made to you 
 with relation to the sentiment in western Souh Dakota as to this proposed bill, 
 I desire to call your attention to the resolutions from various commercial clubs, 
 the petition of various citizens of Pennington and Meade Counties, and the 
 letters from scores of citizens that I have to-day filed with the clerk of your 
 committee and desire that they be considered as a part of this statement. By 
 reference to this petition and these letters you will find that they come from 
 men in all stations of life, through the various professions and vocations of 
 business life to the settlers on the public domain. These letters voice the 
 same request, and that is for the passage of the stock-raising homestead measure 
 now before you for consideration. 
 
 Whereas our attention has been called to the 640-acre stockraising homestead 
 bill which is now pending in Congress, and believing that such a bill would 
 be most beneficial to western South Dakota for many reasons, some of which 
 are: 
 
 First. Upon the stock raising and dairy industry depends, at least, the pres- 
 ent prosperity of this section of the country, since the major portion of western 
 South Dakota is what is generally known as a short grass country. There are 
 very few quarter sections of land that will support sufficient stock and dairy 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 487 
 
 cows to enable one to make a living. It is vitally necessary to these indus- 
 tries that more pasture and range be in some manner provided. 
 
 Second. If we are to prevent the exodus of a large number of our present 
 settlers it is absolutely imperative that we provide them with more means with 
 which to support themselves and families. The facts are that in past years hun- 
 dreds of settlers have been driven from this country by poverty, due to the fact 
 that they could not live on the amount of land possible to obtain under the 
 present land laws. The proposed bill would, in our opinion, change this con- 
 dition of affairs, and enable settlers to live on and improve the land and, inci- 
 dentally, develop the country. 
 
 Therefore we favor and earnestly urge the passage of this proposed bill, 
 believing that it will be a great benefit to a large portion of our Northwest 
 country. 
 
 We, the undersigned, members of the Board of County Commissioners of 
 Pennington County, S. Dak., now in regular session, have hereunto fixed our 
 signatures this 12th day of March, 1914, and hereby direct that the county 
 auditor prepare and furnish this resolution for the purpose of filing with the 
 proper congressional Committee on Public Lands in Washington, D. C. 
 
 [SEAL.] LUE PLATT, 
 
 Chairman. 
 H. C. Cordes, 
 Aethtje C. Mobeis, 
 H. C. N. Johnson, 
 D. E. Sims, 
 
 Attest : 
 
 J. G. Hopkins, 
 
 County Auditor. 
 
 Yankton, S. Dak., March 9, 1914. 
 Hon. Scott Ferbis, 
 
 Chairman, Public Lands Committee, 
 
 Souse of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 Sib: Being thoroughly familiar with the public land situation in western 
 South Dakota, I want to express myself as being a firm believer in the beneficial 
 results to be obtained by the passage of the proposed 640-acre stock-raising 
 homestead bill, applicable to lands valuable for grazing only. Of the lands 
 that remain to-day unappropriated, an entryman can not maintain himself and 
 his family and build up a home on 160 acres. The real intent and purpose of 
 the homestead law is to provide homes for the people, and when the land thus 
 offered is in such quantity that it will not provide homes, then the situation 
 should be remedied by such legislation as is necessary. 
 
 The proposed 640-acre stock-raising homestead will be a great aid m tne 
 development of the rough and broken lands remaining yet unappropriated in 
 western South Dakota, and I would respectfully urge upon your commitee the 
 favorable consideration of such a bill applicable to South Dakota. 
 
 Respectfully, K g> j0HNS0N . 
 
 . Rapid City, S. Dak., March 9, 1914. 
 
 Hon. H. L. Gandt, 
 
 Register United States Land Office, 
 
 Rapid City, 8. Dak. 
 
 Dear Sir: I wish to state that I am in hearty accord with your, views and 
 the proposed law giving settlers in western South Dakota 640 acres as a home- 
 stead. I am satisfied this is a wise move. „-+«--, 
 
 I have lived here for 30 years and have observed the difficulties of settlers 
 to succeed on lands out here when they had the best to be had, and now that 
 most of the land remaining is largely grazing, it is almost impossible for one 
 to make a living in the old time homestead of 160 acres. The result has been 
 a large number has been forced to simply struggle to comply with the law and 
 make proof and then give up residence on the land and later sell to a large 
 land holder or speculator, and the country still unsettled. 
 
488 DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 With a section of land any man can go out and live on his land and make a 
 living, taking care of stock and doing such cultivation as is possible on his 
 land. I most heartily approve of the suggestion. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 Levi McGee. 
 
 RESOLUTIONS OF THE HOT SPRINGS COMMERCIAL OLUB. 
 
 Hot Springs, S. Dak., March 9, 1914. 
 Whereas the available desirable lands of South Dakota have all been located 
 
 upon and claimed by settlers; and 
 Whereas many homesteaders who have located upon lands west of the Mis- 
 souri River and have obtained only 160 acres, and have demonstrated be- 
 yond a question of doubt that such an amount of land is wholly inadequate 
 for a family to maintain themselves upon, because of the arid character of 
 1 the lands; and 
 Whereas it is a known fact that it requires on an average about 20 acres of 
 
 such lands to feed one head of stock a year ; and 
 Whereas the remaining Government lands of this State are not only within 
 what is known as the semiarid belt, but that they are also mostly exceed- 
 ingly rough and hilly and unfit for cultivation : Therefore be it 
 Resolved, by the Hot Springs Commercial Club, that we believe we express 
 the unanimous sentiment of the people of Fall River County in declaring our- 
 selves in favor of the immediate passage by Congress of the measure proposed 
 by the honorable Secretary of the Interior, now pending before Congress, 
 extending to settlers of this State the privileges of the enlarged homestead, 
 known as the 640-acre stock-raising homestead. 
 
 Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be sent to the Senators and Con- 
 gressman representing South Dakota, and also to Hon. H. L. Gandy, receiver 
 of the United States Land Office at Rapid City, S. Dak., who will appear before 
 the Public Lands Committees of Congress with relation to public-land laws. 
 Approved, Hot Springs, S. Dak., March 9, 1914. 
 
 Elmeb R. Jackson, 
 
 President. 
 J. F. Riordan, 
 Secretary Hot Springs Commercial Club. 
 
 Mayor's Office, 
 Hot Springs, S. Dak., March 8, 1914. 
 Hon. Habry L. Gandy, 
 
 Rapid City, S. Dale. 
 
 Dear Sib : Upon the success of the efforts now being made to bring about the 
 passage by the Congress of the United States of the 640-acre stock-raising 
 homestead bill depends the prosperity and permanent settlement of this part 
 of the State of South Dakota. 
 
 The many years that I have lived here have fully demonstrated the fact that 
 the ranchers can not make a living or maintain themselves without keeping a 
 small bunch of stock, and as 160 acres will only keep 10 or 12 head at most, 
 the settler can not support his family. 
 
 With a 640 tract and the number of head of stock upon it that it would sup- 
 port, would enable the settler to make a good living and a permanent home 
 upon these lands. I have talked with many of the ranchmen, and they all 
 favor the bill and agree that they must go into stock and must have more land 
 to use or they must leave the country. Knowing that your best efforts will be 
 put forth to bring about the passage of this bill, and hoping that you may be 
 successful, I remain, 
 
 Yours, very truly, A. W. Riordan. 
 
 Office of County Judge Pennington County, 
 
 Rapid City, 8. Dale, March 9, 1914. 
 Hon. Habry L. Gandy, 
 
 Rapid City, S. Dale. 
 My Deab Mr. Gandy : I am greatly pleased with the proposed 640-acre grazing 
 homestead law, and trust that it may be enacted as speedily as possible. Its 
 
DISPOSITION OP GRAZING LANDS. 489 
 
 adoption will mean the establishment of many homes on land that at the present 
 is practically valueless and that will not be entered under any of the present 
 laws. 
 
 I understand that you are to appear before the Public Land Committees of 
 the Senate and House of Representatives, at Washington, in the interest of 
 this proposed law, and I feel that with your intimate knowledge of conditions 
 here and of the needs of the settlers you will be able to give the committees 
 valuable information. You can not urge the passage of this measure too 
 strongly. Its speedy adoption will be of great value to homeseekers. 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 E. S. Johnston. 
 
 The Newell Commercial Club, 
 Newell, S. Dak., March 11, 1914. 
 Hon. Habby L. Gandy, 
 
 Care Hon. Cyrus Cline, M. 0., 
 
 Washington, D. 0. 
 Dear Sir: Concerning a bill to provide for stock-raising homesteads of 640 
 acres. The proposed bill was read at length at a meeting of the commercial 
 club this morning and discussed at length. A resolution approving the measure 
 was prepared and adopted, copy of which is attached. 
 
 South Dakota should have had such a law years ago ; quarter sections are 
 now moving very slowly since people in general have come to know that a 
 quarter section of dry land is not enough for the support of a family. We dare 
 say that the vacant Government land will move very slowly under the present 
 law; but with the passage of the proposed 640-acre law, there will be an ade- 
 quate amount of land for the support of a family, and such homesteads will 
 look good to settlers who will occupy the land permanently. 
 
 We are safe in saying that the above accurately represents the ideas of all 
 the business men and settlers in this part of the State. 
 
 Without the passage of this 640-acre law this country wiir remain unde- 
 veloped; the present land proved up will be of little value except to the occa- 
 sional live stockman who will get the benefit of the grass through tresspassing. 
 The remaining Government land in this country will not be taken by substantial 
 settlers except through the 640-acre homestead. 
 Thanking you for pushing this matter to the utmost of your ability, we are, 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 Newell Commercial Club, 
 By E. J. Spencer, President. 
 John L. Barnes, Secretary. 
 
 concerning a bill to provide for stock-raising HOMESTEADS OF 64 ACRES. 
 
 We, the undersigned, residents of Butte County, S. Dak., hereby represent 
 as follows : That we consider the above-described bill not only beneficial to but 
 very necessary for the development of this county and for the unwooded and 
 nonlrrigable portions of the whole State west of the Missouri River. 
 
 That outside of the irrigated portions and the timbered portions of western 
 South Dakota, practically all of the territory is chiefly valuable for grazing 
 or raising of forage crops. That the raising of grain for the market has not 
 and can not prove profitable, owing to scanty rainfall and rapid evaporation ; 
 that only occasional crops will mature. That even in the rare cases of har- 
 vested crops, the generally great distances from ranches to local markets, and 
 then the high freight rates to crop centers, preclude the raising of grains at 
 a profit That the onlv practicable system of cropping is to raise forage crops. 
 
 That the history of homesteading in these parts on quarter sections proves 
 conclusively as follows : _ . . 
 
 First. That quarter sections alone do not appeal to those who have sumcient 
 means to improve the land to a considerable degree. 
 
 Second. That a quarter section of land is far from being sufficient to sustain 
 a family ; and that the few who have remained on the land in these parts were 
 able to do so only because of much vacant land around them which they ftave 
 utilized for grazing. 
 
490 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Third. That the quarter sections in nine cases out of every ten have appealed 
 to those who count on proving up as quickly as possible and then removing from 
 .the land. That the homesteading of these parts has not added any considerable 
 population to the country in home-making. 
 
 That the only salvation of western South Dakota is the raising of hay and 
 forage crops for the feeding of love stock as the finished product. 
 
 That no less than 640 acres will be sufficient land for the summer pasturing 
 and the raising of winter feed for enough live stock for the support of a family. 
 
 That we approve of all features of the attached proposed bill. 
 
 Hot Springs, S. Dak., March 9, 1914. 
 Hon. Harry L. Gandy, 
 
 Rapid City, S. Dak. 
 
 Dear Sir : My attention has been called to the 640-acre stock grazing home- 
 stead bill which is now pending in Congress, and believing that you might have 
 influence in obtaining the passage of this bill, and as I am so heartily in favor 
 of it, I take the liberty of writing you in regard to the same. There can be no 
 question but that such a bill would be most beneficial to western South Dakota. 
 However, one should not make such a statement without being able to give some 
 reason, hence I give you the following reasons, which prompt me in saying that 
 I feel sure that the prosperity and progress of western South Dakota would be 
 greatly furthered by the passage of this bill. 
 
 First. Upon the stock grazing and dairy industrp depends at least the present 
 prosperity of this section of the country. Under present conditions a home- 
 steader can only file upon 160 acres of land, and since we have the herd law in 
 force, he is confined to this 160 acres upon which to carry on, not only his 
 farming operations but the stock grazing and dairy industry as well. Since the 
 major portion of western South Dakota is What is generally known as the short- 
 grass country, there are very few 160 acres of land that will support sufficient , 
 stock and dairy cows to enable one to even make a living. It is vitally neces- 
 sary to these industries that more pasture and range be in some manner pro- 
 vided. I believe that the 640 homestear would in a large measure solve this 
 problem. 
 
 Second. As you already know, there is a vast acreage in western South 
 Dakota that is of no value except for stock grazing purposes. Under the present 
 law it is foolhardy for a person to file on any such land, since it is a foregone 
 conclusion that he can not make a living on 160 acres of it. The passage of 
 the 640-acre homestead bill, by enabling one to obtain four times the acreage 
 he now can obtain, would undoubtedly cause much of this land to be settled 
 upon and become wealth producing for the State and Nation. 
 
 Third. If we are to prevent the exodus of a large number of our present 
 settlers, it is absolutely imperative that we provide them with more means with 
 which to make a living. I find among a large number of these settlers this 
 sentiment. They are willing and anxious to stay here, providing they can make 
 a living and lay aside a little for a rainy day, but this is impossible in the great 
 majority of cases on 160 acres of land. However, if they can procure an addi- 
 tional entry of 480 acres, the means above mentioned would be obtained, and 
 a large number of our settlers would remain and become wealth-producing 
 citizens when otherwise they will leave. 
 
 I trust that you will use every influence in your power to bring about the 
 passage of this bill. I assure you that anything in my power which I may 
 be able to do to in any way assist will be most cheerfully done. 
 Tours, very truly, 
 
 Lawrence H. Hedrick. 
 
 Sturgis, S. Dak., March 7, 191h. 
 Hon. Harry L. Gandy, 
 
 Receiver, United States Land Office, Rapid City, 8. Dak. 
 
 Dear Sir : Referring to the proposed 640-acre stock-raising homestead bill, I 
 desire to submit the following: 
 
 The public lands in Meade County remaining unappropriated are for the most 
 part the rough lands adjacent to the creeks and rivers. Meade County is tra- 
 versed by the Bellefourche River, Alkali Creek, Elk Creek, the Elms, Cherry 
 Creek, and their tributaries. Along these creeks and rivers there are to-day 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 491 
 
 approximately a quarter of a million acres which have no value at all except 
 for grazing purposes. For a man to take a quarter-section homestead and 
 attempt to provide a home for himself and his family in that rough land is 
 foolishness. But if a homesteader could have sufficient land to take care of a 
 few cows and his young stock, with a team of horses, hogs, and poultry, he 
 could make a living. I am of the opinion that the proposed seetion homestead 
 bill for stock-raising purposes and on land only suitable for grazing would be a 
 great benefit to Meade County and to western South Dakota generally. Only 
 under such a bill will our rough lands be appropriated. 
 
 Because of the fact that our county is cut up with creeks, rivers, and dry 
 draws the proposed stock-raising homestead bill as it now stands would give 
 the greatest benefit to those whose present entries or lands are located on the 
 edge of the breaks. The additional homestead ought not to be required to be 
 contiguous to the orignal entry, for that will deprive those whose lands are not 
 on the edge of the breaks of the real benefits of this act. If a man has taken 
 160 acres, and he can not secure additional land contiguous to his entry, he 
 ought to be permitted to take such land wherever he can find it as when added 
 to his original entry will make up the 640 acres. 
 
 I was raised in this county and know the adversities under which those who 
 have tried to maintain homes for themselves and their families have labored. 
 Two propositions have faced the homestead entryman who has taken 160 acres 
 of land, and from the very nature of adverse conditions in this country he has 
 been compelled to do one of the other : Either sell the quarter which he has, or 
 buy more joining it. A quarter section of land will not maintain a family in 
 this country. From my years of experience in this county; and speaking both 
 privately and as a public official, I commend the proposed 640-acre stock-raising 
 homestead bill. 
 
 Respectfully, Burt Burton, 
 
 Auditor, Meade County. 
 
 Jack Foster Camp No. 3, United Spanish Wab Veteeans, 
 
 Hot Springs, 8. Dak., March 8, 191%. 
 
 Mr. Habby L. Gandy, Rapid City, 8. Dak. 
 
 My Deab Sir: The writer wishes to congratulate you on your action and 
 efforts in behalf of the 640-acre homesteads for this part of South Dakota. I 
 have a homestead in section 15-8-3, as the records in your office will show, and 
 while I have held this for over a year and a half, I have never yet seen the 
 time when I could make a living from the bare 160 acres. My neighbors, some 
 of whom also have desert claims, all tell me the same story. If it was not for 
 work that they procure on the outside they would starve to death or else have 
 to relinquish their claims. 
 
 All that this land in western South Dakota, and especially in the Black 
 Hills section, is good for is grazing, and then it will take a whole seetion to 
 properly feed 20 head of stock. The matter of raising grain on this land Is 
 clear beyond our fondest dreams. True, a little squaw corn can be raised, but 
 it never amounts to more than a little shock fodder. If each of us had a sec- 
 tion, we could support from 10 to 20 milch cows in fair shape and could then 
 look at life with some hopes. 
 
 It has been one of my ambitions to establish a milk depot in my section and 
 a cooperative dairy association. If all of my neighbors and those to come had 
 a section each, we could do this and build up a nice dairy country in time. We 
 are not far from Lead and other good shipping points, so we have the markets 
 and the railroad facilities, but we do not have enough land. 
 
 There are a number of my comrades in Battle Mountain Sanitarium and the 
 State Home who would be encouraged to take up homesteads and become inde- 
 pendent citizens instead of wards of the Nation and the State if this enlarged 
 homestead action passes Congress. 
 
 What South Dakota and the western part of it needs is more homes and more 
 dairy farms. You have solved the whole riddle in your recommendations to the 
 General Land Office by advising the enactment of the 640-acre law. God grant 
 that it may be passed. ,. , . . „ 
 
 Thanking you in the name of all my neighbors and for myself and giving 
 
 you the privilege of using this letter to further the cause if you so wish, I am, 
 
 Tours sincerely, . . _ rr „„ 
 
 Lieut. Earl Klook. 
 
492 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 P. S. — Here is another point: I iave been down along the border land of 
 Nebraska and South Dakota, where the land all joins and is exactly alike. 
 With one foot I could stand on a 160-acre homestead in this State and with 
 the other on a 640-acre Kinkaid homestead in Nebraska. The land is identi- 
 cally the same. Is such a law, which prohibits citizens of one State from hav- 
 ing an equal acreage with his neighbor in the next State, fair? — B. H. K. 
 
 The Edgemont Enteepbise, 
 Edgemont, 8. Dak., March 4, 1914. 
 Hon. Habby L. Gandy, Rapid City, S. Dak. 
 
 Deab Sib : Your communication relative to the proposed " stock-raising home- 
 stead " measure was received and read with much gratification. It occurs to 
 me that such a measure put into effect would be of untold benefit to this section, 
 second only to a free-homestead act. Please accept my warmest congratulations 
 on the stand you have taken in this matter that means so much to the future 
 building up of this " part of the western empire." 
 
 Very respectfully, Ed. A. Skinneb, 
 
 Rapid City, S. Dak., March 9, 191k. 
 Mr. H. L. Gandy, 
 
 Receiver United States Land Office, Rapid City, S. Dak. 
 
 Sib: Having had nearly five years' experience as a special agent of the 
 General Land Office, and having lived for years in Nebraska, where the section 
 homestead law is in operation, I take this opportunity of -jxpressing my views 
 on the proposed " stock raising homestead of 640 acres." • 
 
 In the event of the passage of such an act, it would be availed of to a very 
 great extent by all the settlers still in this vicinity. In fact, the resident settlers 
 would file on the greater portion of the vacant public land still open to entry 
 in the western part of South Dakota. There is a large area of vacant public 
 land in South Dakota that would be applied for under such an act. There are 
 approximately 700,000 acres in the Rapid City district, and nearly as much 
 vacant public land in the Bellefourche district that would be entered under such 
 a law. There are possibly 100,000 acres of rough land in the breaks of the 
 Cheyenne and Bellefourche Rivers that would not be entered under the present 
 homestead law nor under the proposed stock-raising homestead. 
 
 Tlie lands which are suitable for grazing only and which would probably not 
 be entered under such a homestead law are located in narrow strips extending 
 through the gumbo breaks on each side and parallel with the Cheyenne and 
 Bellefourche Rivers. AH this grazing land would be entered that was near 
 enough to be taken as additional homesteads to the nearly level land either on 
 top or at the foot of those breaks. 
 
 In all other places in this land district the lands suitable for grazing only 
 and the laud suitable for homesteads are so intermingled that all of the grazing 
 land would be taken either as an original or additional homestead. That is to 
 say, all of the vacant public land would be entered under the proposed stock- 
 raising homestead except possibly a strip of the rough breaks along the two 
 rivers. 
 
 A law leasing or permitting the grazing lands to be leased would greatly re- 
 tard settlement and entry of the vacant public lands. There would bo no end 
 to the trouble between lessees and settlers. There would be much litigation 
 over trespass of stock on settled lands. The fencing and grazing would prevent 
 settlement. The lessee and his employees would drive bona fide settlers from 
 the vacant public land. This would be done by threats, intimidation, and vari- 
 ous ways, and it would be practically impossible to secure convictions for such 
 offenses. It would practically stop all entries on the area leased and discourage 
 entry of other lands, because the entryman would be fenced in by the lessee or 
 lessees of adjoining lands and the bona fide entryman would have no open range 
 on which to graze his own stock. If lands were leased and the lessee permitted 
 to inclose the same by fences, settlement and entry within the inclosure would 
 be impeded and interfered with to such an extent that practically no bona fide 
 entryman would make entry within such an area. The word bona fide is used 
 intentionally, because there would be a large number of so-called ''dummy" 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 493 
 
 entrymen or fraudulent entries made for the benefit of the lessee by persons 
 in his employ. The lessee would see that it was common report that he had the 
 land leased and that no one could settle within the inclosnre, regardless of how 
 the law or lease might read. 
 
 The statements made with reference to the proposed lease law are based on 
 my actual personal experience in our efforts to abate unlawful inclosures of 
 vacant public lands. 
 
 From my thousands of interviews with entrymen during the past five years 
 I give the following as their views as to the method they wish adopted for the 
 management or disposal of the remaining public lands. They do not want the 
 vacant public lands to remain as at present uncontrolled and open to public 
 general use and occupation. They much prefer private ownership. They do not 
 want a lease law. They know that the man with the more money or influence 
 would get control and starve out the small landholder. They do not want the 
 land sold in large bodies for the same reason. The poor and honest settler 
 would also be forced to sell to the larger landowner. The individual who could 
 purchase 10 sections or more would prefer such an act, but the great number of 
 entrymen in moderate circumstances would never approve an act whereby a 
 more well-to-do individual could purchase all the adjoining vacant land and 
 then set his own price on the small holding of the entryman. The extension of 
 credit at a low rate of interest would not change the situation. No law has as 
 yet been enacted that the small owner could be benefited by but that the more 
 well-to-do would secure the more benefit from it. To sell to actual settlers only 
 would be an improvement, but, generally speaking, the average entryman in this 
 vicinity would be unable to purchase even on the long term of credit, because 
 some initial payment would be required, and the money lender would eventually 
 acquire the land and the settler move away. No law for selling the land can be 
 devised but what the man with the more money will eventually own the land. 
 m If the land were classified and divided into such units as would appear 
 reasonable for the support of a family and subject to homestead entry only, 
 such a law would be greatly preferred by bona fide settlers and by the resi- 
 dents now on the public lands, or what was the public domain until entered a 
 few years ago, however, the now residents would stipulate that they be 
 considered qualified to make such an entry. 
 
 To sum up the situation the proposed stock-raising homestead of 640 acres, 
 if enacted, would be enough for western South Dakota at present. Such a law 
 in operation for three years and there would be practically no vacant public 
 land left to dispose of in this State. 
 
 Such an act would stop the endless chain of litigation on desert-land entries. 
 That act could then well be repealed in so far as it applied to South Dakota. 
 The isolated-tract sales would be over, because the adjoining applicant would 
 enter the land under the proposed act. This stock-raising homestead law 
 should be enacted and allowed to operate for three years before any further 
 laws were enacted in relation to the vacant public lands. All of the vacant 
 public land in this Rapid City land district would then be entered except 
 some of the more rough portions, which could be disposed of under the first 
 proviso of the act of March 28, 1912. 
 
 It may be needless to add that no commutation should be permitted on a 
 stock-raising homestead entry. The teacher, the stenographer, and the rail- 
 road man are all right in their proper place, but they have been a failure in the 
 attempt to put bona fide settlers upon the public domain. 
 
 The foregoing statements are merely my views based on my own experience 
 and observation. The above is submitted for your consideration, and you are 
 at liberty to use the same as you may desire. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 A. B. Bouton, 
 Special Agent, General Land Office. 
 
 Hot Springs, S. Dak., March 10, 191%. 
 Mr. Habby L. Gandy, 
 
 Receiver, Rapid City, 8. Dale. 
 Deab Sib : Tour inquiry in regard to our opinion on the " 640-acre stock-rais- 
 ing homestead bill," if such bill becomes a law it will be a great help to the 
 people and country ; it will not only help in getting this rough land on the tax 
 list, but it will help the man that is at the present time trying to live on 160 
 
494 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 acres of this rough land to make a very decent living, as it has been thoroughly 
 demonstrated that it is impossible for a person to make a living on only 160 
 acres of this rough land ; he hasn't the land to farm, and therefore has to make 
 his living by raising cattle, sheep, and horses, and we have found by actual 
 experience that 160 acres of this rough land is entirely too small for one man 
 or one person to make a living on. 
 
 We are very much in favor of his becoming a law ; we have talked with quite 
 a few people in our county and find all of them in favor of same. 
 Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 Fall River County Abstract Company, 
 By J. C. Waley, Secretary. 
 
 Hereford, S. Dak., March 9, 1914. 
 Mr. Harry. Gandy. 
 
 Dear Sir : In regard to that 640-acre homestead law ; I will say that I think it 
 will be a good thing. I have lived in the State of South Dakota for 27 years 
 and have tried to make a living on a 160-acre homestead and have failed. 
 
 My people also tried it before me and did the same as I have. I think if I 
 could get 480 acres of pasture or rough land I could make a go of it here, but 
 if I can not get any more land I am obliged to leave. 
 
 I think that law would benefit more people than the old law, as the people 
 that need that land the most are the homesteaders that are to poor to buy 
 more than their 160 acres. 
 Yours, with respect, 
 
 Frank M. Pierce, 
 
 A homesteader. 
 
 Owanka, S. Dak., March 8, 1914. 
 Harry L. Gandy, 
 
 Rapid City, 8. Dak.: 
 A agree with you, Mr. Harry L. Gandy, on stock-raising homestead. I have 
 filed on a quarter section of grazing land in Meade County, S. Dak. I am a 
 married man. My improvements are as follows: House, barn, well, and fenc- 
 ing. I have eight head of horses, four cows, and some young stock. I haven't 
 enough feed for what little stock I have got on my place. I have been renting 
 land, and cut hay on it to feed my cattle during the winter. It is impossible 
 for me to make a living on this land if my parents didn't help me along. If I 
 could add to this homestead some of the Government land adjoining it would 
 make me a splendid ranch, and then I could make a living for my family. I 
 have filed on 40 acres of desert land. Being as the law is now I can not prove 
 upon it, because there is not 5 acres on it that I can irrigate, and it leaves me 
 in a bad condition. 
 Hoping to see the new law in effect, 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 Ed. Shressin. 
 
 Scenic, S. Dak., March 7, 1914. 
 Mr. H. L. Gandy. 
 
 Dear Sir: The conditions in this part of South Dakota are such that a 
 family on 160 acres of this dry land can not make a living. If we could have 
 640 acres, it would give us a chance to run some stock; under present con- 
 ditions we can not keep stock enough to do us much good. I believe most 
 of the people that have left here would return, which would be the developing 
 of this country, provided they could have more land for grazing purposes. 
 
 I believe if we had range enough of our own we could get money to stock 
 up with. This is a stock country, not a farming country, and the small rancher 
 with limited range and capital will have to give way to the man with large 
 capital and large herds. 
 Your, truly, 
 
 Wm. H. Levy. 
 
 P. S. — By all means work for the enlarged homestead. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 495 
 
 Owanka, S. Dak., 
 
 March 9, 191b. 
 The tone of the proposed " grazing law " seems to meet with the approval of 
 this community generally. 
 
 A former proposed bill contained a clause taking away the right of those who 
 have sold their original homestead of further filing. Now, many of our best 
 citizens have sold homesteads and bought other land, gaining in the transaction 
 enough to put respectable improvements on the land bought; while many who 
 still own their land have left the country as soon as they could prove up, and 
 doing nothing along the line of improvement for the community. 
 Hope this clause will be absent in the grazing homestead bill. 
 Some have left because they could get only 160 acres, which will not permit 
 of much stock and not allow a person to " spread." 
 Push it along. 
 Very truly, 
 
 A. P. Willhoite. 
 
 The Owanka Bee, 
 Owanka, 8. Dak., March 9, 191//. 
 Mr. Harby L. Gandy, 
 
 Receiver United States Land Office, Rapid City, 8. Dale. 
 Dear Sir : Replying to your communication of March 2, 1914, giving out infor- 
 mation regarding a proposed bill for the establishment of a " stock-raising home- 
 stead," will say that it seems to be the opinion of many here that if such a bill 
 is passed it will be a great thing for South Dakota and a wise way to dispose 
 of the rough grazing lands that are lying idle along the banks of our rivers and 
 streams. While 640 acres seems a large allotment for one person, yet perhaps 
 Js not too much. But even smaller tracts, say, 320 acres, for dairy farms would 
 be better than the present small allotment of 160 acres, and have a tendency to 
 keep the homesteader here. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Gertrude Willhoite. 
 
 The Owanka State Bank, 
 
 Owanka, 8. Dak., March 9, 191$. 
 Mr. H. L. Gandy, 
 
 Receiver, Rapid City, 8. Dak. 
 Dear Sib : I have just been reading about the proposed bill for 640-acre graz- 
 ing homesteads, and the matter struck me so forcibly that I am dropping you 
 this line. • 
 
 During the five years that I have been in this country and in contact with the 
 farmers I have had the fact impressed upon me more and more forcibly that an 
 ordinary man can not make a success on a 160-acre tract ; that stock raising is 
 necessary, and that to do this the homesteader or settler must own or have 
 access to a considerable acreage. 
 
 I believe that this measure would result in a better showing of fair play to 
 the homesteader and settler, and that it would work for the prosperity of this 
 country, and at the same time settle land up that otherwise would remain un- 
 productive. 
 
 I wish you success in anything you can do to further the measure and assure 
 you that if at any time I can be of any help in this, that you will call upon me. 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 F. B. Stiles, Cashier. 
 
 Rapid City, S. Dak., March 4, 191/ f . 
 Mr. Harry L. Gandy, 
 
 Receiver of the United States Land Office, Rapid City. 
 •-. Gentlemen : I just read in the paper about the proposed 640-acre homestead 
 law. And right here permit me to say that such a law will have the approval 
 of the majority. I am a homesteader and got a family, too. I did try that 
 farming proposition on 160 acres. The surest way — nay, the only way — to make 
 a living is with a milch cow, and keep the increase of your small herd, but you 
 
4% DISPOSITION OF GKAZING LANDS. 
 
 can not do it on 160 acres. With the present homestead law the whole game 
 is to sell out or buy more land. I know quite a number of homesteaders that 
 will have to play that losing game of selling out. The new proposed law 
 would save them and help the country, too. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 John Bourqtjin. 
 
 Rapid City, S. Dak., March 5, 191%. 
 Deab Sib: I agree with Mr. Gandy on the new homestead law. I have a 
 claim located in Meade County, S. Dak., and have the following improvements: 
 House, 16 by 26; barn, 32 by 34; henhouse, 12 ny 16; cattle shed, 26 by 50; 
 blacksmith shop and a machine shed. I have 8 milch cows, 12 head of young 
 stock, and 11 head of horses. I can not make a Hying on 160 acres. I filed 
 on a desert claim and my wife filed on one (all rough land) which we have 
 been using for pasture. I have done all the work necessary on both of the 
 desert claims, and have built dams on both that held water all the year around 
 for my stock. I can not prove up under the desert-claim law, because there 
 is not 5 acres on each quarter section which can be irrigated — it is all rough 
 land. I must have more land than my one homestead to make a living on, 
 because this country is too dry. 
 Yours, truly 
 
 Herman Kressik. 
 
 Rapid City, S. Dak., March 5, 1911,. 
 Mr. H. L. Gandy, 
 
 Rapid City, 8. Dak. 
 Dear Sir : I have been reading of a proposed change in the homestead laws, 
 which will make it possible for one to file on 640 acres instead of 160 acres as 
 Is now the law. Now, Mr. Gandy, I wish that you would use all of your in- 
 fluence to secure this change. You know that I am a traveling salesman, and 
 that it would be foolishness for me to give up my work and take my family 
 out on one of those dry, 160-acre homesteads and try to make a living for them 
 from the homestead. On the other hand, if I could secure 640 acres on my 
 homestead filing, I could and would give up the road work and take such a 
 homestead, for then I could, with a few cows and chickens make a comfort- 
 able living for my family. I firmly believe that there are thousands of acres 
 in this State that will never be filed upon unless some such change is made 
 in the homestead law. Please do all that you can that I, and many others like 
 me, may secure homes for ourselves and families. 
 
 Thanking you for what I know you will try to do in this matter, I am. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 O. F. Praix. 
 
 Sttjrgis, S. Dak., March 7, 1311,. 
 Mr. Gandy, * 
 
 Rapid City, S. Dale. 
 Dear Sir : I have read your opinion in regard to the 640-acre homestead in 
 the Rapid City paper. I think it would be good for this part of the State, as 
 there is nothing left that anyone would take if they could only take 160 acres. 
 Wishing you success, I remain. 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 J. B. Murdy. 
 
 Hereford, March 6, 191!,. 
 Mr. H. L. Gandy, 
 
 Receiver United States Land Office, 
 
 Rapid City, S. Dak. 
 Dear Sir : Glad I was to hear about the movement of a 640-acre homestead 
 law, and if a law like this will come in effect it surely is a blessing to this 
 part of the country and for the homesteader who is trying to make it stick 
 for the last five years on 160 acres of land without any success. I personally 
 have tried it for several years, with the outcome that it has nearly broke me 
 financially. Take, also, in consideration the Hoerth law which is work- 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 497 
 
 ing now. Barring us who have a few head of stock to make use of the rough 
 and open Government tracks of land, because we can not fence them, and 
 without fencing the stock will go on somebody else's property, thereby making 
 lawbreaking citizens of us, which we do not care to be. I surely hope that the 
 gentlemen in Washington will help us with all their power in securing this 
 new 640-acre homestead law and that they also will see to it that this law will 
 come in effect before very long. 
 
 It is mighty tiresome, Mr. Gandy, to wait as long upon a law as we are 
 waiting now upon the enlarged homestead law of 320 acres and having in 
 the same time surrounding tracts of land where homestead filings are put on, 
 merely for speculation and will shut us off from using the isolated tract act. 
 Mr. Gandy, I sincerely hope that you will do all there is in your power to 
 help us homesteaders to get a law of 640 acres homestead, and that it be made 
 so that we can this summer use it as pasture, thereby giving us a chance to 
 cultivate our present homestead tract more largely, which will benefit us much 
 if we might get a good rainy season this year. 
 
 I remain, most respectfully, 
 
 A. Mulder. 
 
 Sttjrgis, S. Dak., March 6, 19ll t . 
 Hon. Harry L. Gandy. 
 
 Dear Sir : I am a resident of South Dakota for 27 years and have a home- 
 stead of 160 acres in township 5, range 9, and the northeast quarter of section 19. 
 Am in favor of the 320-acre law with the limit of 3 miles, for the reason that I 
 don't think that a man can make a living on 160 acres, for he has to pretty near 
 have some stock, and if he has stock he has not much plow land. So if you can 
 do anything for the country, why, you have the vote of the people. Now, nearly 
 all the land that is left is all rough and broken, so it will never be filed on, 
 for it is all breaks. 
 Tours, truly, 
 
 Walter S. Barnes. 
 
 Hereford, S. Dak., February C, 191I). 
 Hon. Harry L. Gandy, 
 
 Rapid City, S. Dak.- 
 I have been in the State for eight years. I filed on a homestead March 12, 
 1913. Homestead in section 13, township 5 north, range 9 east. In regard to the 
 640-acre law, it is the only way to keep the people in the country. It takes too 
 many acres to pasture one head, and besides, we need stock to feed up the 
 offage, and it looks like the only law for the country. 
 Tours, truly, 
 
 Walter 0. Martin. 
 
 Sturgis, S. Dak., March 6, 19 H. 
 Hon. Harry L. Gandy, 
 
 Rapid City, 8. Dale. 
 Dear Sir : In regard to the enlarged homestead act which is being advocated, 
 I wish to say that I am in favor of it, as a man needs more than one quarter 
 to make a living and most of us have not the means to buy more, and even if 
 we idid, would be buying from a man who could stay had he any way of 
 getting more. There is a great deal of land in this vicinity that will never 
 be taken any other way, as it is all breaks and too rough for farming. I would 
 klSQ- be in favor of allowing a man who had a desert entry but who had not 
 received patent for same to relinquish and file that in his additional home- 
 stead, as it seems to me land proven desert is only fit for grazing. I was born 
 in this part of the State and have lived on a ranch all my life (24 years) and 
 know it is impossible to make a living farming. One needs stock also and 
 some place to keep them. My homestead is the southwest quarter of section 9, 
 township, 5 north,. range. 9 east. 
 Tours, respectfully, 
 
 Jerome Hayes. 
 
 35074— pt 1—14 32 
 
498 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Sturgis, S. Dak, March 6, 1914. 
 Hon. Habry L. Gandy, 
 
 Rapid City, 8. Dale. 
 Dear Sib : In regard to the enlarged homestead, I wish to say that I am in 
 favor of it. I came to the country in 1884 and have since lived in various 
 parts of western South Dakota, and in 1895 filed on the southwest quarter of sec- 
 tion 5, township 5 north, range 9 east, B. H. M., where I have since resided, and 
 can say that a man has a hard time to make a living on one-quarter section; 
 as to depend on farming alone that is impossible, and to have stock one has to 
 have some place to keep them, so I think the enlarged homestead would be a 
 great thing as it would also help to keep the young men in the country who are 
 now going to Canada, Wyoming, and Montana, where they have larger home- 
 steads. I have a large family and find it hard to keep the girls on the farm, to 
 say nothing of the boys. I would also be in favor of allowing a man who had 
 a desert entry, but who had; not received patent for same, to relinquish and take 
 it in his additional. I would be in favor of allowing one, if there was no land 
 adjoining him, to take some two or even four miles distant. 
 Yours, etc., 
 
 T. B. Hayes. 
 
 Alkali, S. Dak., March 7, 1914. 
 Dear Sir : I would like to see a law passed to get more land as a hundred and 
 sixty is not enough for farming and grazing, and the land does not produce 
 enough for a man to live on. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 R. E. Gillette. 
 
 Alkali, S. Dak., March 4, 1914. 
 Mr. Harry L. Gandy. 
 
 Dear Sir : In the Rapid City Journal of March 2, 1914, the article referred to 
 a 640-acre homestead law. 
 
 Will say that. I think it would be a great thing for this part of the country, 
 as it would give the settlers a chance to raise more stock and do more farming. 
 Under present conditions, if we break up 40 or 50 acres, we have not pasture 
 enough to accommodate much stock. And people can make but a bare existence 
 without stock. Farming here one year with the other is not profitable. 
 
 The good level land in this part is all taken, leaving the breaks and rough 
 landl, which is unfit for homesteads under the present law, where if the set- 
 tlers could take up three-quarters of this land, it would give them pasture 
 enough to handle more stock, which would be a great help to the people. Then 
 in a few years this land would be on the tax list. 
 
 Hoping that the Public Lands Committee will give this matter due attention 
 for the benefit of he people of western South Dakota. 
 Yours, respectfully. 
 
 Chas. C. Parsons. 
 
 Alkali, S. Dak., March 7, 1914. 
 Dear Sib : We would like to see a law passed to get more land, as a hundred 
 and sixty is not enough for farming and grazing, andl the land does not produce 
 enough for a man to live on. 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 F. G. Sunderland. 
 
 Stubgis, S. Dak., March 7, 1914. 
 Dear Sir: In answer to your writing in Rapid paper about section law, I 
 will" say I think — and believe every one else in this neighborhood! thinks the 
 same — we should have more land, as there is so much rough land in this part of 
 the State that will never be taken unless in this way. 
 Hoping you will get this thing through, I remain, 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 John Endres. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 499 
 
 Bower, S. Dak., March 8, 1911,. 
 Hon. H. I. Gandy, 
 
 Rapid City, 8. Dak. 
 
 Dear Sir : I read this morning about the proposition on foot to allow home- 
 steaders to take an additional stock homestead of 480 acres. If this could be 
 brought about, it would save this part of the country for us newcomers. I have 
 been here three years and I know we can not stay on 160 acres. 
 
 Two of my nephews have deeded their land and gone back to Minnesota. 
 They are in love with this climate and wish to come back, and have been hop- 
 ing for a new law, so they could get 160 acres more and come back. Three more 
 of my friends are in Minnesota who have claims here and are hoping for the 
 same thing. Three of my neighbors are here that have decided they must leave 
 their homesteads and go. I think they will stay now and see what will be 
 done. Should the measure become a law many now gone would return and 
 what are here would stay. On the other hand, if it was rented to old timers 
 or sold to speculators we would all have to go. 
 
 I see no reason why we could not have such a law; Nebraska and Montana 
 have. I talked with a homestader last week from Nebraska, and he said that 
 he had taken one section in Nebraska and that all that land averaged better 
 than here. Says the valleys are very fertile and plenty of rain. And we 
 know that Montana land, where they have a law where they can take one-half 
 section is as good as ours, and I think they have more rain than we. If you 
 have any influence with the department please use it for us homesteaders for 
 if this rough land is either rented or sold, we must go. No one can possibly 
 live on 160 acres if all free range was taken from him. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 Myron Godding. 
 
 Mohler, S. Dak., March 10, 1911,. 
 Hon. H. L. Gandy, 
 
 Rapid City, 8. Dale. 
 
 Dear Mr. Gandy : I learned yesterday from Mr. Burke that there were three 
 movements in foot concerning the remaining rough Government land in west- 
 ern South Dakota. 
 
 Every man I have talked with is strongly in favor of the 640-ac.re homestead. 
 It is the men that are here and have stayed here and tried to make homes for 
 themselves and make something out of the country that need this land most, 
 and they will be sure to make better use of it than eastern speculators. 
 
 Also, we have a herd law here, and if eastern capital owned this land and 
 enforced the law it would surely make things hard for us. 
 
 If we had to lease this land the State or Government would get the profit. 
 If we own it the county will get its taxes, and these western counties surely 
 need the money to make improvements on roads, bridges, etc. 
 
 As far as signatures are concerned, I could get enough favoring the enlarged 
 homestead to tire you counting them, let alone reading them. 
 
 If the land joins the land owned by the homesteader I believe he should be 
 allowed to live on his old place, but if it does not join him he should be com- 
 pelled to live on it to prevent the speculator homesteader (who has left and 
 gone back East as soon as he could make final proof) from enlarging his hold- 
 ings here and making his home elsewhere. 
 
 I landed in western South Dakota in 1886 ; was 7 years old ; have grown up 
 here; am 35 years old now; and I thoroughly believe that if a man was not 
 allowed to own or use over 160 acres that He could not possible make a living. 
 
 Lots of this is many miles from the railroad — too far to market farm prod- 
 ucts — therefore we need more pasture to raise stock to eat up the products of 
 the farm. 
 
 I am positive that farming without stock here would be a failure to any man, 
 even if he be one of the best farmers that ever lived. 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 Robert H. Silcock. 
 
500 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Polsom, S. Dak., March 10,- 19V/. 
 Mr. Harry L. Gandy, Receiver: 
 
 I would suggest that you install in your petition to the Secretary of the In- 
 terior that parties that have settled. on these homesteads and have already 
 proved up on their 160 acres are entitled to three-quarters more of grazing 
 land as soon as they put it in fencing or ditches or building dams for the pur- 
 pose of improving the land thereon to the amount of $1.25 an acre; that at 
 the earliest date that they can do this they may apply for their patents. 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 Horace N. Adams. 
 
 Bower, S. Dak., March 9, 191J f . 
 Receiver Harry L. Gandy. 
 
 Dear Sir: As I am a homesteader and have been here the past four years, 
 would like to say that it would be a great benefit to the homesteaders if they 
 could file on more land, as it is most impossible to make a living on 160 acres 
 in this dry, arid country, and if we had more of this grazing land it would be 
 a great benefit to the homesteader for stock raising, as this part of the country 
 is not much adapted to farming, and the ranchers that have the land are try- 
 ing to drive the homesteaders out as fast as they can, as they take up all of 
 the range. There is the herd law. It has done some good, but there are always 
 some that will do as they like, and if the homesteader has a chance he is very 
 likely to stay. Under the conditions now we homesteaders will not stay long, 
 as we certainly can't, and only the moneyed men that come in and buy cheap will 
 profit byt it. I am glad that you are trying to do something to have this home- 
 stead enlarged instead of letting the Government rent or sell to eastern parties 
 for them to speculate, as they will in time get the most of this land cheap in this 
 part of the country. We are all struggling to get along and have been ever 
 since locating here. More land, more cattle or stock of some kind, and that 
 is the only thing that will build up this part of the country and make homes 
 for a good many families. 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 Smith O'Bbyan. 
 
 Bower, S. Dak., March 8, 19U. 
 Mr. Harry L. Gandy, 
 
 Rapid City, S. Dak. 
 
 Kind Sir : My attention has been culled to the fact that you are going in a 
 few days to Washington, D. C, to do what you can for the poor homesteader. 
 
 We have three work horses and a cow, and so long as we have had our home- 
 stead (which is about three years) we have not got feed enough in grass or 
 other crops to half keep this amount of stock. I have had to work out to buy 
 hay and food for my family and pay rent on another 160 acres for feed. My 
 neighbors are in the same fix. It is worse than a hard proposition. It is 
 utterly impossible to live on and stay on our homestead under such conditions. 
 The only help for us is if Congress will grant us a right to take an additional 
 tract of land we can get some cows (which is not so hard to do if we can have 
 feed) and stay at home with our families. Then we could preserve what 
 moisture we do get and perhaps raise something, which is more than we have 
 ever done these three years we have lived on our homestead. Of course hail 
 struck us last year, and drought each year. But if it were possible for my 
 family to live and stay at home I could make use of the little moisture that 
 we get. 
 
 The simpliest kind of a living can not be made on 160 acres of the land in 
 this part of the country. Hoping this will help to show to what disadvantage 
 we homesteaders are at, I am. 
 
 Very respectfully, yours, Geo. W. Martin. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 501 
 
 Faibview, S. Dak., March. 9, 191J/. 
 Habby S. Gandy, 
 
 Receiver, United States Land Office, Rapid City, S. Dak. 
 Dear Sib : Do you think that the enlarged homestead act will be extended to 
 western South Dakota? I am very much interested in it, as I am one of the 
 thousands that homesteaded 160 acres in Perkins County, but as crops failed 
 could not make a living on it. With a little larger tract for a few cattle to 
 depend on I think it would be beter for a lot of the settlers in that part of 
 South Dakota. To depend on rain enough to raise crops will never hold good 
 for any number of years. Hope this measure will go through and become 
 a law. I think it should be made so only those who have taken 160 acres 
 and proved up should have right to the additional 480, as they have already 
 spent lots of time and money on their first claims. 
 Eespectfully, 
 
 Henry P. Gbttebson. 
 
 Owanka, S. Dak., March 9, 1914. 
 Mr. Habby L. Gandy, 
 
 Rapid City, 8. Dak. 
 Dear Sir : I am in favor of the bill being passed to entitle a man to a 640- 
 acre homestead, and the way it is being stated. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 Lloyd H. Christiansen. 
 
 The Valley Irrigator, 
 Newell, 8. Dak., March 10, 1914. 
 Mr. Habby L. Gandy, 
 
 Rapid City, 8. Dak. 
 Deab Sib: I understand you are about to be called to Washington to give 
 your opinion relative to the advisability of passing a pending bill for a 640-acre 
 homestead that is suitable for stock raising only. I have gone over the bill 
 and wish to indorse every feature of it. Had such a bill been passed five 
 years ago our range country would now be occupied by contented families, 
 instead of, as it is now, dotted with empty shacks. Raising crops has proved 
 a failure, and 160 acres is not sufficient to support a family on land suitable N 
 for grazing and forage purposes. The bill would not work a hardship if the 
 time for final proof wes extended to a longer period than three years. 
 Tours, truly, 
 
 C. D. Sanders. 
 
 Sturgis, S. Dak., March 6, .1914. 
 Mr. Harry L. Gandy. 
 
 Deab Sir: I believe the 640-acre homestead law, if passed, would be the best 
 thing that ever happened for the people of South Dakota. If the land was 
 leased the big fellow would lease the most of it, and if sold the fellows with 
 lots of money that live in the East would buy most of it. Then the fellow 
 with the 160-acre homestead would have to move out, but if he could take a 
 640-acre homestead there would be a family on every section west of the Mis- 
 souri River instead of one family to every 10 sections. 
 Xours, truly. 
 
 Chas. P. McPherson. 
 B. E. Flathers, Sr. 
 
 Stukgis, S. Dak., March 7, 1914. 
 Dear Sib: I see in the Journal that you are going to work on a section 
 land bill. Well, I think that is something we need, as a man can not make a 
 living on less in the western part of South Dakota. There is some land here 
 yet to be taken, but it is hard to make the right people see how little it is worth. 
 Now, even if we could buy it, it is not worth the $1.25 per acre, but if we can 
 get it without having to do anything unreasonably expensive in improving it 
 it could be a great advantage to the people that need it, and also get more 
 
502 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 land on the tax' list, as that is what helps the country in general. Now, I hope 
 you will work hard to help a class of people that are willing to stick it out; 
 there is little chance of getting any tillable land, as that is all gone and has 
 been for some time. 
 
 Yours, truly, Ben Flathebs. 
 
 Sturgis, S. Dak., March 7, 1914. 
 Mr. Harry Gandy, 
 
 Rapid City. 
 Dear Sir: In regard to the talked-of section law, I would like to see it 
 go in, as I believe it would be the making of the country, but it would be 
 impossible for very many to get three more quarters if they have to join, and 
 don't think it would be practical to have to break any, as what is left now 
 is rough gumbo breaks and not farming land. 
 
 Hoping you will do your best to help it along, I am, 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 Valentine D. Wollen. 
 
 Alkali, S. Dak., March 5, 191k- 
 Harry L. Gandy, 
 
 Rapid City Land Office, 8. Dak. 
 
 Dear Sir: In an article I saw in a newspaper in regard to the stock home- 
 stead or 640-acre grazing homestead in western South Dakota, it would be 
 of great benefit to this part of our rough country, as a homesteader in this 
 part of the country can't make a living on some of the 160-acre homesteads 
 without stock, and with such a small piece of land they will, sooner or later, 
 have to hunt other fields. Every one I see and talk to here hope it will be 
 made a law on this rough land, as it would never be taken up for any other 
 purposes. There are thousands of rough land here that on 160 acres there 
 would be about 75 to 90 acres desert, stone, or shale hills, and if a home- 
 steader got 640 acres he would not have much grazing land at that. 
 
 Hoping that you can help make it go through to help so many poor people 
 that are trying to make a stay of it, and also make the taxes cheaper on lands. 
 Hoping you will be successful. 
 
 Respectfully yours, P. N. Beat/lieu. 
 
 Sturgis, S. Dak., March 7, 19V,. 
 Dear Sir: I have a homestead, St. 10-5-8, and I think the 640 acres would 
 be a good thing for this country, for 160 is not enough land for a man to 
 make a living. I have 75 acres under cultivation and I can not keep enough 
 stock to eat the straw, and I have not cut any hay for five years. 
 
 Michael Byrne, 
 
 Fairburn, S. Dak., 
 
 March 7, 191k. 
 Harry L. Gandy, 
 
 Rapid City, 8. Dak. 
 Dear Sir: I have read your letter in regard to the stock-raising homestead 
 bill to many of the best residents of this vicinity, and all are agreed that it 
 would be just the right thing for this country. If you think petitions to Con- 
 gress in favor of it would do any good, I can get a strong one here. I am glad 
 that you are taking an interest in this matter, for I believe the officials of 
 the Land Office can do much to have the bill passed. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 C. B. Smith. 
 
 New Underwood, S. Dak., 
 
 March 6, 19H. 
 Hon. Harry L. Gandy, 
 
 Rapid City, 8. Dak. 
 Dear Sir : I notice that you will appear before the Public Lands Committee 
 in Washington, D. C. 
 
 I write to indorse the 640-acre homestead. I have lived on section 24, town- 
 ship 1 north, range 11, for seven years, and say to you that I had to work at 
 my trade as a carpenter in order to hold my claim and support my family. 
 
DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 503 
 
 I positively know from seven years' experience that no one can make a living 
 on a dry 160 acres of land ; this also is my observation during that time. 
 I hope you will urge the passage of this relief to us. 
 
 Geo. Carr. 
 
 Hermosa, S. Dak., 
 
 March 5, 1914. 
 Hon. Harry L. Gandy, 
 
 Rapid City, 8. Dak. 
 Dear Sir: My attention has been called to the proposed 640-acre homestead 
 law, and I beg to ask you to use every effort in favor of its passage. 
 
 I lived on section 34, township 2 south, range 9 for about four years; I 
 started with a cash capital of $3,000, which has all been used up in an honest 
 effort to establish and maintain a home for myself and family. 
 
 I tried farming for four years, cultivating 25 acres, and have not had a 
 single crop in all that time, which explains where my money went. 
 I hope you will appreciate the value of this bill for us. 
 
 Henry G. Keifert. 
 
 The Rapid City Daily Journal, 
 
 Rapid City, 8. Dale, February 9, 1914. 
 Hon. Harry L. Gandy, 
 
 Receiver Rapid City Land Office. 
 
 Dear Sir: I am very much interested in the 640-acre homestead proposition 
 now being agitated. It is in my opinion the best thing for western South 
 Dakota that could be devised. 
 
 I have been a resident of western South Dakota for 28 years. I am well 
 acquainted with all of the conditions, environments, and difficulties surround- 
 ing the homesteader. I have passed through all the different stages incident 
 to homestead settling. It is absolutely impossible for a homesteader to make 
 a living, educate his children, and meet all the obligations required of him 
 on 160 acres of land in western South Dakota. I have found this section 
 of South Dakota too arid, with but little more than a normal amount of 
 moisture, but with 640 acres would be sufficient to maintain at all times about 
 50 head of stock, owing to the very nutritious quality of our short buffalo grass. 
 
 All old-timers agree that from 10 to 16 head of stock is all that 160 acres 
 of this land will keep for reasons as appear in the above. 
 
 For all of above reasons, and many more that I could give, I earnestly 
 recommend that this 640-acre proposition with all reasonable safeguards will 
 receive favorable consideration by those who have the matter in charge. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 J. C. Bowen. 
 
 Rapid City, S. Dak., March 10, 191b. 
 Hon. Harry L. Gandy, 
 
 Receiver United States Land Office, Rapid City, 8. Dak. 
 
 My Dear Sir : I see that there is an agitation and a move on foot toward 
 getting a law passed to apply to this country! allowing the homesteading of the 
 rough land in this country in amounts of 640 acres, and where the parties have 
 filed on a lesser amount they be allowed to file on enough more to make 640 
 acres. I think this is just what we want out here, for it is impossible for a 
 man to make a living on 160 acres of this land, and a plan of this kind will 
 give him a show for his life and will enable the homesteader to build up a home 
 for himself and family, and he can then keep a few cows and stock of different 
 kinds and could raise feed for them to keep them through the winter months. 
 
 Understanding that you are favorable to a bill that will give the home- 
 steaders the chance to file on 640 acres where they have not made any filings 
 and where they have that they be allowed to file on enough more to make 640 
 acres, I appeal to you to do your utmost to get a bill of this kind passed during 
 the present Congress. 
 
 Hoping you will work for the interests of the common people out here in 
 South Dakota and the West, I remain, 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 C. C. Crabtree. 
 
504 DISPOSITION OF GRAZING LANDS. 
 
 Hon. Haery L. Gandy, 
 
 Rapid City, S. Dak. 
 Sie: In relation to the proposed 640-acre stock-raising homestead bill, which 
 has been recommended to the Public Land Committees of the Senate and the 
 House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States by the hon- 
 orable Secretary of the Interior : 
 
 We, the undersigned, residents and voters of the third congressional district 
 of South Dakota, would respectfully request and petition that you use your 
 influence for and put forth your efforts to secure such changes in and amend- 
 ments of said proposed bill as will not limit an additional right under this 
 bill to contiguous land. Your attention is called to the fact that if the additional 
 right is limited to contiguous lands only those settlers in this country will be 
 benefited whose lands are located on the edge of the breaks. Those entrymen 
 living back on the flats or table-lands will be deprived of the real benefits of 
 this act unless the change above referred to is made. 
 
 The passage of the proposed 640-acre stock-raising homestead bill will make 
 it possible for entrymen to maintain their homes and make a living for them- 
 selves and their families on their lands. It would be a great benefit to this 
 country where we have so much rough land, and we very strongly indorse the 
 proposed 640-acre stock-raising homestead bill. 
 
 R. J. Jackson, 
 A. K. Thomas, 
 C. B. Baldwin, 
 (And 173 others). 
 
 I 
 
 53 3