///) CORNELL 
 
 ni UNIVERSITY 
 
 ^^: LIBRARY 
 
 i 
 
 W^' 
 
AMEXMKG THE HOMESTEAD LAWS 
 
 HEARINGS 
 
 BEFOEE THE 
 
 COMMITTEE ON THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 HOUSE OF REPKESENTATIVES 
 
 ON VARIOUS BILLS PKOPOSIN(i AMEND- 
 MENTS TO THE HOMESTEAD LA^^ S 
 
 JANUARY 31 AND FEBRUARY 5, 1912 
 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OITIOE 
 
 1912 
 
/?/ 
 
 a.' 
 
AMENDING THE HOMESTEAD LAWS. 
 
 Committee on the Public Lands, 
 Washington, D. C, January 81, 1912. 
 
 The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Edward T. Taylor 
 (acting chairman) presiding. 
 
 The Acting Chairman. Mr. Secretary, the other day the commit- 
 tee inquired as to whether or not any bills had been introduced look- 
 ing toward the carrying out of the recommendations of the Secretary 
 of the Interior on the subject of homestead matters, and it seemed to 
 be the judgment of the committee at that time that it would be 
 orderly and systematic to have a conference with you, if we could, to 
 determine what would be the orderly and effective policy to pursue 
 at this session of Congress in regard to a number of homestead 
 matters. There are something like 25 or 30 bills asking for relief of 
 various kinds before this committee now, and it was deemed im- 
 practicable to take up the consideration of each one of them, and that 
 the proper way would be to concentrate our efforts on some feasible 
 measures that woxild, if possible, harmonize our sentiments with the 
 Department of the Interior and at least try to get together on a few 
 of the more important matters and concentrate our energies on those 
 matters, eliminating those of minor importance, and thus not wast- 
 ing the time of the committee or the time of your office. 
 
 The object of this meeting is a general conference. We would like 
 to get your views and give you an opportunity to state them as fully 
 as you feel like doing within the limited time at the disposal of the 
 committee. Wednesday is what we call Calendar Wednesday, and 
 we usually try to adjourn about 12 o'clock. If any member of the 
 committee desires to make any statement, I would be pleased if he 
 would do so iiow. 
 
 Mr. Raker. We had one particular bill under consideration, and it 
 appears that some of the gentlemen of the committee are of the opin- 
 ion that the department has by rule, or by some opinion, rendered 
 nugatory or inoperative a law passed recently by Congress. 
 
 The Acting Chairman. Judge Kinkead asked us to consider his 
 bill, providing that the first six months after the filing of the home- 
 stead claim should not be charged up against the claimant in his 
 absence therefrom, and that the practice heretofore prevailing should 
 be enacted into law and that he should only be asked to live four and 
 a half years upon the land. That was the bill under consideration at 
 that time, and as there are several of these same bills here and many 
 others, we thought, before acting upon them, to ask for this con- 
 ference. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. I introduced a bill of the same tenor and effect on 
 which a subcommittee was appointed. 
 
 The Acting Chairman. There are a number of bills here along the 
 same line. 
 
 3 
 
4 HOMESTEAD LAWS. 
 
 Mv. KiNiiEAD. My bill is No. 16583. 
 
 The Acting Chairman. That is one of the various matters we 
 would like to have the Secretary express his views upon. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. The Secretary's office has recently ruled that the 
 entryman is not entitled to have the first six months after he makes 
 his entry considered as a period of constructive residence. It has 
 been so considered for many years, and as the Secretary has made 
 some recommendations along that line in his annual report I suggest 
 that the Secretary give us his views, at such length as he may see fit,^ 
 upon that particular question as an opening. 
 
 Hon. Walter L. Fisher (Secretary of the Interior). Mr. Chair- 
 man and gentlemen of the committee, I have no hesitancy in discus- 
 sing this entire general subject candidly and as fully as it is possible 
 under the very short notice I received. I want it understood, how- 
 ever, that the views I express are expressed on very short notice and 
 are subject to modification at any time without notice. 
 
 I am very deeply interested in the whole question of the public- 
 land laws. I would like to cooperate with you gentlemen to the very 
 limit of my ability to make those laws promote proper development 
 in the West and wherever there is public land of any kind. I con- 
 ceive that proper development is a very essential matter, and, in 
 fact, unless the development is proper it is not going to be real devel- 
 opment at all; that if we allow the public domain to pass into the 
 hands of individual claimants — private owners — and those private 
 owners do not themselves intend to reside on and cultivate the 
 ground, that all we have done has been to add an additional and 
 wholly unnecessary burden to the man who is going to live on and 
 cultivate that land, because the private owner, who obtains the land 
 in that way, obtaining it simply for profit, will attempt to make 
 , that profit out of the real settler to whom he expects to sell. I think 
 that will retard development and will be a direct and unqualified 
 injury to the public land. On the other hand, I think that every re- 
 striction that we have now embodied in public-land laws, or that we 
 embody in laws hereafter, which is unnecessary and which adds a 
 burden that is not necessary to insure real settlement and real de- 
 velopment, is just that much of an obstacle to the proper development 
 of the country. And the difficulty is to draw the line between these 
 two extremes. 
 
 The Department of the Interior must, of course, construe the law 
 as it is on the statute books, and as long as I am Secretary that is 
 going to be the rule to the limit of my ability. Congress may pass 
 some laws which are, in my opinion, unduly lax, but I am going to 
 enforce them if they are passed or if they are now on the statute 
 books. Congress may have passed some laws in the past, or may pass 
 some in the future, which, in my opinion, are unduly strict, but I am 
 going to enforce them as they are, and it is along this line that you 
 have asked my particular attention. 
 
 It is perfectly true that the department has heretofore, for a con- 
 siderable period of time, construed the homestead law so as to give 
 the entryman the benefit of the first six months after he makes his 
 entry as a portion of the five-year period, without regard to whether 
 he has, in fact, lived on the land or not. When that question came 
 up before Assistant Secretary Adams he examined the law and the 
 statute to see whether that practice was correct. He is a first-class 
 
HOMESTEAD LAWS. 5 
 
 lawyer and has had a very wide experience in' regard to public lands 
 and land titles generally, and he came to the conclusion that the 
 statute as it stands was not susceptible of the the construction that 
 was put upon it by the department; that, as a matter of fact, while 
 the law permitted the entryman to be away from the land six months 
 after the entry, and did not authorize or permit the department 
 to cancel his entry on that account, it in express language provided 
 he must live on the land for the full period of five years. 
 
 Mr. Mondell called my attention to the rule and to the practice 
 of the department that prevailed heretofore, being of the opinion that 
 the four years' and a half residence, if it was an actual residence," 
 and if it was accompanied by an actual cultivation of the ground, so 
 that it could be said properly of the entryman that he was a real 
 settler who had demonstrated his good faith in that regard — would 
 be a sufficient requirement for Congress to put in the law. I examined 
 it with a view of seeing whether or not it would be proper to modify 
 the First Assistant Secretary's ruling or to call the matter again to 
 his attention, so that he might reconsider. I confess that, after ex- 
 amining the matter for some time, I was unable to reach that con- 
 clusion. I think the practice which has heretofore prevailed in the 
 department was an undue stretch of the statute as it reads. I don't 
 believe it is authorized by the act. If Congress is going to stop with 
 the amendment of the homestead law in. that one particular, or if 
 that is the only change which is going to be made with regard to the 
 matter of residence and cultivation, I personally would be in favor 
 of the bill giving to the settlers — certainly to the settler who has 
 heretofore made his ^ntry under the old practice — the benefit of that 
 six months or reduce the requirement of five years to four years and 
 a half. 
 
 I hope Congrses will go a great deal further than that and make 
 some other changes in the law. I have expressed the conviction in 
 my annual report — and the more I have considered the matter the 
 more firm that conviction is — ^that all of the public-land States will 
 be benefited immeasurably if we will frankly adopt the principle 
 of classifying the public domain and then provide a method of dis- 
 posing of each class according to the nature of that class. If we can 
 stop selling timber lands or disposing of timber lands under home- 
 stead laws, I think we can make a great gain. If we can stop selling 
 mineral, gas, and oil lands under homestead laws, or any other form 
 of law that is not adapted to that particular sort of land, I think 
 we will make an immeasurable gain. If we could classify the public 
 domain so that, when a man makes an entry in section so and so, all 
 that it is necessary to do is to look at the classification and find out 
 whether he has applied under the law applicable to that classifica- 
 tion, I think that would be a great gain. We would be able to re- 
 duce this delay and difficulty arising out of the necessity for special 
 agents making examinations and reports that now clog the wheels 
 of the Department of the Interior. We could get action in a very 
 negligible fraction of the time that is now absolutely necessary. Not 
 only that, but we would get land disposed of as it ought to be dis- 
 posed of. Take oil and gas land — oil land, especially — we have the 
 right to withdraw oil land from entry for purposes of classification. 
 The general provision is probably ample, but when we get it classi- 
 fied we have no law under which we can dispose of it, except to re- 
 
6 HOMESTEAD LAWS. 
 
 store it to general entry under the homestead law or under the min- 
 ing law or other laws absolutely inappropriate. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. "We have a law on the statute books for the entry 
 of oil lands. 
 
 Secretary Fisiiee. Under which we can dispose of it ? 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. Yes, sir. 
 
 Secretary Fishee. To pass a law that you refer to is, in my opinion, 
 absurd. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. But, Mr. Secretary, I think you began your state- 
 ment with the assurance that it was your thought — ^your duty — to 
 enforce the laws as they are. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. That is prefectly true. Let me say this, Mr. 
 Mondell : Wherever the law vests in me discretion I believe that dis- 
 cretion can be exercised one way or the other in the public interest, 
 if you are going to exercise that discretion to the absolute limit,, 
 whether that law is withholding the entry or restoring the entry, 
 disposing of restrictions, or the contrary. \Vliere the law is manda- 
 tory and explicit, I expect to follow it; but to the limit of the law 
 making it discretionary I expect to exercise that discretion. In that 
 connection I may call your attention to the fact that there has re- 
 cently been a lot of talk about the Canadian homestead law. The 
 Canadian homestead law is built upon discretion. The homesteader 
 under the Canadian law has to use that degree of cultivation which 
 the minister requires, and the requirements and regulations prescribe 
 the degree of cultivation the location or character of land requires. 
 So it is with their mining law and the whole general administration. 
 It is an administrative theory that prevals in Canada. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Within certain well-defined limitations. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Not at all ; within the very broadest limitations. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. But well defined? 
 
 Secretary Fishf.r. But not defined in the statute. Let us take, 
 for instance, the question of minerals. Instead of fussing around 
 with regard to whether a tract of land has coal or whether it has 
 other mmeral in it, the homesteader gets a patent, but reserving to 
 the (lovernment all mineral, whether it is there or not. That is the 
 onh' kind of a patent he can get. They talk about how quickly they 
 can get action in Canada and compare that with the system here, 
 absolutely ignoring the fact that under the Canadian system speedy 
 action is provided for. The homesteader there, instead of waiting 
 until the classification is made, applies for his patent and gets it 
 with the mineral reservation. Give us that method in the law in the 
 United States and Ave can cut down the delays immeasurably in all 
 the public-land States. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Does their statute provide for an examination to see 
 if a certain mineral exists after the man has waived his claim to it ? 
 
 Secretary Fishee. Oh, no. If a man clearly waives his claim he 
 is entitled to his patent at once, provided there is no other objection. 
 If that was the only (juestion involved he would have his patent at 
 once. _ We have had difficulty because we have had two laAvs, and the 
 question has been Avhether the later law repealed the former law. 
 Under the one act there is no specific language, and it is like some 
 .other acts of Congress — it is left to the law department to try to 
 Avork out some method of adjusting these conflicting statutes. 
 
 ilr. Mondell. What statute do you refer to? 
 
HOMESTEAD LAWS. 7 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I refer to the withdrawn lands. The question 
 is whether or not the entrj'man files his relinquishment and says, " I 
 hereby apply for a surface patent, exclusive of all mineral reserved 
 under the law of 1909." You understand the situation. The enti^- 
 man has his attention directed to the act of 1909, and says he will 
 take the surface patent subject to AThatever mineral rights there may be 
 under withdrawals under the act of 1909. The law department says, 
 " Hold on ; here is the act of 1910 " ; and under the first examination 
 made by the First Assistant Secretary of the Interior, as I recall it, 
 he reached the opinion that the act oi 1910 was, in effect, a repeal of 
 the act of 1909. He went further than that, as I recall it. We will 
 illustrate: The Government makes the withdrawal under the act of 
 1910, the later act. The entryman says, "I relinquish under the 
 act of 1909." When it comes up the question is whether or not the 
 Government can give him a patent of that kind, because the land 
 was not withdrawn under the act of 1909, but under the act of 1910. 
 That led to an examination of the law, which was natural. It was 
 not because we could not decide the case very quickly, but we are going 
 to establish a precedent, and there may be many cases come m of 
 the same sort, and so it leads to delay. 
 
 Suppose we had the Canadian law? All the entrj'man got was 
 the rights in the land, except the mineral — that is, the land title — 
 except the mineral contents. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. What we gave him under the law of 1909 is the 
 fee title, except the coal ? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Yes ; but the difference is this. We don't give 
 that. There is an examination made to determine whether there is 
 or is not coal in the land. The Canadian law waits for no examina- 
 tion. The entryman gets his patent, reserving to the Government 
 all the mineral, if there is any mineral there. That leads to prompt 
 administrative action. He doesn't have to wait for anything. You 
 don't have to fuss around about the question or have a geological 
 survey or any other agency examine whether there is coal on the 
 land. The entryman takes his patent, with the mineral reservation, 
 and that is the prime reason why the Canadian law leads to prompt 
 administration. Here with us, we have entered, under the home- 
 stead law, tiraberland, land containing large trees growing close 
 together. The question comes up to the Department of the Interior 
 as to the construction of the law, especially on the question of cultiva- 
 tion, with the arguments put forward by the entryman, who says 
 he could cultivate only a little part of the land ; that the ground was 
 covered with trees that he had to remove, and that if he cultivates 
 an acre of the ground he is doing quite well. Under those circum- 
 stances the department's ruling m regard to cultivation is sought, 
 and sometimes the entryman, who is not acting in good faith on the 
 cultivation side, at least, as to the requirements of cultivation, comes 
 in, and he has a little patch of ground 10 feet square or 50 feet 
 square or more, and that is the only cultivation that he has done, and 
 he wants to have that passed under the homestead law. What we do, 
 as we have done in the past, is to construe these things as they come 
 up, trying to adapt the situation to the facts without any statute 
 under which we can do it. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. A^ a matter of fact, does not our law with regard to 
 cultivation leave the department in exactly the same position as you 
 
8 HOMESTEAD LAWS. 
 
 say the Canadian law leaves the Canadian Government, with full 
 power to determine what, under certain conditions, constitutes suffi- 
 cient cultivation? . . .» , , 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Xo ; it does not. In my opinion, if the home- 
 stead law were now up for construction the first time we would have 
 to require the entryman to cultivate the whole tract. The law says 
 he shall reside on or cultivate " the same " for a period of five years. 
 He shall cultivate " the same "—the same is the tract^-and it doesn't 
 mean 1 acre of the 160 acres entered, but it means 160 acres. That is 
 the law as it reads, and if it had not been construed, and not only 
 construed but amended by other acts of Congress, I think we would 
 have been in all manner of difficulty. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. It certainly leaves you with full power to determine 
 what constitutes sufficient residence. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Yes; that kind of arbitrary power of which 
 you and others complain when we exercise it. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. But I understood you approved of that in the 
 Canadian law? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I approve the Canadian law, which says, in so 
 many words, that it shall be the kind of cultivation and the extent of 
 cultivation which the minister requires. We have no language like 
 that in our act. Take, for instance, this bill which is pending now, 
 that has been reported out of the Senate committee — ^now pending 
 over there, introduced by Senator Borah, with amendments by Sen- 
 ator Jones, or the reverse — I do not know who introduced the main 
 bill, but Senator Jones desires to permit the entryman to be absent 
 from his tract of land six months in each year and has a bill to that 
 effect. Senator Borah, being impressed with the benefits of the 
 Canadian law, has a bill reducing the homestead period from five to 
 three years. The committee of the Senate puts the two bills together 
 and reports it out, so if that bill were passed the 5-year homestead 
 bill is changed to an 18-months homestead law — no other change in 
 the law. You know and I know that if such a law as that passed 
 that every precedent that had been established by the department in 
 the past of permitting 1 acre of cultivation, or less than an acre — 
 and there were thousands of entries passed with less than 20 acres 
 out of 160 — ^that every one of those precedents will be brought up in 
 the department and will be urged on the department as binding 
 under it, under the 18-months homestead law, with the result that 
 we would have more fraud and the necessity for more investigation 
 by special agents than exists for all the coal claims in Alaska. 
 
 The Acting Chairman. I think there is another bill of that sort 
 before this committee. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I think both biUs are there ; I do not think you 
 have acted on them. You will find the Borah bill or a bill of that 
 character. 
 
 The Acting Chairman. Those are all here. Mr. Secretary, I 
 would like to ask you to state your reasons for recommending in your 
 annual report that the first two years of the five required for resi- 
 dence be excluded rather than allowing a three-year homestead law, 
 as Senator Borah has started out to dol 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I was going to discuss that. When I was out in 
 the West, and from what I have gathered from my experience in- 
 volving western lands, I have been particularly impressed with the 
 
HOMESTEAD LAWS. 9 
 
 claim made hx many settlers that the requirement of residence during 
 the first year and the first two years was a hardship which seemed 
 to them unnecessary. During the past summer I have traveled 
 twelve thousand and odd miles in this- country alone, through the 
 Northwest, not counting the trip to Alaska, visiting the land offices, 
 Indian offices, etc., in the short period of time I had available after 
 the special session. Everywhere I met with that suggestion. It 
 appealed to me very strongly. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. Did you hear anything particularly with regard to 
 the reclamation entries? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Yes, I did. I think the matter was brought up 
 more especially with regard to reclamation entries. They urged 
 there that with the reclamation project, even after the question of 
 water had been disposed of, after the sagebrush had been cleared 
 away, or whatever other desert growth there was, and the land had 
 been graded and fenced and their houses and outbuildings built, that 
 it was, as a rule, impossible to make any profit out of the land during 
 the first year and that that was frequently the case during the sec- 
 ond year. I saw a great deal of irrigated land where I was told by 
 the settlers the proper way of cultivation was to plant alfalfa and 
 to have, if possible, two years' cultivation; to have the second year, 
 at least, under alfalfa before they put it into sugar beets or fruit 
 trees, or whatever other use there was for which the land was best 
 adapted ; that it ought to have a couple of years \mder alfalfa, and I 
 saw a great deal of that kind of land. A lot of these people came 
 and talked to me and said, " We started in with so much capital and 
 we built a little house and fenced in and cleared the land, and we 
 were left strapped at the end of the first or the second year. If there 
 is a bad crop or a bad season it was very serious to us. If we could 
 be away from here during those first two years and employ men to 
 put it under cultivation and build outhouses, and then be prepared 
 to fake up our actual residence at the end of the second year, we 
 would be a great deal better off." 
 
 That appealed to me very strongly. I thought then, and I still 
 think, that I would like to cooperate to relieve the settlers to that 
 extent. 
 
 The Acting Chaiemak-. While you are discussing that same sub- 
 ject, there is another subject pertinent to it also. There has beem 
 quite a strong request, at least from those reclamation settlers, that 
 we enact a law allowing them to obtain a title after they have main- 
 tained the five years' residence, where they have been able to do so, 
 and have that title subject to. a lien or mortgage. In other words, 
 they want some basis upon which to obtain credit for money to im- 
 prove their lands. What is your opinion about that ? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I am in entire sympathy with that. I think 
 the fundamental thing is cultivation and a sufficient residence to 
 make sure that the man is not going to sell it to somebody else. If he 
 can show those two things, I think we ought to help him in every 
 way possible. Suppose we said he would have to cultivate one- 
 eighth of the ground under the first year. Those that I talked with 
 seemed to think that was a reasonable requirement, and two-eighths 
 the sceond year, and three-eighths the third year, and at the end of 
 the fifth year he would have a little more than half under cultiva- 
 tion. Then, if we said to him if you pay your charges to date, and 
 
10 HOMESTEAD LAWS. 
 
 you pay an amount equiA'alent to two-thirds, or three-fourths, or 
 whatever it is, of the charge, we will gire you title right away, and 
 make him pay the necessary percentage of the total reclamation 
 charge, and make a lien that iie can give the local bank or the money 
 lender. But it would be no kindness or assistance to him to give him 
 a title if it is not a title on Avhich he can go and raise money. 
 
 The Acting Chaie^ian. He has to have a substantial basis of 
 credit.. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Yes. Looking at it from that side, it was sug- 
 gested to me, indirectly, bj^ a concern in the East, that they would 
 be delighted to loan money extensivelj^ on irigated lands in the West 
 if in some way they could get assurance that the land would be ap- 
 propriate security. 
 
 The Acting Ghairmax. Under those circumstances would money 
 loaned be secured? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I discussed this question with some of these 
 people with a view of seeing what they would thii?k of thp secrritv. 
 Let me illustrate. In the first place, this is not final, and I would 
 be delighted to have suggestions from any members of the commit- 
 tee for the purpose of modif^i'ing my views and helping us to get 
 nearer on this subject, if we want real settlement and real develop- 
 ment. Suppose we adopted this policy: Suppose we required the 
 settler to cultivate one-eighth of his land the first year and two- 
 eighths the second, on up to the fifth year, and live on the land the 
 last three years and pay, say, three-fourths, or even two-thirds might 
 be enough, of the total water charge ; say, two-thirds. 
 
 Now, at the end of the fifth year, what do you say to this proposi- 
 tion: He can go to the bank and say, " I have lived up to the require- 
 ments in regard to residence and cultivation, and I want to give you 
 a mortgage. The Government will give me a certificate that I have 
 complied with the residence and cultivation provisions. T will com- 
 plete the reclamation charges, keep up the maintenance charges every 
 year, and I want you to loan me so much money." The difficulty 
 now is that when the bank loans there is the provision that the set- 
 tler must continue on the land five years; he must live there and 
 cultivate one-half of the land, and he has the full 10 years to do it, 
 and the bank has no certificate whatever from the Government that 
 these personal requirements have been complied with. I propose 
 that the Government, at the end of five years, give a certificate to 
 that man that he has lived there the necessary time and done his 
 duty and all the Government has is the lien for the one-third recla- 
 mation charges. 
 
 The Acting Cpiairman. AVithout any investigation ? 
 _ Secretary Fishee. Yes, sir. The whole thing is clean. He has 
 his title just as perfect as he could have, except the Government has 
 the monetary lien on him for unpaid reclamation charges. 
 
 The Acting Chairman. Would you issue a patent at the end of 
 the five years ? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I would be perfectly willing to give him a pat- 
 ent, subject to the law. 
 
 Mr. Eakee. Wouldn't it be advisable also to apply this same prin- 
 ciple when he should have paid, say, one-half of the reclamation and 
 the expenses, and then reduce his power to borrow from the bank, 
 the Government having the greater interest in the land than the 
 
HOMESTEAD LAWS. 11 
 
 bank? It might be more convenient to worlc out that way than the 
 way you suggest,^ 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Congress could pass a law that if the entryman 
 paid one-third, or anything you chose, that he could get a patent, 
 and I conceive the entryman in the reclamation project, having 
 received the benefit of the Government expenditure, ought to be 
 required to pay back just as much of the expenditure before he gets 
 a patent as is fair. 
 
 Mr. KiNKAiD. Suppose the entryman makes his five years' proof 
 and pays his one-third of the water charge ? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I said two-thirds. 
 
 Mr. KiNKAiD. Well, two-thirds of his water charge, and obtains 
 a mortgage, and the Government is compelled afterwards to fore- 
 close its lien. It would have to dispose of that land in an entirely 
 different way than any other land it has disposed of. 
 
 Secretary Fishee. It could be disposed of subject to the lien in 
 the bank — the second mortgage. 
 
 Mr. KiNKAiD. The bank wouldn't let you foreclose. 
 
 Secretary Fishee. And what does the bank do in regard to the 
 taxes? You might say there is objection to any mortgage made 
 where the holders of the mortgage are liable to lose their security if 
 the taxes are not paid. 
 
 Mr. RuBEY. The bank will look after that. 
 
 Secretary Fishee. If the entryman does not pay his charges, that 
 will be a cause for foreclosure; but the bank wouldn't let it be sold 
 for the failure to pay reclamation costs. 
 
 ]Mr. KiNKAiD. But, coming back to the title, suppose the Govern- 
 ment was compelled to buy in the land, because, having issued the 
 patent to the land, the title would go back to the Government, and 
 it was put up at public sale. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. It can be held by the Government just as it 
 was before. It depends entirely on the statute. 
 
 The Acting Chairman. It would be a wonderful aid and develop- 
 ment to all these reclamation projects if they could get title and get 
 somebody to go ahead and improve the country, and everybody would 
 be benefited by it, it seems to me. 
 
 Secretary Fishee. That was the impression produced on me by 
 talking to those people in the West and then talking with some of 
 the bankers. I can see that the Government would make a distinct 
 advance if we coi^ld adopt such a plan as I suggested, because if we 
 put on the entryman a requirement to pay a little more than he 
 would under the ordinary statute our installments Avould be greater 
 than one-tenth a year. 
 
 We do sometimes require, as in one case I recall, the payment of 
 three- tenths when the entry is made under the reclamation project, 
 three-tenths of the reclamation charge, but as a rule it is not more 
 than one-tenth, and sometimes not as much as that, and my own judg- 
 ment is it ought not to be as much as that where it is spread over the 
 10-year period, because I think we can graduate our payments to make 
 them smaller during the first years. But let us suppose the rule were 
 that it would be divided into 10 equal installments. If at the end 
 of five years the man Avasn't able to comply with the requirement, he 
 could, if he preferred, work it out on the 10-year basis, and would pay 
 50 per cent. If we require a man to pay two-thirds instead of 50 
 
12 HOMESTEAD LAWS. 
 
 per cent and gave him a perfect title, the patent would be an induce- 
 ment to him that it would be well worth his while. Indeed, I think 
 the banks as a rule will require that of him anyhow. I mean, they 
 M'ould like to have their lien a little better than the 50 per cent 
 basis under the reclamation charge. The result would be, if we said 
 here, you pay 66f per cent instead of 50 per cent, then we will give you 
 a patent ; we would get back into the reclamation fund that amount 
 of money just that much quicker, and we would have the bank carry- 
 ing this burden of the financial payments, as it should, instead of hav- 
 ing the Government. 
 
 There was one thing that impressed itself on me this summer more 
 than anything else, and that was the extent of the demand for addi- 
 tional expenditure by the Government on reclamation projects. The 
 failure of a large number of private concerns throughout the West, 
 who were undertaking privately these projects, has revolutionized 
 the general feeling with regard to reclamation projects, and again 
 and again men came to see me on the train and telegraphed for ap- 
 pointments who had been interested in private projects and were 
 financially interested in the land, urging the Government to undertake 
 their projects under the Reclamation Service. 
 
 Mr. KiNKAiD. With your permission, I would like to ask one ques- 
 tion. I would like to have your views as to what you think about an 
 extension of time from 10 to 20 years in which to make the water-rate 
 payments. I have a bill pending with such an amendment. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Congressman, that does not impress me favor- 
 ably. I don't think it is any kindness to the settler, and it certainly 
 is going to tie up the Government that much longer. Instead of 
 getting our money back to use it some place else, it is going to take 
 twice as long to get it back. 
 
 Mr. KiNKAiD. Let me ask this question : Suppose an amendment be 
 passed authorizing the granting of a patent after five years and there 
 would not be this amendment then to grant the time in which to 
 make water-rate payments to 20 years, would not these two amend- 
 ments work very well together, cooperate with each other, and at the 
 end of five years permit the entrymen to mortgage his land and pay 
 off the Government entirely instead of letting the Government's 
 lien continue— paying off the Government water-rate charges en- 
 tirely. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Frankly, the 20-year period seems to me fully 
 unjustified. I don't Imow of a reclamation project where it would 
 be justified. The reclamation projects we have undertaken we all 
 know have been undertaken under two sets of conditions. In the 
 first place, some of them were picked out by the Eeclamation Serv- 
 ice as being projects which they thought were scarcely desirable or 
 feasible. In the second place, there were a number of projects that 
 wer^ pressed upon the Reclamation Service by political conditions 
 and under provisions of the law that the service has not been par- 
 ticularly proud of from the financial side. They are all working out 
 rather astonishingly as a whole, when we consider conditions, but thev 
 are, nevertheless, to be made on that basis. I am urging now on 
 behalf of the States where certain streams rise in one State and run 
 into another, where we are using water, that it is not quite fair to the 
 other State (Mr. Mondell will recognize the State to which I refer) 
 to take all the water that is collected in that State and sell it to the 
 
HOMESTEAD LAWS. 13 
 
 State farther down the stream. Considerations of that sore come in. 
 Even Avhen we consider all the present projects, there is not one of 
 them that I know of that can work out in 20 years that you can not 
 work out in 10 years. These projects that are undertaken now are 
 pretty well established, and we are going to consider the question now 
 as to what we are going to do in the future. There aj'e so many proj- 
 ects pressing upon the department that can be paid for without the 
 slightest hardship under the 10-year theory that, in my judgment, to 
 put the 20-year project into law would be an unnecessary burden on 
 the development of the West. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. Isn't the situation about this: The law having au- 
 thorized the Secretary to adjust payments, so that he can relieve the 
 situation in any one year or in any series of years, are we not now, as 
 a matter of fact, seriously confronted with the question as to whether 
 it will be equitable or wise to insist upon the full payment at the 
 end of the 10-year period ; that is a question which we could meet a 
 little later, as we approach nearer the close jof the 10-year period? 
 
 Secretary Fishee. Let me say this : I had in mind what you more 
 particularly mention in what I said before, that the present 10-year 
 law, with the provision for readjustment, has given us a certain 
 amount of administrative flexibility. That seems to be able to take 
 care of every case that now exists. We have to remember there is a 
 limit to leniency to the entryman. When a man demonstrates he is 
 utterly unable to work out his own salvation under reasonable rules 
 the sooner he recognizes that fact and takes what he can get for his 
 labor and expense down to date and lets somebody who is able work 
 out an agricultural task of that kind, the better it is going to be for 
 him and the community. We have a lot of land entered under those 
 10-year requirements. Avhere it is a detriment to the rest of the project 
 to permit the individual entrymen who are lazy or incapable to 
 run beyond the time in their payments, when the facts are perfectly 
 clear on which we can determine what the cause of their failure is. 
 
 Mr. MoNDEiJ.. Going back to the matter that was under discussion 
 when Ave took up the discussion of the irrigation projects — ;that is, 
 the question of relieving the homestead entryman from the necessity 
 of residence for certain periods — ^have you given much consideration 
 to the idea of relieving the homestead settler from the necessity of 
 residence during the winter months, fixing a certain definite period, 
 say, from December to April, inclusive ? That is the period named in 
 the bill I have introduced, that being a suggestion in lieu, first, of the 
 suggestion embodied in the Senate bill of an indefinite six months' 
 leave of absence, and also as a substitute possibly of your suggestion 
 of no requirement of residence the first six months be required. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. The first two years. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. The first two years. The suggestion is based on the 
 propositions that, first, the entryman can not ordinarily do very 
 much on this land during the winter months. Sometimes it is neces- 
 sary for him to go away from his land in order to school his children 
 and secure employment. Second, that almost every winter we pass 
 an act relieving a considerable number of the homestead settlers dur- 
 ing that period from necessity of residence. It is possible you have 
 not considered the matter sufficiently. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Yes; I have considered it, not as much as I 
 would like, perhaps. 
 
14 HOMESTEAD LAWS. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. May I say one thing more in order to cover a dif- 
 ficulty that may occur to you? The bill to which I referred also 
 provides that this leave of absence shall not in any wise affect the 
 present law relative to abandonment. In other words, a leave of 
 absence for a definite period would not under those circumstances 
 ,2;ive the entryman any right to any absence at all subject to that 
 period, because the general law, having provided for the right of 
 contest after six months, would make his place contestible imme- 
 diately after the close of that period. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Those features would help the bill. What I 
 have to say relates to the substance of the bill. AVhat kind of a 
 settlement do you expect to get permanently under the homestuad 
 law. a settlement where the settler is always going to have to go 
 away from home during the winter months ? Do you expect to build 
 up that kind of a community? 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. Not at all. As a matter of fact, if you will allow 
 me to elaborate a little on that question, I would not expect that the 
 homesteader would every winter betake himself from his farm to 
 leave it and abandon it. I would know, as a matter of fact, that 
 being compelled to comply with the other provisions of the home- 
 stead law that it would only be ordinarily during the first years of 
 his entry he Avould take advantage of the' right to leave, and that in 
 the majority of cases, under the conditions existing generally, but 
 very few entrymen would take advantage of the right during the 
 whole period, the thought being, however, that the entryman during 
 at least the first years of his entry, being unable to do anything of a 
 helpful or productive nature during those months, ought not to be 
 required to be on his land continuously during that period. 
 
 Secretary Fishee. I thought the provision 'in regard to absence of 
 two years would meet exactly the conditions you describe and meet 
 them better than the bill you mention. As you say, entrymen ordi- 
 narily — and you are not thinking of the extraordinary case, because 
 you can not pass a law for those cases alone — the entryman in a ma- 
 jority of cases, the great majority, is going to ask for absence onlv 
 during the first years. Wlien a certain district is thrown open for 
 homestead entry and is suitable to establish homes, a proper place to 
 establish homes, the query arises how are you going to provide for 
 the permanent population in that district ? ' 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. It seems to me your query is a pertinent one in re- 
 gard to the suggestion which you made. If we left the homestead law 
 otherwise than as it is, there would still remain the necessity of culti- 
 vation on the enlarged homestead; there would still remain under 
 administrative provisions the necessity for some immediate cultiva- 
 tion on the irrigation homestead, but as to the ordinarv 
 
 _ Secretary Fishek. Pardon me, not if the present law remains as 
 it is. 
 
 Mr MoNDELL. Well, only such cultivation as you might require as 
 an administrative provision— no mandatory provision at ali-^ind as 
 regards the ordinary 160-acre homestead, no provision whatever in 
 the law as to cultivation. This would be the result— and what we 
 want m our country is permanent settlement— this would be the re- 
 r ij- 1 ""^ I^®". ^°''^^ ^^ tempted to take 160-acre homesteads and 
 hold them for two years, which they could do without residence or 
 cultivation. 
 
HOMESTEAD LAWS. 15 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Couldn't under the law that I suggested. 
 Mr. MoNDELL. If you are going to revamp the homestead laws- 
 
 Secretary FiSHEE. I am going to revamp it to the extent I sug- 
 gested. 
 
 Mr. Moiv DELL. And have entire cultivation ? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I am unconditionally opposed to it without that 
 requirement. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. But even then there is this objection which has been 
 voiced in this committee against the nonresident homesteader, so- 
 called. It applies in a limited way to Utah and Idaho. That is, it 
 does not require settlement directly on the land. What we desire 
 is more settlement: — we desire to see the land fenced, houses built, 
 people living in them. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I intended m}' suggestion to cover the relin- 
 quishment question. 
 
 Mr. Mo>'DELL. Now, you will get into a pretty large field when 
 you get into the relinquishment field. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I think it is a field we ought to get into right 
 away, and the sooner you get into it the better it will be for the West. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. There is a wide difference of opinion in regard to it. 
 But my thought was that the relief from the necessity of residence 
 during the winter months when no farmer, at least in the Northern 
 States, can be doing anything upon his land, would be a good thing 
 for him. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. It depends entirely uioon what you are going to 
 do. If you are not going to adopt the two-year provision I suggest, 
 if you are going to abandon that theory of relief. I can see how you 
 might draft a law which would permit him, under proper provisions, 
 to be absent during the winter for a specific period. I think, then, 
 he ought to be checked. He ought to be required to give notice when 
 he intends to leave and state the reason, and it ought to be possible 
 to take these things up at the time without having a whole army of 
 special agents to go in and see whether he complied with the statute. 
 And 3'ou don't want to throw it open generally so that the home- 
 steader can always be away in the winter time. You want to get the 
 settler to establish schools in his neighborhood. You don't want to 
 establish a system that he gets a habit of going off some place else to 
 have schools. What you want to accomplish is to have a permanent 
 communitj'. 
 
 The Acting Chairman. If the Secretary of the Interior is through 
 with his general statement, 1 will give permission to each of the 
 members of the committee to ask any questions in which they might 
 be interested, as soon as the Secretary finishes the general statement. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. There is just one thing that occurs to me, in 
 addition, and that is this question of timber lands. A suggestion has 
 occurred to me which I would like to state to you, so that you may 
 think it over. I was very much impressed with the theory that we 
 ought to take our timber lands and divide them into two flassos. 
 We ought to take timber land that is suitable only for timber, and 
 when we cut the timber it ought to be reforested. It is not adapted 
 for agricultural uses and ought to be used for timber purposes. I 
 think that land ought to remain in the hands of the Government. 
 I don't think it ought to be sold to private individuals under any con- 
 ditions. I think the Government ought to sell the timber on it un- 
 
16 Hd.AIli^TEAD LAH'S. 
 
 der proper provisions, and then it ouglit to keep tlie land. I am a 
 member of the commission to buy lands exactly of that character 
 here in the Appalachians. Congi^^s has made a considerable pro- 
 vision of money, and we are now engaged in buying from private 
 individuals lands of that character which is useful only for timber 
 purposes. I don't think we should make that mistake in the West. 
 Sell the timber and keep the land, and then let the Government re- 
 forest that land and, when it is ready to ^ell the timber again sell 
 it. "Have proper forestry meas^lre^ to protect our stream flow and 
 reservoir sites and, to far as we '-an, keep it under the hands of the 
 Go\ernment. Then, I think land which has timber on it now. but 
 which will be valuable for agricultural purposes after the timber is 
 cut off, ought to be administered bv the Government in this way: T 
 think the Government ought to -ell the timber and then throw the 
 land open to homestead entries. We have a lot of that kind of 
 land, and I think that kind of land will be released from forestry 
 reservations, and I think that instead of attempting to sell that kind 
 of land and dispose of it under homestead laws we ought to sell it 
 under the timber law and then throv,- it open to homestead settlers. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. Would you include in that first class of lands the 
 rough, broken, and generally rocky divides and hills that extend 
 through the intermountain State'- between the valleys, a few hun- 
 dred acres in a place adjacent to iiornestead settlement, and which 
 contain only a scattered forest growth of jack pine and spruce and 
 cedar, which grows in that country ? 
 
 Secretary Fishee. I would include that area with other similar 
 large areas. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. Would you include every area of that kind? 
 
 Secretary Fishee. I think so. Why not ? 
 
 Mr. M0NDE1.L. It occurred to me the Government would have a 
 pretty large contract if it took over 'r'verv rockv divide in a State 
 like mine. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Whv shouldn't it f 
 
 Mr. :\roNDELL. Why shdidd it? 
 
 Secretary Fishek. Because it is better handled under the Govern- 
 ment than m any other -svay; because it has onlv got to be reforested. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. Let me understand vou. Mr. Secretarv Do vou 
 )nean that you would include everv little isolated area of from 100 
 up to :i few thousand acres in a forest reserve ? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Oh, not at all ; not at all. Mr. Mondell I would 
 use some common sense and deal with the matter in man fashion 
 
 Mr. MoxDELL. But this land I speak of has some value for o-razing 
 pur])(.ses. Its value for grazing purpose^ is infinitely greater than 
 its value as timber lands. " " 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I would take every tract of land in the Federal 
 domain and clecide what its highest and best use was. If it was best 
 tor giazmg, I would use it for grazino-. 
 
 Mv. ^FoxDEEL. How would you decide it? 
 
 age 
 
 broadly 
 
 live-stock ^association, and they have palsed r'esoTutions urjing"a kas- 
 
 mg law. They have gotten over the delusion that the grazing land 
 
 of this country can not be handled any other way. " 
 
HOMESTEAD LAWS. 17 
 
 ^Mr. MoNDEix. You knoAv what the National Live Stock Associa- 
 tion is'^ Composed largely of larpe cattle owners. 
 
 Secretary Fisiiee. Yes: 'hut I have talked with the small man. and 
 he ought to know the condition of thinps. 
 
 Mr. ]\[oxDi:i-L. Can you pet the small man and the fanner in favor 
 of the policy ? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Xo. There are any jiumber of them in favor of 
 the lease bill. There is no difference of opinion. Under the present 
 system the range is being destroyed. Tliere is no doubt about it. 
 Both the big and little men say it is being utterly rained under the 
 present system. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. I want to say. after a residence of some 45 years in 
 the locality in which I now live. I dissent emphatically to the propo- 
 sition that the range is destroyed or that favorable seasons Mill not 
 restore it. 
 
 Secretary Fisiiek. Then we will have to join the issue on that fact. 
 
 ^Ir. INIoxDELL. I know the range is often overgrazed, but T Imow up 
 to this time it has shown wonderful recuperative properties. When 
 the rains came the damage was repaired. 
 
 Secretary Fishee. In other words, what you mean is this: It is 
 being overgrazed and very much injured, but up to date ^e have been 
 fortunate in having that injury stopped short of destruction. You 
 agree absolutely with my statement, except you don't agree it has 
 progressed as far as I think it has. The progression in the direction 
 of destruction you concede — you simply state that because there have 
 been fortunate rains the damage has been lessened. 
 
 ]Nfr. !MoNDELL. I think that is true. If the grazing lands were in 
 private ownership and the private owner charged with responsibility, 
 they would reach a higher average of productiveness than now. 
 
 3.[r. Eakee. I think that in Colorado the larse stockmen would like 
 to have all the Government lands. They don"t want to have anyone 
 come in and take up the Government land, because it does curtail 
 their range; and you must either follow their views or put it into 
 an indefinite leasing period to the local settler, who would like to 
 have the big cattleman put out. 
 
 Secretary Fishee. I quite agree with you. If a broad tract of 
 land, however, can be cultivated by he homesteader, I woiildn't lease 
 it for a minute. That is the whole question. 
 
 ]\Ir. MoNDELL. If there ever was a man born of woman who could 
 say definitely and finally and accurately what lands were unques- 
 tionably grazing lands and never would be good for anything else, 
 then it would be much easier to classify them. 
 
 Secretary Fishee. To hear the Congressman talk you would think 
 he never read the bills pending in regard to the laws for leasing 
 purposes, because any law made can be modified immediately after 
 it has been made permitting the homesteader to go in. No one wants 
 to anticipate the development of agricultural purjioses. but all the 
 leasing laws which have been suggested for grazing purposes pro- 
 vide that the settler can go in and homestead under them. There- 
 fore we don't have to cross the bridge that the Congressman s]Deaks of. 
 Mr. Steeneeson. When you spoke of timber lands, I would like 
 to ask if you have observed the merits of that land as put in opera- 
 tion hj the Interior Department undei' a law passed 10 years ago. 
 Secretary Fishee. I have not looked into the matter. 
 
 30865—12 2 
 
18 HOMESTEAD LAWS. 
 
 Mr. Stebneeson. There has been some homesteading,_but usually 
 the homesteaders complain of the stumps. I am speaking of Min- 
 nesota. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I have recently had a talk with one of the 
 largest operators of lands in Minnesota, a man who has been in pub- 
 lic life and who is public spirited, and he informs me that the diffi- 
 culty with Minnesota lands was that they had little or no agricultural 
 value, and I imagine the difficulty to which you refer would be the 
 difficulty in the character of the ground and not the method of dis- 
 position. 
 
 Mr. Steeneeson. I did not say there were any great difficulties, 
 but the very plan you suggested has actually been in operation in 
 Minnesota, particularly in my district, for nearly 10 years, and I 
 thought you had taken your suggestion from that fact. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. No; I had not. 
 
 Mr. Steeneeson. There are many homesteaders there on cut-over 
 lands. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. How have they operated? 
 
 Mr. Steeneeson. I don't know. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. All I did was to inquire, as I told you, from 
 men who are interested in ilinnesota lands. I was told by a man 
 whose business it is, who deals in timber and agricultural lands, that 
 the land not now taken up in Minnesota under the homestead law 
 has very little agricultural value. 
 
 Mr. Steeneeson. He is entirely mistaken ; it is the richest land in 
 the world. 
 
 At 12.1.5 p. m. the committee adjourned. 
 
 COMMllTEE ON THE PuBLlC LanDS, 
 
 House of Eepuesentatives, 
 
 Mond<nj. February -5, 1912. 
 The committee met at 10.30 a. m., Hon. Edward T. Taylor (acting 
 chairman) presiding. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER L. EISHER, SECRETAKY OF THE 
 
 INTERIOR. 
 
 The Acting Chairman. Mr. Secretary, the committee will be 
 pleased to hear from you this morning upon anything that you desire 
 to address the committee upon, concerning the just administration 
 of the public-land laws or any amendments that you think ought to 
 be taken up at this session of Congress, or anv particular phase of the 
 subject that you desire to be heard upon briefly. There are some 300 
 bills now pending before this committee, and there is a world of work 
 before us. Necessarily, we must systematize this work as much as we 
 can, and I am sure that the committee desires, as far as possible, to 
 work in harmony with the Department of the Interior. 
 
 Mr. Eaker. I desire to suggest, Mr. Chairman, whether it would 
 not be advisable for the Secretary to be permitted to proceed with 
 his statement without interruption until he gets the matter he desires 
 to present before the committee. 
 
HOMESTEAD LAWS. 19 
 
 The Acting Chairman. I thought that would be understood, and I 
 suggest that members of the committee refrain from interrupting 
 the Secretary, at least until he intimates that he is willing to be in- 
 terrupted. 
 
 Seci-etarv Fisin:!;, I am willing to l)e interrupted at any time. 
 At the last session I presented same general sno-o-estions that oc- 
 curred to me as being in the interest of the publicTand particularly 
 that part of the public that is directly concerned with the settlement 
 and development of the public domain. I have had no opportunity 
 to examine the stenographic notes of the previous meetings, and there- 
 fore have not very clearly in mind just what ground was covered and 
 what was left uncovered. There are some members of the committee 
 here to-day who were not here at the last meeting, and it might there- 
 fore be helpful to say just a few words in a preliminary way. All my 
 interest in this matter is to work out some constructive suggestions 
 under which we can go ahead with the real settlement and real de- 
 velopment of the public lands. I regard it as fundamental, however, 
 that measures which will enable the public land to be acquired quickly 
 and easily are by no means necessarily in the interest of real settle- 
 m.ent and development. It is absolutely essential, in order to promote 
 the real settlement of these lands, that the laws upon the subject shall 
 be such as will insure that the entry is by people who wish to settle 
 the lands, and not by those who wish to acquire them for the purpose 
 of selling them at a profit to the real settlers. I mention that, be- 
 cause since the last meeting of the committee my attention has been 
 called to an editorial in a western paper complaining of the regula- 
 tions in the General Land Office, and pointing out the fact that in the 
 case of some of these entries the settlers, in many instances having 
 ma'de application for final proof, were now residing 1,000 miles or 
 more away from the land. 
 
 I wish to enter on record the statement that that sort of settlement 
 does not quite appeal to me, where the evident purpose is only to 
 acquire title and where the entryman may go away and live 1,000 
 miles from the land. This sort of settlement does not arouse my en- 
 thusiasm. While I am perfectly willing that he should have all the 
 legal rights to which he is entitled, it seems to me that he should 
 want to acquire the title in order to live on that land, and not to live 
 1,000 miles away from it. The man who does undertake to develop 
 the public domain ought, I think, to be assisted in every possible way, 
 and in the case of the bona fide settlers the laws and the regulations 
 should be made just as liberal as possible to make them consistent 
 with the assurance that he is going to be a real settler. It was in 
 that connection that I made the suggestion in my annual report, and 
 it was referred to the committee at the last meeting, that we might 
 very properly liberalize the provisions requiring actual residence on 
 the public domain during the first two years after entry, especially 
 as to lands which are included in an irrigation project. The fact 
 that that land has to be cleared of its desert growth at the very start, 
 that it has to be ditched, and in many instances has to be cultivated 
 with alfalfa before- it can be made really productive or available for 
 the permanent use to which it is best adapted, it seems to me should 
 lend a good deal of justification to the claim which I made in the 
 West this last summer that we should not insist absolutely upon the 
 requirement that the settler should live on that ground during the 
 
20 HOMESTEAD LAWS. 
 
 first two years. At the suggestion of the acting chairman of this 
 committee and of some others in Congress, as well as of some in the 
 Senate, who have been talking about that suggestion and seemed to 
 be impressed by it, I have had a draft of a bill prepared. 
 
 It is not my 'desire, nor do I believe it ought to be the general prac- 
 tice, to have executive officers to prepare bills, and I have sympa- 
 thized to some extent with the sentiment that arises in Congress in 
 that regard, but I think there are exceptions when this is proper, and 
 that this case presents one of those exceptions. At all events, 
 whether it is or not, the suggestion I am prepared to make is at the 
 request of the chairman. 
 
 The Acting Chairman. At the request of some members of the 
 committee, I asked the Secretary if he would not draw a bill in rela- 
 tion to modifications in the homestead laws, in order to give us some- 
 thing tangible to work on as a basis here that would be m the nature 
 of a liberalizing of the homestead laws. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. Are you going to read your suggestions in the form 
 of a bill now? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I was going to ask the committee what it would 
 prefer in the matter, and I was going to say that I have here a draft 
 that has been prepared, and the draft is now in the hands of the dif- 
 ferent bureaus in the Department of the Interior and of the divi- 
 sions that are concerned in it. I have not had an opportunity to 
 check up their suggestions, and no doubt they have not had an op- 
 portunity to make them. It may be helpful, however, to indicate 
 the general character of the bill. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. What I had in mind was to suggest that, in view of 
 the fact that some of us on the committee have not the familiarity 
 with the public-land laws that our western members of the committee 
 have, you read each section of the bill and then at the end of each 
 section pause and state wherein it differs from the present law or 
 point out the modifications that are made in your bill. I think that 
 would enlighten some members of the committee, or, at least, those 
 of us who are not so well posted on the public-land laws. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Perhaps, in that direction, we could cover the 
 matter a little broadly in the beginning. The present law relating 
 to reclamation projects provides that the entryman shall make his 
 entry under the homestead law and comply with the homestead laws, 
 which prescribe five years residence and five years cultivation. The 
 irrigation law further provides that installments of the irrigation 
 charge shall be divided into payments ; that i^. that the total irriga- 
 tion charge shall be divided into installments not exceeding 10 in 
 number. The result is that at the end of the five-year period re- 
 quired under the homestead law there are five installments of the 
 irrigation or reclamation charge not yet paid. Then, these unpaid 
 installments of the irrigation or reclamation charge may be one-half 
 of the total charge or it may be more or less, as the statute runs. I 
 recall one instance, and a recent instance, in which it was provided 
 that the reclamation installments should be paid by the entryman at 
 the time the project was opened. This was a case "in which the land 
 was of great value, and where irrigation immediately lifted it above 
 its present value and put it in such shape that it would readily bring 
 a very greatly increased price. There are other projects, however, 
 where the first installments average less than one-tenth of the total 
 
HOMESTEAD LAWS. 21 
 
 charge per annum, because of the fact that it is difficult to put the 
 land under cultivation, and the homesteader has his hands quite full 
 at the beginning. Therefore, they have graduated these payments 
 so that the first installments are less than one-tenth of the total 
 charge. Of course, that means that the later installments must be 
 proportionately greater, because at the end of the 10-year period 
 they must collect the entire charge. That last statement, however, 
 you have qualified by a recent laAv under wliich we have the right 
 to readjust the charges, and we are therefore enabled to take care 
 of the projects that have not been as successful as they were ex- 
 pected to be for one reason or another. 
 
 The irrigation law also requires that the settler shall have one-half 
 of the irrigable area of his entry. The homestead law, as you doubt- 
 less know, is a general law applying to all classes of entries, and made 
 possible of execution, in my opinion, only by the process of adminis- 
 trative construction which is closely akin to what is called judicial 
 construction and which is sometimes regarded in the light of new 
 legislation. That is to say, the law provides that the homesteader 
 must reside upon and cultivate his entry, or, rather, that he must 
 reside upon and cultivate the same. Now, the department has con- 
 strued the word " and " as " or," and the department has construed 
 the words " the same " to mean any part of it, or such portion of it 
 as will indicate good faith on the part of the entryman. 
 
 Now, the law being in that state, this bill is suggested, which I 
 will now read: 
 
 Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
 vf America in Congress assembled, That public lands witlidrawn under the 
 second form prescribed by section three of the reclamation act, approved June 
 seventeenth, nineteen hundred and two (volume thirty-two. Statutes at Large, 
 page three hundred and eighty-eight) , may hereafter be talsen up only by entries 
 made under this act, hereinafter called " reclamation entries." In opening to 
 entry such lands the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe regulations con- 
 cerning the time and manner in which such lands may be settled upon, occupied, 
 or entered by persons entitled to make entry thereof, the payments or deposits 
 to be made by applicants and the conditions under which the payments or any 
 part thereof may be forfeited for failure to malje entry or under which they 
 may be refunded : Provided, That the fees and commissions to be paid on 
 aceoimt of reclamation entries shall be the same as are now required by law 
 for homestead entries. 
 
 Sec. 2. The permanent right to the use, for lands in private ownership, of 
 water from works constructed under said act and acts supplementary thereto 
 or amendatory thereof may hereafter be acquired only by purchase uii4er this 
 act or imder the provisions of the act entitled "An act to authorise the Govern- 
 ment to contract for impounding, storing, and carriage of water, and to coop- 
 erate in the construction and use of reservoirs and canals under reclamation 
 projects, and for other purposes," approved February twenty-first, niueteen hun- 
 dred and eleven. Each tract of private land for which such a water-right pur- 
 chase is or may be made under this act shall be known as a " reclamation 
 holding." 
 
 Sec. 3. That the Secretary of the Interior shall fix, as prescribed by section 
 four of the said reclamation act, the limits for each reclamation entry on public 
 lands, and for each reclamation Ijolding of private lands, at suqh areas, not 
 in any case exceeding one hundreid and sixty acres, as in his opinion may in 
 each case be reasonable for the support of a family on said entry or holding. 
 The tracts so limited for reclapaation entries shall be known as " farm units." 
 No person shall under this act inake more than one reclamjitlofl entry, nqr pur- 
 chase a water right for more than one reclaination holdlpg, nor shall any ptie 
 person both make a reclamation entry and purchase a watev right for a reclama- 
 tion holding. 
 
 Sec. 4. That no purchase under this act of a water right for a reclamation 
 holding shall be made except upon the express condition that the United States 
 
22 HOMESTEAD LAWS. 
 
 and its successors in the control of the project, in consideration of such sale, 
 shall have a iien on the reclamation holding superior to all other claims and 
 demands whatsoever attaching thereto, after the filing of application to pur- 
 chase water right, for all amounts then due and thereafter to become due on 
 account of such ^-.iler right, plus the costs of enforcing such lien, and no such 
 sale shall be made to any landowner unless he be an actual bona fide resident on 
 such land or occupant thereof residing in the neighborhood. 
 
 Sec 5. That every entryman of a " reclamation entry " shall have the quali- 
 fications now prescribed by law for homestead entrymen : Provided, That here- 
 after, in the administration of the homestead law, a reclamation entry shall 
 be deemed and taken to be equivalent to a homestead entry of one hundred 
 and sixty acres; and every such reclamation entryman shall, within two years 
 from the .date of his entry, build or require a habitable house on his farm unit 
 and establish residence thereon ; and shall actually reside thereon for the 
 period of three years beginning at the expiration of the two years aforesaid. 
 Every such reclamation entryman and every purchaser of a water right 
 for a reclamation holding shall progressively reclaim and cultivate, to 
 the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Interior, the irrigable area of his farm 
 unit or reclamation holding, as determined by or under the authority of such 
 Secretary, in such time and manner that there shall be so reclaimed and 
 cultivated not less than one-eighth of such irrigable area during the first year 
 after the date of his entry or of appro\al of his water-right aijplication, two- 
 eighths during the second year, three-eighths during the third year, four-eighths 
 during the fourth year, and five-eighths during the fifth year, and thereafter 
 until patent or final water-right certificate shall issue ; but in no case shall 
 the portion of the total irrigable area so reclaimed and cultivated be less than 
 five acres in the first year, ten in the second year, fifteen in the third year, 
 twenty in the fouytlx year, twenty-five in the fifth year and thereafter until 
 patent or water-right certificate shall have issued, proper deductions in the 
 discretion of the Secretary of the Interior being made for buildings, yards, 
 and other like purposes: Provided, That if the entire irrigable area (less de- 
 ductions as aforesaid) shall have been so reclaimed and cultivated before the 
 fifth year such reclamation and cultivation of such entire area shall continue 
 until patent or final water-right application shall have issued as aforesaid: 
 Provided further. That clearing and breaking the ground during the first year 
 of cultivation of any portion of the tract, without the sowing or harvesting of 
 any crop, and that the planting and proper care of orchards in any ye:\r, shall 
 be considered cultivation within the meaning of this section. 
 
 Seo. 6. That every such entryman or purchaser of a permanent water right 
 for a reclamation holding, within six years after date of his entry or approval 
 of his application to purchase, or within such further time as the Secretary of 
 the Interior may fix for good cause shown, shall make, to the satisfaction of the 
 Secretary of the Interior, due proof of compliance with all the requirements of 
 this act as to residence, improvements, reclamation, and cultivation, and may 
 receive a certificate that such proof is satisfactory. After such proof Is made 
 and upon payment of all amounts, with interest, then due on account of his entry 
 or purchase for building, operation, and maintenance, including drainage, if 
 the amounts then and theretofore so paid on account of the building charge 
 shall be not less than one-half thereof, patent or final water-right certificate 
 shall Issue to such entryman or water-right purchaser, with reservation of a 
 Hen as hereinafter specified. A failure by any such entryman or purchaser, 
 before such patent or certificate of water-right purchase shall have been 
 earned, to comply with the requirements of this act as to residence, improve- 
 ment, reclamation, or cultivation, shall render the entry and water-right appli- 
 cation subject to cancellation, with the forfeiture of all moneys paid thereon 
 and of all rights with respect thereto. 
 
 Seo. 7. That every patent and water-right certificate issued under this act 
 shall expressly reserve to the United States a lien on the land patented for 
 which a water right is certified, superior to all other claims and demands what- 
 soever attaching to such land after the making of the entry for the farm unit 
 or the filing of the application to purchase such water right for the reclamation, 
 holding, for all amounts then due and thereafter to become due to the United 
 States or its successors In the control of the project under this act on account 
 of such entry or water right. Upon default of payment of any amount so due, 
 title to the land shall pass to the United States free of all incumbrance subse- 
 quent to the entry of the farm unit or the application to purchase water right for 
 the reclamation holding, subject to the right of the defaulting debtor to redeem 
 
HOMESTEAD LAWS. • 23 
 
 the land within six months after the default shall have been adjudged by pay- 
 ment of all moneys due, with interest as hereinafter provided, and costs ; and 
 the Xmited States may, at its option, cause the land to be sold at anv time after 
 such default is adjudged, and from the proceeds of the sale there shall be paid 
 mto the reclamation fund all moneys due, with interest as hereinafter provided, 
 and costs. The balance of the proceeds, if any, shall be the property of the 
 defaultmg debtor: Provided, That in case of a sale after default under this 
 section the United States shall be authorized to bid in such land at not more 
 than the amount in default, including interest and costs. Land acquired by the 
 United States under this section may be opened to entry, in the discretion of 
 ,the Secretary of the Interior. Jurisdiction of suits by the United States for the 
 enforcement of the provisions of this section by foreclosure or otherwise is 
 hereby conferred upon the United States district court for the district wherein 
 the land or any part thereof lies. 
 
 Sec. 8. That the Secretary of the Interior shall cause a. record to be Ijept at 
 some convenient place or places within the limits of or convenient to each 
 reclamation project, so long as the United States shall continue to operate the 
 reclamation works, showing, for the information of the public, the amount due 
 at any time on account of any entry made or water right purchased under this 
 act, and he shall provide for furnishing copies of such records, or of portions 
 thereof, duly authenticated under seal by designated employees of the Reclama- 
 tion Service, and for charging and collecting fees for such copies. Copies so 
 authenticated shall be admissible in evidence in like manner and to the same 
 extent as copies authenticated under section eight hundred and eighty-two of 
 the Revised Statutes. 
 
 Sec. 9. That all moneys now or hereafter due to the United States in con- 
 nection with any operations under the reclamation act and acts supplementary 
 thereto or amendatory thereof, including this act, shall be paid to such officer 
 or employee of the United States as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe. 
 Hereafter in determining the charges to be made per acre with a view of re- 
 turning to the reclamation fund the estimated cost of construction of any 
 project, and the number and amount of annual installments, not exceeding ten, 
 in which such charges shall be paid, interest at six per centum per .nmium from 
 the day when the first Installment on account of any farm unit or reclamation 
 holding is due to the day when each subsequent installment on account thereof 
 is due shall be reckoned by the Secretary of the Interior as a part of the cost 
 of construction. And the Secretary of the Interior shall, by regulation or other- 
 wise, provide for allowing a discount at said rate of six per centum for cash 
 payments of any installments after the first in advance of the date when the 
 same shall be due, but no contract heretofore duly made by the Secretary of the 
 Interior with any landowner or association shall be hereby affected without the 
 consent of such landowner or association, and no installment or charge hereto- 
 fore liquidated and fixed by public notice or otherwise under the said acts or 
 either of them shall bear interest before the same shall be due, nor be allowed 
 a discount for payment in advance by virtue of this section, unless the same 
 shall have been readjusted with the consent of the entryman or water-right 
 purchaser as hereinafter provided. All moneys received from the above' sources 
 shall be paid into the reclamation fund. Upon all charges or installments or 
 portions thereof due and unpaid, interest at eight per centum per annum from 
 the date when such charges or installments are due, respectively, shall be paid 
 as a part thereof. A failure to pay when due, with interest thereon as afore- 
 said, any two Installments or the final installment shall render the entry and 
 the appurtenant water-right application, or the water-right application or final 
 water-right certificate for a reclamation holding, as the case may be, subject to 
 cancellation by or under the a,uthority of the Secretary of the Interior, with the 
 forfeiture of all rights thereunder, as well as of all moneys theretofore paid 
 thereon, and the Secretary may, in his discretion, enforce such other remedies 
 as may be applicable. No right to the use of water shall permanently attach 
 until patent or water-right certificate shall have been earned under this act after 
 full compliance with all the requirements made hereby as conditions precedent 
 thereto. 
 
 Sec. 10. That entries and water-right applications heretofore made under the 
 said reclamation' act and acts supplementary thereto or amendatory thereof, in-; 
 eluding desert-land entries made subject thereto In pursuance of section five of 
 the act of June twenty-seventh, nineteen hundred and six (volume thirty-four, 
 Statutes at Large, page five hundred and nineteen), upon which patents or 
 water-right certificates have not yet been issued, may, upon the request of the 
 
24 HOMESTEAD LAWS. 
 
 entryuieo or aiiplicaiits. be made subject to this net by iiml at tlie discretion of 
 the Secretary of Hio Interior, who shiill iu such case equitably readjust tlie 
 unpaid installments of charges for building, operation aiifl maintenance, and 
 drainage, iu conformity with the |)rovislons of this act, reclioning interest for 
 that purpose at six per centum per annum. 
 
 Sec. 11. That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to make all 
 needful rules ;ind regulations and to do and perffirm all things necessiirv or 
 proper to the execution of this act. 
 
 Sec. 12. That all acts and parts of arts iucousisteiit with this act are hereby 
 repealed. ' 
 
 Now, there doubtle.ss j^hould be some language inserted in the bill' 
 referring specifically to foreclosure, if necessary in order to collect 
 the hen. I doubt whether the general language in regard to remedies 
 would be as wise as would be a specific reference made in addition to 
 that general language. Briefly, this bill provides simply this: It 
 leaves the present law entirely as it stands, or to the extent that any- 
 one who wishes to acquire a right under the existing law can do so, 
 but any entryman who wishes to substitute the actual cultivation or 
 progressive cultivation for residence can do so, being thereby re- 
 lieved from the necessity of living upon the land for the first two 
 years, but he must cultivate one-eighth the first year, two-eighths 
 the second year, three-eighths the third year, and so on, progres-sivelv 
 cultivating one-eighth of the land each year and not less than that. 
 ^%Zl cultivate at least one-eighth of the entry, in cumulative 
 fhS ^f'if\ have indicated, during the first five years. If he does 
 a. d,',P ^t f^' ^'li ^ ^?"''' '! ^^ '^^^ P^i^ his reclamation charges 
 then h7.?f ''' y,^'^ ^^^""^ ^* "^^-h^^l^ °* the total charges-he can 
 
 As n ^J V *!*^^ """i^"" P^t'^^t ^hich will be absolutely good, 
 or Iransferft ft fh '"'' ^"'^T' ''T7 ".P°" ^^e land, or hi can sell 
 cL iT .^^^^ expiration of the five years. Of course if he 
 
 accumufa'teTr^ ''7^ "^^ '^^"^^ reclamatiL charges as the} haJe 
 bv hZ wflf t ^^ 'if f^"'^ ^''' ■'?^^"' ^« *hat the total amount paid 
 indStTa «ssr°"f^ *,° cover the total charge, of course, he will 
 bank that mncl'n ' '°'''' '"t ^'^ ^''^^ ^e abfe to borrow from the 
 o^L navSenf. Tc^ Z"™'-'; ^''^l""'' ^e was $300 or $500 short 
 
 ^LthrruitboTrowVsf '° '"™" ^''''' '^^ ^^^^^^' p"^- 
 
 fir^'fivl'^ears ^aToh "'' Ifyments had accumulated during the 
 
 whelming- mainritx J ti; ' I ^^^.<l"ite the contrary. An over- 
 ihSSiTer:^^ -t'-^^-- pay -their install- 
 
 McrftrrrFi^'^WrL^^fi:^^ ^^^«^-- *« °«-r payment,? 
 reclamation profec?; were undert^!^ '''T ^^^^Pt^^^^ ^here these 
 or another such as local . ml If nf ""^^'' P^^^^ure of one kind 
 aiid general DressurP whif. ^ ^ .Pressure, but political pressure 
 SrtSS StK rioSft e.T'n T^^ *^" justifiable desire that the 
 Lrk With the excSnnf' be represented in the reclamation 
 
 eoine alone- in mrwf- ^v/oii^J^f 1 inajontyof reclamation projects are 
 
HOMESTEAD LAWS. 25 
 
 men have paid iijo or have had paid up foi' them all the charges that 
 have accrued and the patent is issued. Now, whose lien is prior in 
 point of time, the lien of the Government or the lien of the mortgage 
 company that has advanced the money? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. The lien of the Government. 
 
 Mr. I?EKRis. Do they have any trouble in making the loans when 
 there are five deferred payments having prior lien upon the land? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Well, they have told me that there will be no 
 difficulty about it. Of course, they ha\e a great deal of trouble under 
 the present law for the reason that at the end of the five years there 
 are certain personal duties yet to be performed by the entryraen which 
 the banlv itself can not exercise or control, so to-day, at any time short 
 of 10 years, unless all payments have been made and the requirements 
 as to residence and cultivation have been met, there are still certain 
 personal duties to be perfomied on the part of the entrymen, which 
 the bank, as I have said, can not exercise or control. Under the-se 
 circumstances, they refuse to make the loans, because if they have to 
 foreclose, they are then left with a title which they can not protect 
 or perfect by making the payments, but they would be left with a 
 title which they can only protect or perfect by trying to compel this 
 entryman to live on his land, or something of that sort, which they 
 could not do. Now, that is just the feature that I want to take out 
 of the law. What I want to see is this : After we get five-eighths of 
 the land cultivated progressively, as I have indicated, one-eighth 
 each year, and after the reclamation charges have been paid in and 
 the man has lived on there for the three-year period, and when he 
 has complied with the requirements as to cultivation and residence, 
 I want to relieve him of further personal obligations entirely and 
 make it a financial obligation. 
 
 Mr. Ferris. And relieve him of the financial obligation ? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. No, sir; the .bank will be willing to take the 
 land, because if the bank forecloses and takes it over itself or sells 
 it to a purchaser, the purchaser or the bank, as the case may be, must 
 make the payments remaining. 
 
 Mr. Ferris. And with no homestead on it? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. No homestead or personal obligation. All that 
 would be covered by a certificate of the Government issued at the 
 end of five years, to the effect that these have been complied with. 
 
 Mr. Ferris. And the charges under the reclamation project range 
 from $25 to $50 or $60 per acre ? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Yes, sir ; and some higher than that, 
 
 Mr. Ferbis. Then, if one-half of the payment remained due and 
 unpaid, there would be against the land a prior incumbrance ranging 
 from $10 to $60 per acre! 
 
 Secretary Fishee. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Ferris. Do you think the bank would make the loan under 
 those circumstances ? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. From such inquiries as I have made, I think if 
 one-half of the charges had been paid that the bank would be per- 
 fectly willing to take the title. 
 
 Mr. Feeris. If that is true it is a true compliment to the Reclama- 
 tion Service. I should think that in a great many cases the project 
 would not be successful, and, in that event, the party making the 
 loan, whether a bank or not, would necessarily have to investigate the 
 
26 HOMESTEAD LAWS. 
 
 probability of success of the irrigation project as Avell as the real 
 intrinsic value of the property on which the loan is made. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. There are projects out West, for instance, not 
 taking the fruit farms or the more definitely agricultural lands, 
 AT.here the land, of course, is worth frequently as much as $150 an 
 acre which, when put in cultivation, is selling at from $100 to $200 
 per acre. There is land that I know of which,_ without water, is only 
 worth about $10 per acre and which the private owners of it are 
 offering at $200 per acre. They are paying an agent $100 per acre, 
 and the agent is paying for the advertising, etc. This is a good illus- 
 tration of what I said in the beginning. It is a case where, after 
 allowing these people to go in, they are going on the theory of making 
 slow sales with large profit instead of the reverse, and the settler who 
 is really going in to live on that land must pay $200 per acre for it, 
 whereas he ought to have had it for $100 per acre, because they are 
 dividing the proceeds with the local agent. I think that is one thing 
 that we ought to stop. 
 
 But there is another point. It is perfectly clear that there should 
 be some plan by which the bank will be able to say, " If yojti have 
 paid one-half or two-thirds of this total charge we will regard the 
 security as ample for the loan, provided the title pledged is not one 
 where your personal compliance with the requirement as to residence 
 is essential in order to make the title good, because when the bank 
 undertakes to enforce its lien by foreclosure proceedings, the inter- 
 ests of the bank and those of the debtor conflict, and the debtor can 
 say,- " Look here ; I will not live on the land if you foreclose the 
 lien." That is the reason the bank will not lend money on that sort 
 of security now. 
 
 Mr. Ferris. I understand from your remarks, and also from the 
 bill, if I correctly understood it from your reading, that it is your 
 purpose to strip the proposition at the end of the 5-year period of " 
 all homestead obligations, so that at the end of the 5-year period, 
 and before the end of the 10-year period, it shall be a financial trans- 
 action purely. Now, is there any exception to your rule that the 
 Government shall have the first lien? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Not under this bill. 
 
 Mr. Ferris. Has there been any under former procedure in recla- 
 mation projects? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. No, sir ; not that I know of. 
 
 Mr. Ferris. Lands are not accepted for irrigation purposes in any 
 case where they are covered by any incumbrance at all? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I would not want to make a sweeping statement 
 like that. What might be the situation in reclamation projects that 
 included a portion of private land, where these lands had clauns 
 against them that we could not get rid of, so as to put the Government 
 where it might hold the first hen, there might be some exceptiotis; 
 but in such cases the remedy the Government would rely upon would 
 be the right to shut off the water. They might not have the title 
 and might not be able to foreclose against that land, but the right 
 to shut off the water and stop the irrigation would afford a pretty 
 effective lien right there. 
 
 Mr. Ferris. Have private lands been irrigated with incumbrances 
 on them? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. No, sir ; it would be an exception. 
 
HOMESTEAD LAWS. 27 
 
 Mr. FerSis. As I understand it, section 8 of your bill provides 
 for the maintenance of an office at each and every project? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Ferris. How many projects have you now in the United. 
 States? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I would not be able to say. My annual report 
 gives the number, I think. I think there are 32 of them. 
 
 Mr. Ferris. This would not have any application to the irrigation 
 of Indian lands, would it? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. No, sir. 
 
 ilr. Ferris. And you have made no recommendation with refer- 
 ence to having an officer at each Indian project? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. No, sir; but we do, of course, because we have 
 a local agent in charge of these projects. 
 
 Mr. Ferris. Would not that be quite an additional expense to what 
 we have now ? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I think it would be a reduction of the expense. 
 That section is intended to incorporate the other recommendations I 
 made that these reclamation payments should be made to the Recla- 
 mation Service. This recommendation is made in my annual re- 
 port and is one in which both the Land Office and the Reclamation 
 Service concur. 
 
 Mr. Ferris. This plan is proposed for the accommodation of the 
 settlers ? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Yes, sir; to save them from the trouble and 
 inconvenience of going to the land offices, which are not always easily 
 accessible. I can not understand why you gentlemen representing 
 the Western States have not had that language changed. I can not 
 understand why it should ever haA'e been the law. It is something 
 I can not appreciate. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. I think there are a number of difficulties in the 
 way ' 
 
 Secretary Fisher (interposing). I can not understand any reason 
 on earth for it. I do not know whether Mr. Mondell is in sympathy 
 with my objection or not. but I can not understand why that re- 
 quirement should be permitted to stand. I wish you could see the 
 complaints that come to my office with regard to delays in all these 
 matters ; and I can not really understand why this, the most prolific 
 source of delay, should be permitted to remain on the statute book. 
 Under the present law the reclamation settler has to go to the near- 
 est land office where these collections are made, and the record of 
 the transaction must go from that local land office down to the Gen- 
 eral Land Office in Washington, and it must also go through the 
 local reclamation service and be handled back and forth. These 
 matters must be handled by the local land office and by the local 
 reclamation service ; and then we ha-ve here in Washington a central 
 reclamation office and a central land office, and between these four 
 offices the opportunities for delay, misunderstanding, mistakes, and 
 clerical inadvertence account for a very large amount of the delays 
 that the settlers on the reclamation projects have to overcome. 
 
 Mr. MoNDEUL. With a view to accomplishing what has been sug- 
 gested, I have on -various occasions endeavored to draft a bill to 
 cure the trouble ; but when I got into the details of the matter I found 
 some difficulties, although I think they could be overcome. In the first 
 
28 HOMESTEAD LAWS. 
 
 place, wo will be confronted with the proposition that we would be 
 increasing the expense by creating what would amount to a large 
 additional number of land offices. Personally, I do not thmk there 
 is anything in that contention, but it is one of the things that we 
 would have to meet. . ,, , i i 
 
 Secretary Fisher. The proposition is that the local reclamation 
 service, which is provided for, anyway, would collect the money and 
 transmit it to the proper office. If it should go to the General Land 
 Office, it would be transmitted to that office; if it should go to the 
 Keclamation Service, it would be transmitted to the Reclamation 
 Service. That is all there is of it, while the whole thing, as I see it, 
 would be greatly simplified, and not only would it be demonstrated 
 that no additional expense would be incurred, but that a saving would 
 be effected in the matter of clerical work. 
 
 Mr. MoNDEM.. If the proposition is simply to transfer the matter 
 
 of payment 
 
 Secretary Fisher (interposing. That is all. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL (continuing). So that the payments shall be sent to 
 the General Land Office, of course, it must be referred to the local 
 land office, unless you entirely change the procedure in regard to 
 contests; because contests in reclamation projects are based not only 
 on th^ failure to make payment but on other grounds, and eventually 
 you must come back for information to the local land office. I think 
 that could be accomplished^ but it is not the easiest thing in the _world 
 to accomplish, by reason of the fact that the local land office still has 
 control of matters of contest. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I do not see that that would make any difference. 
 Mr. Mondell. We would be glad to have in concrete form the views 
 of the department on that point. 
 
 Secretary Fishef. I have it in this bill. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. As I understood the bill from your reading of it, I 
 thought you transferred the jurisdiction away from the local land 
 office as to the reclamation projects. 
 Secretary Fisher. No, sir. 
 
 I want right at the beginning to say that this bill has been pre- 
 pared hurriedly. I have not heard from the Land Office in regard to 
 it, and if they have any suggestions to make in connection with the 
 matter, we will call it to your attention. 
 
 Mr. Taylor. I make this suggestion to the committee: It might 
 be well to refer this matter to a subcommittee composed of the mem- 
 bers of this committee having reclamation projects within their 
 StateSj and then ask that subcommittee to call in Members of Con- 
 gress from other States that have reclamation projects and confer 
 with them and report back to this main committee any amendments 
 that may seem to them advisable. 
 
 Mr. Ferris. I want to ask the Secretary about another provision 
 of his proposed bill. There is some part of that bill, perhaps the 
 salient part of it, which provides for practically two years in which 
 to establish residence on the land. I want to ask you, Mr. Secretary, 
 if there is anything in that bill or in the existing law that permits 
 the relinquishment of this farm entry ? 
 
 Secretaiy Fisher. There is nothing in the bill that does. 
 Mr. Ferris. Is there anything under existing law that does? 
 
HOMESTEAD LAWS. 29 
 
 Secretary Fisheb. The Commissioner of the General Land Office 
 has called attention to the fact that this question of relinquishment 
 ought to be safeguarded in any bill of this kind, or in any bills em- 
 bodying some of the other suggestions I have made, where I have not 
 carefully considered it. I am not especially familiar with the relin- 
 quishment features of the law. 
 
 Mr. Dennett. I think they could relinquish it under the law as it 
 exists at present, and I think there ought to be new legislation. 
 
 Mr. Ferris. As a matter of fact, the longer you stretch out the time 
 in which they may go on the land, the longer the time they have in 
 which to relinquish or juggle with their entry ? 
 
 Seei'etary Fisher. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Ferris. Now, in the absence of some legislation in addition to 
 the present law, would it not be well to make some provision to cover 
 that feature of the matter? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I think it would. I think that should be safe- 
 guarded. I do not know whether the attention of this committee has 
 been called to the report with regard to a relinquishment bill, but I 
 think that ought to be before the committee. You have some meas- 
 ures involving relinquishment pending, and I think we have sent a 
 report here on that subject. I think, as the commissioner does, that 
 there should be a general law on the subject of relinquishment which 
 will protect relinquishment generally, and that it should be so drawn 
 that it should apply to entries under this bill just as to any others. 
 
 Mr. Ferris. What hardship would it work in entries of this char- 
 acter where there are 10 deferred payments to start with, if there 
 was no relinquishment? What harm would it do if there was no 
 relinquishment of this class of entries at all ? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. The only harm would be that the entryman 
 having gone in and cultivated this one-eighth and two-eighths suc- 
 cessively, and having gotten the land cleared and the ground actu- 
 ally under cultivation, and completed his home, he would have no 
 way at all of being paid for it. Now, if we could devise a plan 
 under which we could check the good faith and necessity of that 
 entryman, showing that his entry, in the first place, was made in 
 good faith, and, second, the reason for the relinquishment, that situ- 
 ation might be remedied. 
 
 Mr. Ferris. That same argument would address itself as against 
 relinquishment as well. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. You see, under the the homestead law, a man 
 does not have to do any cultivation during the first months of his 
 entry, but only during the first two years. He may have nothing but 
 a garden and his house may be nothing but a shelter. All he does 
 is to prove some general compliance with the law, and the depart- 
 ment has been exceedingly liberal in the construction of what may 
 be done with regard to cultivation during the first two years. If he 
 stayed on for five years, and the entryman showed that he had cul- 
 tivated the greater portion of his cultivable area, the department 
 does not raise any question as to what he may have done during the 
 first two years in regard to cultivation. But, if we were to announce 
 that he is free to relinquish any time after two years, we must have 
 some provision in regard to cultivation, otherwise we will throw 
 the door wide open, and, certainly, if that principle is to be applied 
 to the homestead laws, it would become susceptible to great abuse. 
 
30 HOMESTEAD LAWS. 
 
 IVIr Fekgusson. Do I understand that the bill of the Secretary ex- 
 cuses the entryman from actually living on the land during the first 
 
 two years? , . ■ .• u i -i.!. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. This applies only to irrigation cases,- but, with 
 
 some changes, I am perfectly willing that it should apply to other 
 
 pocpc 
 
 ]\Ir. Feegusson. The homestead laws should also be changed in that 
 respect. We have a peculiar condition in the eastern part of New 
 Mexico, where a great many settlers have come in and are attempt- 
 ing dry farming, and when they do get some rainfall they are suc- 
 cessful, but in other seasons they have not been successful. I think 
 the rule suggested by the Secretary would be useful in my country, 
 where the crops of the settlers fail and they are obliged to come into 
 town during the winter to get something to do. Many of them come 
 into Albuquerque during the winter to make a support, because, 
 perhaps, during the preceding year they may not have been able to 
 do anything at all on their claims. Now, if this provision that has 
 been suggested here could be made applicable to them it would help 
 immensely. As I understand it, this suggestion was made the last 
 time the Secretary was here ; that is, that after two years they would 
 be able to hold the title and try to cultivate the one-eighth of the 
 area required. As I understand it, the Secretary would be liberal m 
 the matter of construction, and perhaps not require every acre of the 
 20 acres to be cultivated annually, and that they would be excused 
 from the two years' residence. But, would that be extended into 
 three years in case of necessity? Might it not be modified so that 
 in case a dry year strikes in, after two years, say, that they had some 
 arrangement with the General Land Office by which they could make 
 a showing, and after making a satisfactory showing they might be 
 excused? Take the case of a man who goes in, builds his house, and 
 cultivates practically 20 acres of his entry, and then a dry year 
 comes when he fails to make a crop. In such a case why could not 
 the entryman be excused for the winter months so he might go and 
 get some employment? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I am very much in favor of classifying the pub- 
 lic domain — that is, the entire public domain in accordance with its 
 real character, and according to the highest and best use to which 
 each tract is adapted. Then make a law that would cover that kind 
 of entry, whatever it is. For instance, if we state that certain lands, 
 according to the survey made of them, are best adapted to dry farm- 
 ing, and upon which dry farming entries should be made, I think we 
 could prepare a bill somewhat along the line suggested by Mr. Fer- 
 ■gusson that would recognize the facts and conditions surrounding 
 that kind of cultivation and make the law applicable to such facts 
 and conditions, so that if a man can not cultivate enough under the 
 dry-farming process, because he can not cultivate it for climatic 
 reasons, then I think he ought to be excused. But it ought to be 
 done under a law that would be peculiarly applicable to that class 
 of entry and not under a general law and then have that applied to 
 irrigation, timber, and other entries, and then leave the department 
 with the necessity of trying to work out administration rules and 
 regulations to cover each particular condition. 
 
 Mr. Fbrgusson. I asked the question for this reason. I am trying 
 to draft a bill with reference to the dry-farming entries, because 
 
HOMESTEAD LAWS. 31 
 
 almost the entire eastern part of New Mexico is a prairie country, 
 with no possibility of irrigation. Thousands of settlers have come 
 in there during the past 10 years, and it is to meet the difficulties I 
 have suggested that I am trying to prepare some bill along that line. 
 Now, there is another portion of New Mexico lying next to the pan- 
 handle of Texas, where, as we approach the mountains, there are 
 some great depressions where water is near the surface, and where 
 they can pump it not more than 20 feet. Now, do you think that 
 a bill might be prepared with reference to irrigation under that state 
 of circumstances, where they will not have to rely upon rainfall alto- 
 gether, but may supplement the rainfall by pumping the water a 
 very short distance? 
 
 _ Secretary Fishbe. There is no reason why they can not enter that 
 kind of land. How would vou have it classified — as dry-farming 
 lands? 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. They take the land under the general homestead 
 law. The question is whether they can not have an act, general in 
 its nature, but intended to apply to that section of the country, where 
 there is no possibility of having surface irrigation and where they 
 have to rely upon rain water, supplemented, as I have said, by pump- 
 ing water this short distance. 
 
 Secretary Fishee. What change do you want in the present home- 
 stead law for such an area as that? 
 
 Mr. Feegtjsson. Well, they must cultivate 20 acres. The soil is 
 rich in this section, in the low valleys where the water is near the 
 surface, and a man might go to work and sink a well and use a small 
 pump that would irrigate 10 acres. He could make a splendid living 
 with that. What I have in mind is whether the general law could 
 not be modified so as to permit this man, who has to go to the expense 
 of installing a pump, to cultivate less than 20 acres. 
 
 Secretary Fishee. What do you want to give him on each home- 
 stead — 320 acres? 
 
 Mr. Feeousson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Well, if 10 acres will support the man why 
 not let somebody else have the remainder ? 
 
 Mr. Feegusson. My idea is whether the entryman should be re- 
 quired to cultivate the 20 acres where he has gone to the expense of 
 installing a pump. Would he be required to cultivate more than 20 
 acres 
 
 Secretarjt Fishee. He will not under the present law, unless he 
 wants to get 320 acres. 
 
 The Acting Chaieman. The homestead law would be applicable to 
 that case? 
 
 Secretary Fishee. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Acting Chaihman. Referring to the question of cultivation, 
 how much land is cultivated each year? 
 
 Secretary Fishee. Under the general hqmestead law, I expect the 
 general average is below 20 acres. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. It seems to me that the condition suggested is met 
 under the homestead law and regulations. As I understand Mr. 
 Fergusson, he desires that the entrymen shall not be required to 
 cultivate the amount now provided under that law^ because of the 
 fact that in some cases the entryman may want permission to irrigate 
 a smaller area, and that the entryman by so doing would not be held 
 
32 HOMESTEAD LAWS. 
 
 \ 
 
 as subiect to contest. Xow. the department has held that if a man 
 can by some extraordinary or unusual means irrigate as much as 40 
 acres, he does not bv so doing jeopardize his entry, and it seems to 
 me that that is a very wise holding. Your regiilations provide that 
 where the lands are not irrigable in the general sense, nevertheless 
 that the irrigation of 40 acres of that tract would not take it out of 
 that class. Now. in some ca^es the entryman on 320 acres can im- 
 pound a little flood water and irrigate a few acres, and that does not 
 impair his entry, because it does not change the character of the land. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I am not sure that the regulations cover 40 
 acres in that wav, but, at all events, it is a very simple proposition, 
 and if a man has every acre under irrigation that is susceptibleto 
 irrigation by means of 'pumps, and there is some requirement which 
 makes it a hardship on the man to do that, that situation ought to be 
 taken care of. I would prefer to classify the lands as homestead 
 lands, and not enlarge the homestead lands. 
 
 The Acting Chairman. On behalf of the committee I Avrote the 
 Secretary a letter calling his attention to two or three other matters. 
 
 Mr. Eaker. I want to get one matter clearly upon the record, Mr. 
 Secretary. Eeferring to your statement a moment ago that if a man 
 did not pay for his water rights, why. of course, it is shut off. In 
 other words, on these privately owned lands under the Reclamation 
 Service, if they do not pay for the water, no water is furnished.. 
 Now, what I want to know is whether with regard to reclamation 
 projects, there is anv selling of the water right as an independent 
 title? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. No, sir ; not as I understand it. 
 
 Mr. Raker. In other words, each right is appurtenant to a certain 
 piece of ground, and it becomes appurtenant to that piece of land? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Yes. sir; and in no instance is it separate fromit. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And a mortgage upon the water right, covers the 
 entire water right of the land? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I so understand it. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I want to make that jDlain — so there is no divorcing 
 of the water right from the land ? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. That is as I understand it. 
 
 Mr. Raker. One further matter — do you not believe that this bill 
 ought to provide some mode or method by which it would be stated 
 that the money borrowed was for the purpose of paying the Govern- 
 ment the rental for the Avater ? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. No, sir; I do not thinlf so. I do not care what 
 the entryman borrows it for, and I am perfectly willing that the 
 Government shall take its risk along with the bank. If the piece of 
 ground, after it has been put under cultivation for five years, or after 
 five-eighths of it is under cultivation, and the man has lived on it 
 for three years, and has paid one-half of the total water charge, if 
 that is not a good security for the Government, somebody has made 
 a serious mistake. There is no reason why the Government should 
 ask any better security than that. Now, if the entryman goes out and 
 borrows money from the bank, I do not care what he does with that 
 money. He can borrow the limit that the bank will lend him, and 
 all I think we should ask to know i- whether he has paid one-half of 
 the water charge. 
 
HOMESTEAD LAWS. 33 
 
 Mr. Raker. Ought there to be a provision that the banker, for 
 instance, should lend it to but one settler or entrynaan, and not enter 
 into a general business in loaning money and taking mortgages on the 
 lands generally of a particular reclamation project? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I do not care how many there are. 
 
 Mr. Eakek. "What provision has the department made, or what 
 Xjrovision is it making, in relation to the power developed by recla- 
 mation projects? I mean water power. What provision will you 
 make in this bill covering that proposition, and how will it affect the 
 water power developed by the project? Very extensive water powers 
 are being developed. by virtue of these projects, and I desire to know 
 whether that power so developed will be turned over to the project? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. That all depends on the arrangement. It may 
 or it may not. Of course, the water power that is generated by the 
 project itself is regarded as an asset of the project, and what is going 
 to happen at the expiration of the 10-year period during which these 
 charges are to be paid all depends on the construction of certain gen- 
 eral provisions in the reclamation law which have not yet been con- 
 strued. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That matter was fully presented to the Comm'ittee 
 on Irrigation day before yesterday. Now, after the entire assess- 
 ment due for the first five years is paid, is the Government to turn 
 the water power over to these people. The water power may be 
 more valuable than all the money expended upon the project 
 
 Secretary Fisher. That might be true. 
 
 Mr. Raker. What arrangement has been made to provide that 
 this power shall become the property of such settlers on that par- 
 ticular project? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. The general law takes care of that proposition. 
 The power is a part of it. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I asked Mr. Newell about that, and he was not quite 
 definite upon that point. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Perhaps Mr. Newell did not want to commit 
 himself, but I have no doubt about it. 
 
 Now, there is another matter: In these early projects, and, in fact, 
 down to date, no provision has been made for drainage, and that, in 
 my opinion, is an absolutely indefensible situation. I think the 
 taking care of the surplus water is just as important as putting it on 
 the land ; but as yet no general provision has been made on that sub- 
 ject. This failure frequently results in disaster to the individual 
 entryman from which he can not protect himself. It is all wrong, 
 and the reason for it was that the then Secretary of the Interior, 
 Mr. Hitchcock, took the view of the law that the reclamation act, 
 which was really narrow in its terms, did not refer to drainage. 
 This situation was due to political jealousy everjrwhere that the 
 Government could not take part in drainage, and that all we could 
 do would be to irrigate the land and then let the settler take care of 
 the drainage. I think that is all wrong. Now, we have changed 
 that, and unless somebody tells the present Secretary of the Interior 
 something to the contrary, the reclamation engineers will devote the 
 greater portion of their time to taking care of the drainage. Now, 
 the water power is a part of the project; it is an incident to it, and it 
 is going to pass, so far as I can see, to the association of settlers or to 
 
 30865—12 3 
 
34 HOMESTEAD LAWS. 
 
 the individuals composing that association of settlers. Just how it 
 will be done I do not know. I presume we will have to come to 
 Congress for additional legislation. It does not bother me especially, 
 for this reason : One of two things will happen — it is either going to 
 pass to the settlers or it will remain in the Government. I assume 
 that Congress is going to do the fair thing, and if it is a fair propo- 
 sition that it shall pass an act by which the power will be turned over 
 to the settlers, under appropriate conditions, it will be done. It 
 might be worked out under the present law. The present law is 
 pretty plain, and I think sufficiently so to make it clear that the 
 money paid on the projects by the Government and repaid by the set- 
 tlers represents in reality the settler's money, and that the settler is 
 entitled to the benefit derived from it. 
 
 Mr. Baker. Now, that project has been started and the unit fixed, 
 which is a farm unit, and the estimate as to the cost is fixed and the 
 settlers have gone in and filed under this project. Now, an electrical 
 power has been developed. Do you think it would be fair to add 
 30,000 or 40,000 acres of land more to the project and use this elec- 
 trical power to pump water to this additional land and add that 
 much more to the original project under which these first settlers 
 filed? 
 
 Secretary Fishee. Do you mean whether it would be fair for the 
 Government to do that? 
 
 Mr. Bakeh. Yes, sir. 
 
 Secretary Fishee. It would depend upon whether or not the Gov- 
 ernment was trying to get back the money that has been expended. 
 Where the charge has been based upon the estimated cost of the 
 original project and it is found that this charge is less than the works 
 have actually cost I think it would be entirely fair for the Govern- 
 ment to do so. We have many of these projects that have been 
 entered into by the Reclamation Service where the settlers have 
 gone in in advance. They Imow in the beginning that the lands 
 were thrown open to entry and the settlers did not have to wait for 
 water on the land. In manjr of these projects they complain, with 
 a great deal of justice, agamst a situation which is partly due to 
 themselves. They complain that they have been out on these lands 
 for so many years and that the water was not put on and that they 
 have to live from hand to mouth. We have stopped that by provid- 
 mg that we would not open these reclamation projects until the land 
 was ready for the settlers, but the situation created in that way, in 
 the first instance, nevertheless remains a verv important thing to 
 take into account. 
 
 Now, the Reclamation Service being pressed by these people to get 
 the water on the land quickly, of course, had to fix the reclamation 
 charge before the work was completed, and they have found in many 
 cases that as they were hurried with this work when they got through 
 with the project the cost had been underestimated, and the Govern- 
 ment will be out a substantial sum of monev because of the difference 
 between the actual^ cost of the project and the collections made in 
 advance. I think m such cases as that, whether the water power is 
 an asset o± the Government or of the settlers, that it should be used 
 by the Government in pumping water on other projects or additional 
 areas tor the purpose of compensating the Government for this dif- 
 
HOMESTEAD LAWS. 35 
 
 ference betweeai the actual cost of the project and the charges col- 
 lected. 
 
 Mr. Eaker. Would not that be putting an extra burden on those 
 who file on the project? 
 
 Secretary^ Fisher. No, sir ; it would simply be not giving them an 
 asset to which they are not entitled ; it is simply making a resource 
 of the Government pay the cost of the project. 
 
 Mr. Feeeis. Do they or not, upon entering on these reclamation 
 projects, agree to pay a specified sum or do they not specifically agree 
 to pay whatever charges may accrue against them on account of the 
 project? 
 
 Secretary Fishee. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Feeeis. They should not be required to do that in order to 
 keep the reclamation fund intact? 
 
 Secretary Fishee. Yes, sir; and if by making the charge that 
 reclamation fund can be kept intact, it must be done. 
 
 Mr. Feeeis. Is it not contemplated by the law that it shall be 
 intact? 
 
 Secretary' Fishee. Yes, sir. The trouble has been due to a lack of 
 oversight of the settler who comes in before the project is developed 
 and wants to know what the reclamation charge will be. The set- 
 tlers come in and demand to know what the reclamation charge is to 
 be, and the Reclamation Service under this pressure, and in at- 
 tempting to meet the demands of the settlers, have frequently under- 
 estimated the charge. We have had much difficulty because we have 
 been permitting them to come in before we knew what the project 
 was going to cost. Now, ■^e keep them off until the project is devel- 
 oped and then are in a position to tell them what it has cost. Now, 
 of course, there is an indefinite charge on account of maintenance 
 and operation which enables us to take care of everything that we 
 can properly charge under those heads. 
 
 Mr. Feeeis. How much has the reclamation fund been decreased 
 by reason of errors of this kind? 
 
 Secretan^ Fishee. We have not the complete figures now, and it 
 will be difficult at this time to supply that. 
 
 Mr. Feeeis. Is it a large sum ? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I should imagine that it is a sum of some size. 
 
 The Acting Chaieman. The increased price of everything, includ- 
 ing labor and unforeseen casualties, has increased the cost of nearly 
 all these projects, has it not? 
 
 Secretary Fishee. The responsibility rests with Congress to pre- 
 vent the loss, because we have been proceeding on this unfortunate 
 theory of having this thing done in advance of the completion of the 
 projects; that is, basing the charge on an estimate instead of know- 
 ing what the cost was and charging the settlers just what it did cost. 
 So, we can not blame anybody for it. It is rather remarkable, in my 
 opinion, that we have not had more serious consequences than we 
 have had. 
 
 The Aqting Chaieman. Do you desire to say anything concerning 
 what was mentioned here the other day in reference to the general 
 homestead law, aside from reclamation projects? There is some dis- 
 cussion of the matter in your annual report especially in the matter 
 of the requirements as to residence and cultivation. 
 
36 HOMESTEAD LAWS. 
 
 Secretary Fishbe. There are two things in the so-called Jones bill, 
 in the Senate, that are unfortunate, and I have considered them. The 
 first provides that the homesteader can be absent from his home- 
 stead for six months every year. I think that is a bad law. If the 
 settler is compelled to leave his homestead during the winter months, 
 then specify the winter months. There might be a provision in the 
 law that would enable him to be away from his homestead where the 
 necessity existed without extending a general invitation to all set- 
 tlers to be absent from their homesteads. I think that would work 
 very badly, because right there you create a situation where the settler 
 will have his interests away from the homestead. The settler would 
 be likely to have under that sort of provision his schools and inter- 
 ests somewhere else. You would create such a situation as I referred 
 to this morning where the so-called settler would be living 1,000 
 miles away from his homestead. 
 
 Mr. Eaker. Have you taken into consideration the condition that 
 exists in many of our western States where they are centering the 
 schools in the larger places? In fact, they have little summer 
 schools in the country, but the winter schools are in the larger places. 
 Now, why could not the homesteader be permitted to take his family 
 to the town for four or five months in the year, where they may have 
 these school advantages, and the homesteader could go back and do 
 the work on the farm in the proper season ? 
 
 Secretary Fishee. That would not mean a change in residence. If 
 the situation involves nothing more than going to a town, say, 15 
 miles away and placing the diildren in aohool, that does not affect 
 the residence. But the question is whether you create a condition 
 where the man may live six months on the farm and six months 
 somewhere else, and in doing so offer encouragement to people to take 
 the land, clear a portion of it, and then sell it for a profit. Under 
 such a system you will not have homesteads, but, rather, entries effected 
 for the purpose of speculation. Now, if you b.ave a case where an 
 mdividual is justified in doing what you suggest, then I think there, 
 ought to be a provision in the law to take care of that situation ; but 
 I think that to offer an omnibus invitation to leave the homestead 
 for a definite period of time this year and each year will work badly. 
 
 Mr. Eaker. I can not conceive of any good reason why a man 
 should be compelled to live on his farm through the entire winter. 
 It occurs to me that he could go to town and have a little residence 
 or a little home there for his family and at the same time take care 
 of his farm. He has not abandoned his farm, and must have his stock 
 taken care of in his absence ; but under the present conditions, if he 
 he should happen to stay in town two or three days he is immediately 
 in trouble. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. No, sir; not under the special regulations, nor 
 even under the diabolical special agents of whom so much complaint 
 is made, if they had called my attention to it. We would take into 
 consideration the facts in the case. Anv arbitrary final ruling that 
 a man loses his residence because he happens to have slept out of his 
 house for a day or two is an absurdity. 
 
 Mr. Eakee. But suppose he has moved his family to town and his 
 family stays in town until the last of March. Is he not immediately 
 jumped upon as having a home in town, and therefore as not main- 
 taining his residence on his homestead ? 
 
HOMESTEAD LAWS. 37 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Not in any case that I know of. Was he living 
 in town? 
 Mr. Eakee. He was at the farm off and on. 
 Secretary Fisher. No, sir; the ruling would be in his favor. 
 The Acting Chairman. We have here several gentlemen from the 
 West who may desire to ask the Secretary some questions. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I want to finish first what I started to say with 
 regard to this three-year law. It must be perfectly apparent that 
 a provision permitting six months' absence would be throwing the 
 gates wide open. Suppose we have not allowed a six months' ab- 
 sence. No law of that sort ought to be considered that does not re- 
 quire a man to cultivate a fixed proportion of his ground. Suppose 
 you pass a law providing that a man can get title in three years 
 instead of five years, provided he clears at least one-half of the land ; 
 would that help the entryman ? In my opinion it would not serve 
 the purpose anything like as well as the law I have suggested in the 
 way of an extension of this irrigation proposition to the general 
 homestead situation. Suppose we do not require that and you have 
 no provision requiring the cultivation of a fixed specific amount of 
 the land. You wiU not have anything. You would not get settlers 
 at all. You would get men to do a sufficient amount of cultivation 
 under the homestead law to give them a title. He might come in and 
 say, " I can not meet the requirements the first year and clear up the 
 land." In the second year he could say that he had just got started 
 and that it was only during the last year that he had been able to 
 cultivate the land. If you pass a law under which one year's culti- 
 vation is all that would be practically required, and indeed all that 
 could be required under the law, then you would simply open all the 
 lands in the West to omnibus entry, because after getting the titles 
 they could sell to anyone. Under a law of that find it would be 
 practically impossible to check up all the possibilities for fraud and 
 abuse, and it would be throwing the gate wide open. I would like 
 to see real settlement on the public domain. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. Mr. Secretary, there are a number of different prop- 
 ositions to which I would like to call your attention. Your sugges- 
 tion that for the first two years residence shall not be required, and 
 the Senate's suggestion that the homestead settlement be only three 
 years, would each require further amendment of the homestead laws 
 in order to make either of those changes workable. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. There is a plan I have had in mind ; that is, reliev- 
 ing homestead entrymen of the necessity of residence during the 
 winter months. 
 
 Secretary Fishee. I was just discussing that matter in your ab- 
 sence. Did you have in mind the question of excusing him per- 
 manently ? 
 
 Mr. MoNDELD. I think that it would be well if he were excused 
 during the winter at least the first three years of his entry. We want 
 permanent settlement, and I have not been quite able to bring myself 
 in line with your suggestion for allowing two years without any 
 settlement. I am a little afraid of that. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Are you afraid of that on irrigation projects ? 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. I think, as applied to irrigation projects, that there 
 would be less danger of abuse under it. My thought was more par- 
 
38 HOMESTEAD LAWS. 
 
 ticularly with regard to other classes of entries. T\Tiile we would 
 like to see the entryman on his land establishing a residence, it is 
 difficult for the entryman to stay there during the winter. Of course, 
 as soon as he gets enough stock around him he is compelled to stay, 
 and it does not require a law to hold him, but for the first two or 
 three years, at least, it is trying to hold him to residence when he 
 might be away earning some income. As it is now, if he remains 
 away for a considerable time he is subject to contest and, while the 
 department may protect his rights, the expense of the contest is put 
 upon him. 
 
 Secretary Fishbe. I do not object to a provision in the homestead 
 law which, during the first two years or possibly during the first 
 three years, would permit the entryman for any one of a, number of 
 enumerated good causes to be absent during certain specified months. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. We have even been compelled to pass laws_ almost 
 every winter for a number of years granting absence during the 
 winter months. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. What do you call the winter months? 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. The "bill I introduced provided for an absence from 
 December to April, inclusive, or five months. It is possible that in 
 southern latitudes that would be too long; but, in any event, the en- 
 tryman ought to be on the land in time to begin his spring cultivation. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Personally I do not care much about making 
 that provision. If we are sure that the reason given for his absence 
 during the winter months is the real reason, the course would be 
 plain. What I object to is an omnibus provision without any reason. 
 I think that sort of provision is wholly unnecessary. If you give the 
 entrymen the right to live away from the land, they will create their 
 interests away from their lands and build their schools away from 
 the lands. They will do it deliberately, and the result is that you 
 will afford an opportunity to people to acquire the property when 
 they do not want to live on it at all. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. You spoke of the matter of schools. I presume that 
 you have taken a lively interest in education and that you know the 
 tendency, at least during the last few years, is in the direction of the 
 consolidation of schools. In my State we are reaching out along that 
 line, and this is the condition we are gradually getting to : The people 
 construct small schoolhouses for summer use and the smaller children 
 attend these schools. But the tendency, as I have said, is to establish 
 the better schools or the schools of the higher grades in town, and the 
 people bring their older children to town for instruction during the 
 winter months, because these children can not always go to school 
 during the summer. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. But the families do not move any great distance. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. But there is always the question, even if some mem- 
 ber of the family is on the homestead, whether or no it is subject to 
 contest. I have had my attention called to quite a number of cases 
 of that kind. In one instance the father of the family went away 
 to work in a mine during the winter and the entry was contested, 
 though the mother and children were on the place. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I want to call attention to one thing, and also 
 to some provisions in the Canadian law. There has been a good 
 deal said about it, and I think, perhaps, the committee would like 
 to have its attention called to it. 
 
HOMESTEAD LAWg. 39 
 
 In the United States there is no reservation after classification, 
 whereas in the Dominion of Canada there is a general reservation of 
 all minerals. The eligibility requirements in Sie United States are 
 citizenship, 21 years of age, or head of family. In Canada the 
 eligibility requirements are citizenship, head of family, or 18 years of 
 age if male. In the United States the amount is 160 acres, and it is 
 160 acres in the Dominion. The requirements as to surveys are the 
 same in both countries. In the United States the settlers on un- 
 surveyed lands have a preference right of entry, which must be 
 exercised within three mohths after the survey and opening of the 
 land. In Canada the settlers haA'e a preference right for six months ; 
 occupation after survey without entry within time gives no right, 
 and the occupant may be treated as a trespasser and the improve- 
 ments forfeited. In the United States the time for perfecting entry 
 is six months ; in Canada the time for perfecting entry is six months, 
 but on specific cause shown entry may be protected from cancellation 
 for a further period of six months. No annual proof is required in 
 the United States, but in Canada the homesteader may be required, 
 by declaration or otherwise, to show each year the performance of his 
 homestead duties. In the tinited States the grounds for cancellation 
 are that the entry was made for the benefit or the use of another; 
 that it was allowed through error, misrepresentation, or fraud; and 
 failure to comply with the statutory requirements. 
 
 In the Dominion of Canada the grounds for cancellation are that 
 the entry was made for the benefit or use of another; that it was 
 allowed through error, misrepresentation, or fraud; because of its 
 value for timber ; and failure in any year to fulfill the requirements 
 of the law. In the United States condemnation is allowable of 
 lands needed for Government reclamation construction, and in 
 Canada the entry maj' be canceled if the land is necessary for the 
 protection of the water supply or for the location or construction of 
 works necessary to the development of water power. In Canada 
 compensation may be allowed for improvements. In the United 
 States the requirements are five years* residence and cultivation, while 
 in Canada the requirements are three years' holding with residence at 
 least six months in each of three years, to have erected a habitable 
 house, and to have cultivated such area as is satisfactory to the 
 minister. In the United States two credible witnesses are required 
 to make proof, while in Canada proof consists of the sworn state- 
 ment by the applicant corroborated by two witnesses. In the United 
 States proof must be made within seven years, while in Canada it 
 must be made within five years. 
 
 It appears, however, that in the Province of British Columbia 
 there is a different requirement as to length of residence than under 
 the regular Dominion laws. In the Province referred to the regula- 
 tions fix the period of residence at fire years and require an actual 
 residence of at least six months in each year. The area to be entered 
 in most of the divisions is 40 acres. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. Do you refer to these as the Dominion laws? 
 
 Secretary Fishee. Yes, sir ; I am calling attention to the difference 
 between the laws of Canada and those of the United States on this 
 subject. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. Each Province has its separate legislation on the 
 subject. • Are you quoting now from the IManitoba law ? 
 
40 HOMESTEAD LAWS. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Yes, sir; and that is the section to which most 
 of our settlers have gone. 
 
 In this connection it is interesting to observe in the annual report 
 of the Canadian department of the interior for the fiscal year ending 
 March 31, 1910, on page 8, the tabulated statement of the inspector 
 of Dominion land agencies, showing the principal work transacted 
 by homestead inspectors in Manitoba and Sasketchewan for that 
 year. It appears that in these two Provinces there are 29 homestead 
 inspectors. 
 
 In the seventh field division of this office, which embraces a terri- 
 tory much greater than the two provinces referred to there are em- 
 ployed 23 field men, this including special agents, mineral inspectors, 
 tory much greater than the two provinces referred to, there are em- 
 spectors, there are ranch inspectors, timber agents, and coal-land 
 inspectors. 
 
 Mr. MoNDEi.L. You are comparing it with one of your field di- 
 visions ? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Yes. sir ; I am trjnng to get something that is 
 comparable or something that would be a basis for comparison. 
 
 On page 4 of this annual report the inspector of Dominion land 
 agencies states: 
 
 Thonsli cUiviiis; Hie yp:ir tliero \vi':v 42:; less entries (wUicli include Uome- 
 steads, preemptions, and purehased h(inicsteads) in Jlanitolia and Saskatche- 
 wan, there has been an advance of almost 3.000 caucellations. which shows the 
 close watch being kept on those holding entries and a corresiiondingly increased 
 interest on the part ')f intending settlers. 
 
 This statement seems to me to Ije particularly interesting in view 
 of the criticisms which have been made of the field force of the 
 General Land Office. 
 
 It appears that in addition to home.stead inspectors there are in 
 the Provinces of ^lanitoba and Saskatchewan 34 " Dominion land 
 subagents" whose duties, compared with our system, seem to be 
 similar to those of registers and receivers. These officers are directly 
 under the supervision and control of the minister of the interior. 
 
 In addition to the right of homestead there is a provision for a pre- 
 emption entry of 160 acres, provided the land sought to be entered 
 under the preemption lies alongside the homestead entry. The re- 
 quirements for preemption are completing the requirements requisite 
 to obtaining letters patent for a homestead, residence on the home- 
 stead or the preemption six months in each of six years subsequent 
 to date of entry for the homestead, cultivation of 50 acres either on 
 the homestead or preemption, and paying $3 per acre. Preemption 
 may be made by one who has a homestead and does not hold or has 
 not assigned his right to receive patent for a preemption. There is 
 also a provision for a purchased homestead for anyone having ob- 
 tained a homestead but who can not make a preemption because of 
 lack of available land adjoining his homestead or who has otherwise 
 exhausted his right for a free homestead. The requirements are 
 residence on the quarter section for six months in each of three 
 years subsequent to the date of entry, cultivation of 50 acres, erection 
 of a house A-alued at $300, and payment of $3 per acre. 
 
 In going over this matter with the Commissioner of the General 
 Land Office, Mr. Dennett, and discussing these things with him the 
 other day, I asked him to give me this memorandum, which. discusses 
 
HOMESTEAD LAWS. 41 
 
 the general condition, so that your committee might have in avail- 
 able form some pi the marked and distinguishing characteristics of 
 the Canadian land laws, showing wherein they differ from oui's. 
 We have found some things that they require which are much more 
 stringent than anything we ask. 
 
 Mr. Dennett. I desire to call the attention of the committee to a 
 provision in the Dominion land act. It is on page 8 of this pamphlet 
 from which I read : 
 
 Sections 4 and 6 of an act to consolidate and amend the acts re- 
 specting the public lands of the Dominion : 
 
 Sec. 4. If entry is obtained for land wliicli, tUongli not reserved at the time, 
 is ascertained to be valuable ou account of merchantable timber upon it, the min- 
 ister may, within six months of its date, cancel the entry. 
 
 Sec. 6. If, after entry is obtained, it is ascertained that the land entered 
 for, or any portion thereof, is necessary for the protection of any water supply 
 or for the location or construction of any works necessary to the development 
 of any water power, or for the purposes of any harbor or landing, the minister 
 may, at any time before the issue of letters patent, cancel the entry or with- 
 draw from its application any portion of the land entered for, but, where the 
 land is required for the location or construction of worlcs necessary to the 
 development of any water power, only in so far as the land necessary for 
 that purpose. ^ 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. Mr. Chairman, is it your intention to go on for 
 some time? 
 
 The Acting Chairman. That is subject to the pleasure of the 
 committee and the Secretary. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. I thought if we could go on a little further we 
 might very properly take up with the Secretary at this time, while 
 we are discussing the question of special agents, the matters treated 
 of in the bills that have been called to his attention. I refer to the 
 bills. H. R. 8781 and H. E,. 18235. The first is a bill introduced by 
 me regulating the suspension of final proof on land entries and pro- 
 viding that no proof shall be protested except for good cause, and 
 that the entryman shall be notified thereof. 
 
 Secretarv Fisher. It is our intention to send in reports on these 
 bills. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. You have already sent in a report on the bill H. E. 
 8781, and the report is decidedly adverse. Some members of the 
 committee desire to discuss the matter — at least briefly — with you at 
 some convenient time. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I would be glad to discuss that now. There 
 are one or two bills that I have just mentioned, and of course you 
 can take up whatever bill you desire. There is a bill for a second 
 homestead, and I think perhaps there are several of them. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. The bills I have referred to are bills that relate to 
 the duties of the special agents. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Then there is also a bill with regard to appeals 
 from the department. That I regard as a matter of importance. 
 With regard to the appeals matter, I think perhaps we might dis- 
 cuss that for a minute or two. As the law now stands, and as it 
 has been construed by the courts, the courts exercise the right to 
 review .the action of the department in cases where the matters in- 
 volved are matters of law. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. To what extent? 
 
42 HOMESTEAD LAWS. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. To the extent of taking any case where there is 
 clearly a question of law, and when there is a question of law in- 
 volved they take jurisdiction and consider whether they will man- 
 damus the Secretary or enjoin him, as the case may be. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. I did not understand that there were any such cases 
 in which the courts took jurisdiction except in cases where the patent 
 has been issued. For instance, your department recently reversed, 
 or virtually reversed, the former holding of the office for many years 
 with regard to what is known as constructive residence for the first 
 six months after entry. Now, that is clearly a question of law, but 
 the courts would not take jurisdiction of that question. 
 
 Secretary Fisheb. Whether they would or not, and whatever the 
 limitation'! on the jurisdiction are, is a question pretty clearly in- 
 volved in a case now pending, I think, in the Supreme Court for 
 adjudication, and we will have a decision which will pretty definitely 
 state what the powers of the courts are with regard to jurisdiction of 
 the department's rulings. 
 
 •Mr. MoNDELL. My bill provided for reviews by the courts and 
 limited the review entirely to questions of law. 
 
 Secretary Fishee. I did not so understand it. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. But the committee in reporting on the bill added 
 questions of fact. The difficulty we find is in getting any question 
 of law or fact before the court, except after the patent has issued, 
 where, of course, the patent may be attacked within a certain length 
 of time on certain grounds. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. The fundamental question is whether it ought 
 to be reviewed or not. What do you want in the way of a tribunal? 
 What kind of a department are you going to make of the Interior 
 Department, and what sort of a 'bureau are you going to make of 
 the General Land Office ? If you are going to have any review what- 
 ever under a broad omnibus bill, more especially under the bill re- 
 ported granting a review of questions of fact, I might say that un- 
 der whatever Secretary of the Interior you may have, or whatever 
 Commissioner of the General Land Office vou may have, the difficul- 
 ties about which complaint is made are going to be infinitely worse 
 than they are to-day. If they are required to prepare these records 
 soas to show what the facts are, in such a way that they will be ad- 
 missible under the rules of evidence to determine the appeal by the 
 tribunal sitting as a court and passing upon the questions under the 
 technical rules of law, you are going to multiply the work of the 
 General Land Office a hundredfold, and patents will be very much 
 more slowly issued You can not possibly avoid that situation. In- 
 stead of having the -questions determined speedily and informally 
 under the system now obtaining, and under which a vast raajoritv 
 of the cases go through without protest and very quickly, you woul^ 
 have the reverse, because we must have everything pertaining to these 
 cases ready for appeal to the court. The result would be that the 
 Commissioner of the General Land Office and everybodv connected 
 with It, down through the field agents, are going to have the evi- 
 dence in court shape. We can not avoid it. 
 
 Mr. MoNDEHL. I agree with you entirely on that matter. AU that 
 seems necessary to me is to have a review as to the law, but, referring 
 to the action of the committee on the bill, when the committee began 
 to examine this matter some gentlemen said to us: "That will not 
 
HOMESTEAD LAAVS. 43 
 
 do at all. The Secretary may be so careless of the interests of the 
 Government that he may ignore absolutely violations of the law on 
 questions of fact, and we must be in position to reverse the Secretary 
 on questions of fact in the interest of the Government." I agree 
 with you as to a review of questions of fact, but it has seemed to 
 me and to other members of the committee that a review of questions 
 of law is important. 
 
 Now, let me call your attention to instances we have had of late 
 years going to show the importance of a review. We have, for in- 
 stance, the law known as the act for the protection of surface rights 
 of entrymen. Many of us think that the department has entirely 
 ignored the last paragraph of that law, which provides that where 
 the entryman has macfe final proof showing good faith and satisfac- 
 tory compliance with the law he is entitled to patent. Where he 
 has made final proof and there is no question of good faith involved, 
 under that law he is entitled to patent. Now, in all cases, if there 
 was any question of coal, they have insisted on raising the question 
 of the coal character of the land, although the question was not 
 raised up to the time of final proof. Now, in the absence of any 
 appeal, we think that provision of the law has been ignored ; in fact, 
 continuously ignored. Many of us thinl^: that on this question of 
 constructive residence the department ought to have had the decision 
 of a court. We scarcely ever pass a law that there is not some im- 
 portant question raised in connection with it, and the decision or 
 decisions, it seems to me, are not always consistent with either the 
 letter or the spirit of the law; and unless the department can be 
 persuaded to modify its first view, there is no possible way of secur- 
 ing a reversal of the decision. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Now, y'ou think, therefore, there ought to be an 
 appeal on the law and that that appeal ought to go up to the Supreme 
 Court? 
 
 Mr. MoNDEix. That would not be my idea. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Where would it stop ? 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. I think it should go to some proper court and stop 
 there. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Wliere can it stop short of the Supreme Court 
 of the United States? It would have to be in the Court of Claims 
 or else be in the circuit courts all over the country, where the depart- 
 ment would have to try these cases. 
 
 Mr. MoNDEDL. Personally I would prefer to have all of these cases 
 go to one court, and that court should be here. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. To a new court or to the Court of Claims ? 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. I would not suggest the Court of Claims under any 
 circumstances. The court I did suggest in my bill was the circuit 
 court of appeals of the District. The difficulty is here, and you 
 realize it in the department, that the department, being the agency 
 through which the investigation is carried on, is placed in the rather 
 curious attitude of being investigator, judge, and juror in the matter. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. That is true and it is not. Of course, what 
 you are doing is dispensing a certain amount of bounty of the Gov- 
 ernnment. You are asking in the laws that you pass that the United 
 States Government, being the owner of the public domain, shall 
 permit individual entrymen or private interests to acquire these 
 lands under certain conditions, and you are intrusting the admiuis- 
 
44 HOMESTEAD LAWS. 
 
 tration of that law to an administrative tribunal or an administrative 
 office. You are doing just what has been done in every such case; 
 what was done in the case of the water powers developed in navi- 
 gable streams, which were put under the administration of the War 
 Department, and what has been done with innumerable other ques- 
 tions and concerns that have been committed to the administration 
 of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce 
 and Labor all over the country. Now, what you are trying to do is 
 to treat the matter as though it were a litigation or controversy be- 
 tween the United States and the private individuals. Now, it is not 
 anything of that kind. It is a question of rules and regulations and 
 administrative procedure, under which private individuals are 
 allowed to acquire something to which they have no claim other- 
 wise, and, in my opinion, it ought to be entirely an administrative 
 proposition. I do not believe that it ought to be a court question at 
 allj and I do not think you will escape the difficulties you have 
 pointed out if the method you suggest were adopted. 
 
 Now, the determination of the questions of law will always de- 
 pend upon the particular state of facts to which it has been applied; 
 and how are you going to consider a particular law without refer- 
 ence to these particular facts to which it has been applied? You 
 are going to have the courts to say, " Here are the facts," and they 
 must pass on the evidence and the weight of the evidence, and you 
 are going to get into that exact situation in every case appealed. 
 You can not separate questions of law from questions of fact, even 
 though you attempted to make it so under the law. There are cer- 
 tain questions of law and constructions of law which the courts now 
 take jurisdiction of, and which the department itself has construed, 
 and, m my opinion, that takes, care of •everything that ought to be 
 t^ken care of. In addition to that, however, the Department of the 
 Intenor._ under my administration— and I think it will be so under 
 the administration of aiiy competent Secretary of the Interior— will 
 call upon the Attorney General's office for an opinion as to the law 
 in any case of importance, where there reallv appears to be a ques- 
 tion ot doubt concerning the construction of ihe law. If vou should 
 apply to the Secretary of the Interior to pass upon a ckse, and it 
 should be carried to the Attorney General for an opinion, you will 
 be getting ]ust as competent an interpretation of the law and just as 
 disinterested interpretation of the law as you would in any court of 
 appeals or the Court of Claims or in any circuit court 
 +1, . ;i. J°^''^- <^^ course, that is a new thought. I did not know 
 that the -department had to any considerable extent referred ques- 
 tions of law to the Attorney General. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Oh. yes: we do that right along. Now, in the 
 very question you mention the question of a change in the ruling 
 with regard to six months' nonresidence. The question there was 
 whether the five years included the six months during which absence 
 was permitted, so that only four and one-half years would be re- 
 quired, or whether, under the peculiar language of the law, it re- 
 quired five years residence, beginning after the first six months dur- 
 ing which absence was permitted. I considered that question very 
 carefully not only at the office, but I took the papers home with me. 
 1 considered that question very carefully with a view to determinine 
 whether or not it was. m my opinion, a question that might be sul> 
 
HOMESTEAD LAWS. 45 
 
 mitted to the Attorney General. T confess that when I got through 
 it seemed so clear a question of law that I did not see any object in 
 transmitting it. 
 
 ' Mr. MoNDELL. I think you realize this embarrassment under which 
 an administrative bureau always labors 
 
 Secretary Fisher (interposing). Pardon me, but before you go 
 into that let me say that in the Land Office, in the Department of the 
 Interior, is a board of law review, or board of review. Now, there 
 should be a board of review of sufficient dignity of character and 
 professional equipment and standing to which all those cases com- 
 mg up to the Secretary's office could be referred. These cases should 
 be referred to that body of men, and they could pass upon them, and 
 they could be made to that degree separate and distinct from the 
 office force. We have a board of law review in the land office, so far 
 as it goes, but they have to pass on the whole mass of material that 
 goes along with the cases, and they are not paid adequate salaries. 
 Considering the magnitude of these questions, we ought to have a 
 thoroughly competent board properly paid, and we ought to have in 
 the office of the Assistant Attorney General for the Interior Depart- 
 ment a number of competent assistants, who Avould study all these 
 cases, and to whom matters of this sort could be referred and worked 
 out. I think if you had a tribunal of that kind, you would get far 
 better results than you would under this proposed court of appeals. 
 Then you would have to follow all these cases in the courts, and some- 
 body would have to prepare the cases for argument 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. This is the embarrassment that the administrative 
 bureaus labor under. What is the administrative officer to do in the 
 case of a law commanding him absolutely to do a certain thing, 
 while a public sentiment declares that he shall ignore it. Some of 
 the difficulties arise from the fact that an administrative bureau is 
 a political bureau, at least in the eyes of the public. In the eyes of 
 the public what an administrative bureau does is the act of the 
 administration or the party. I have seen the public-land laws ad- 
 ministered for something oyer 40 years, since I lived as a boy on a 
 homestead. I have spent 16 years here, 18 months of that period 
 spent in the General Land Office. I have seen the pendulum sfwiBg 
 back and forth in matters of administration, or in matters of 
 policy of administration. I have seen the "department, in the face 
 of a very strong public sentiment based largely on hysteria and 
 misinformation, hesitate to carry out a plain provision of law be- 
 cause to do it would in many cases subject the department to se- 
 vere criticism. The courts are not entirely free from such influences. 
 I think it was Mr. Dooley who remarked that whether or no the 
 Constitution followed the flag, the Supreme Court followed the 
 election returns in some cases. But, to a very considerable extent 
 the courts are relieved from undue influence of temporary gusts of 
 public opinion. It is the whole duty of administartive bodies, as 
 well as judicial bodies, to determine what the law is. If the law is 
 too liberal or too strict, the criticism should be on Congress and not 
 on the administrative department; but it is not always so, and for 
 that reason in seasons of clamor, often started by a few people, the 
 administrative bureaus hesitate to decide against such clamor. If a 
 court of proper dignity finally decides that such and such is the law 
 with regard to a given matter, it would settle it to the extent that it 
 
46 HOMESTEAD lAWS. 
 
 would become the duty of Congress to change it if it were wrong and 
 required changing. We have all noted the swinging of the pendulum 
 in departmental practice. We have been introducing bills to meet 
 what we conceived to be unfortunate decisions and waiting and 
 hoping for a change of view in the department itself. Now,_ I have 
 never had an idea or a notion that there would be any considerable 
 number of appeals under the bill providing for appeals on questions 
 of law, because a few cases would settle all important questions. The 
 court would lay down a rule and give us an interpretation of the 
 law that the department would be bound by. Of course, if Congress 
 considered it wise to do so, the law could be amended. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Yes, sir ; but that is not a question of law. You 
 do not merely get a construction of the law. That is not what your 
 bill provides for. Your bill provides for an appeal on questions of 
 law arising in particular cases. You know that is just as different 
 as daylight is from darkness. You know that cases will be appealed 
 even when it is known just what the law is, and the courts will be 
 simply clogged with them. Men come in my office every day on 
 questions of rehearing, pleading for a rehearing, and sending Members 
 of Congress and of the Senate to suggest that they ought to have a re- 
 hearing. They come to us right along and say, " We have no question 
 about the law or the construction of the statute ; that is the way it ought 
 to be construed ; but, as applied to our case, the decision is wrong." In 
 every case the court would have to decide what was a given state of 
 facts as disclosed by the record, and then determine what the law 
 is as applied to that state of facts. The result would be that, while 
 the department might not be reversed, and while there might not be 
 any review of the questions of fact as disclosed by the record, unless 
 the Department of the Interior made a careful detailed finding of 
 fact and was exceedingly careful in every case to see that every 
 material fact was included in the statement, the court could do any- 
 thing it chose with regard to the particular case, saving that upon 
 that state of facts, dealing with that specific thing, the law is such. 
 Of necessity, the fact would be involved in anv construction of the 
 law as applied to any particular case. Now, you will not get away 
 from, it; you will simply have case after case go into the courts, and 
 you can not possibly avoid it, in my judgment. Take the State where 
 the supreme court does not pass on questions of fact, but where there 
 IS some provision that intermediate courts of appeal can review the 
 fact, but not the supreme court. 
 
 You will find that the dockets of the supreme court, even in these 
 States, are clogged with cases in which the litigants constantly con- 
 tend that they do not want the court to review the facts, but say that 
 under the facts as established m the record they are entitled to certain 
 relief, or that under such a state of facts the court ou^ht not to 
 apply a given remedy against them. It always happeni so The 
 minute you throw these matters open to appeal to the courts, you 
 will revolutionize the whole character of the Department of the In- 
 terior. You will make it a litigating body instead of an adminis- 
 trative body, and that would be a fundamental mistake. But if you 
 want to enlarge the functions, raise the character, and remove to one 
 side the tribunal withm the department, or the men within the 
 department, who pass upon these questions, so as to make them iust 
 as judicial as possible in their character and remove them just as 
 
HOMESTEAD LAWS. 47 
 
 much as possible from the field force and office force, I agree with 
 you. There is another question to be considered in this connection, 
 and that is we do not charge any fee. Before such a tribunal in the 
 department the contestants would be on an/ equality in that respect; 
 but if you provide an appeal to the courts, the result would Jae that 
 the litigant with money to spend will drag the matter on until he 
 wears out his less fortunate opponent. The litigant with money 
 would always have that advantage of his less fortunate adversary. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. As legislators, we are not primarily interested in the 
 equities or the forms of procedure for entrymen under the land laws. 
 That is an administrative matter clearly. We are interested^ how- 
 ever, in the interpretations which the department place upon legis- 
 lation. I often meet this situation in the departments in discussing 
 matters with the gentlemen there : " Possibly that is the law, but how 
 is it going to apply to John Jones in this particular case ? " Now, as 
 a legislator endeavoring to legislate intelligently, while interested in 
 that entryman, the important thing to know is what did we do 
 when we passed that statute. If it does not suit John Jones's case, 
 it is either unfortunate for John Jones or indicates that we were not 
 considering John Jones's case when we legislated. But, outside of the 
 question of how it will affect John Jones's case, the important con- 
 sideration is what did we propose to do. We find cases where, in 
 our opinion, the department does not construe the law in accordance 
 with what we had in mind when we passed the law^ and sometimes 
 we fear because of the fact I just referred to, of an overwhelming 
 public sentiment demanding that the department have a care lest the 
 law be construed too liberally. The law seems to be liberal, and the 
 department withholds rights and privileges which we think the law 
 granted. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I wish you would cite me to any single section 
 of any statute where you think the question on the facts properly 
 warranted any other opinion, construing the law as you think it is. 
 Let us find a single case. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. I just referred to the recent decision under the 
 homestead law as to constructive residence. 
 
 Secretary Fishee. That is just what I say. If you go into a 
 court, you will find that true of every case where tiie language of the 
 act is' ambiguous. It is ambigTious, clearly ambiguous, and no two 
 men would disagree about its being ambiguous. It comes into_ an 
 administrative tribunal, and the administrative oiRcers construe it a 
 certain way. Now, if you should go into a court, there would be the 
 same ruling in a case of that kind. The court would simply say 
 that the language being ambig-uous, it would be construed against 
 the rio'ht of the claimant and in favor of the Government. If there 
 were a clear case, you could count that as a clear case of misconstruc- 
 tion of the statute. As to the rulings of the department amending 
 the law, you could count the instances on the fingers of one hand. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. Well, I have referred to a statute which seems to be 
 very clear. 
 
 Secretary Fishee. This provision reads as follows: 
 
 Sucli locator, selector, or eutryman who lias heretofore made or shall here- 
 after make final proof showing good faith and satisfactory compliance with the 
 Jaw under which this land is claimed shall be entitled to a patent without 
 reservation, unless at the time of such final i)roof and entry it shall be shown 
 that the land is chiefly valuable for coal. 
 
48 HOMESTEAD LAWS. 
 
 Now, Mr. Sheridan calls my attention to the instructions issued by 
 the department for the carrying out of that act, and I find this lan- 
 guage on page 2 of the instructions : 
 
 Where satisfactory final proof has heretofore been made for lands enterefl 
 under the nonmineral laws the claimant will be entitled to a patent without 
 reservation, except in those cases where the Government is in possession of 
 sufficient evidence to justify the belief that the land is, and was before making 
 final proof, known to be chiefly valuable for coal, in which case hearing will be 
 ordered. If at said hearing it is proven that the land is chiefly valuable for 
 coal, and that the claimant knew that fact at the time of making final proof, 
 the entry shall be canceled, unless the claimant shall prove that he was at the 
 time of the initiation of his claim in good faith endeavoring to secure the land 
 under the nonmineral laws, and not because of its coal character, in which event 
 he shall be permitted to elect to receive ])iitent with the reservations prescribed 
 in the statute. If it is not shown that the land is chiefly valuable for coal, the 
 claimant shall be entitled to patent without reservation. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. And yet it is a fact that every one of such entrymen 
 was called upon to elect to take a surface patent, and for a long time 
 that provision of the law was not adhered to at all. 
 
 Secretary Fishee. Xow, as I understand it, what the entryman is 
 called upon to make is a showing and, preferring not to make it, he 
 is told that if he waives that and takes a surface patent he can have 
 it without further delay. I see nothing to complain of in that regard. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. If that were the fact, then, perhaps there would not 
 be so much tp complain of, but that unfortunately was not the prac- 
 tice under the statute. If all these cases were transferred imme- 
 diately to the Fraud Division of the General Land Office, that would 
 be equivalent to raising the question of good faith with every one of 
 them, whether there was anything in the record to raise it on or not. 
 Most of them we so transferred. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Now, of course, I imagine from the fact that 
 Mr. Dennett is rising that he wants to controvert that statement of 
 fact. But suppose for the purpose of getting the point clearly estab- 
 lished we concede that were true which Mr. Dennett says is not true. 
 How would you remedy that situation if you had the remedy of an 
 appeal to a court? 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. I would remedy it in any one of these cases. Cer- 
 tainly a man entitled to appeal could do so. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. But how could he appeal ? He first must have 
 his record made up. Would he appeal on the ground of the unreason- 
 ableness of the department's regulations? How would he get it in 
 shape for appeal ? 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. I think he could appeal from the demand made upon 
 him to take a limited patent under these circumstances. 
 
 Secretary Fishee. But no demand is made upon him. He is simply 
 told that that will expedite the action. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. A circular was issued which called upon the special 
 agents to secure these elections, so called, but it is more in the nature 
 of compulsion. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Suppose that is a case, and it is something I do 
 not know anything about 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. Mr. Schwartz sent out such a circular and stated 
 that wherever possible election should be secured, but nothing was 
 said to lead the entrymen to believe that this was not a matter of 
 coercion. 
 
HOMESTEAD LAWS. "49 
 
 tiecretary Fisseb. Suppose that were true. I had always sup- 
 posed that pyir. .Schwartz was being criticised for too much liberality 
 in favor of the entrymen rather than against him. 
 
 Ml. 3I0NDPLL. I had heard no such criticism. 
 
 Secretary Fijshek. I am glad to know ,that that is not correct. It 
 does not make any difference if that is all the cop[ipl^.int amounts to 
 that the adnunistr£i,t^ye function was not \y,isely .exercised. Suppose 
 it amounted to coercion. Yon could not get tjiat qwstipn into qoiurt 
 ■jrith a team of horses. 
 
 1^. MoNDjELL,. jBut we could have secured a .cojnstructio;ti of <;ha-t 
 language by the court. The act further provi4ft'5 thp,t the question 
 of the coal charact,er of the l^n,d should be raised bef pre the time of 
 final proof, or not at all. 
 
 Secretary Fisjher. 'J'hat is the effect of it. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. But the practice is not so. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Why not? 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. ' Unless it has bepome so very r^penplj. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. The question raised is not the question of 
 whether the land vas coal land at that ti^e. I have not looked into 
 that. The question raised is one of good faith. TLh,e question pf 
 whether the land is ,coal land or not, or was not known to be coal 
 land at the time of application for final proof, is not material beside 
 the question of good faith of the entrymen, except in deciding 
 whether he knew it was coal laiid or not. Suppose it is perfectly 
 clear that we, not knowing it to be coal land at tjie time of passing 
 proof, were foreclosed. Where it is a question of the good faith of the 
 entrymen, it is proper to find out A^hetlier he knew it was coal or not. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. The purpose was to prevent delay in the issuance of 
 patents by reason of the raising of the question of the coal character 
 of the land subsequent to final proof by providipg that tlie question 
 of the coal character of the land shall be determin.ed at the time of 
 final proof. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Suppose that was true, it was a mere adminis- 
 trative order, and he could get a direct ruling on it. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. The entryman under these circum^aijces comes for- 
 ward. He has made final proof subsequent to the passage of that act 
 and his patent had been issued, but a year later the department raises 
 the question of the coal character of the land. Now, if we had a 
 statute giving the right of appeal that enjtryman livould have the 
 right to go into court and have determined the qujestion whether he 
 was entitled to a patent. That statute had twp purposes, botji of 
 which seem to me to be clearly indicated — ^one of which was to clean 
 up old cases where there was no question of good faith, and the other 
 that for the future all of the quesj^ions involved myst be settlpfi in the 
 man's presence at the tiine fixed by the office to submit h;s fin^l propf, 
 so he may not have these questions hanging ovw hii|i indefiiiitely. 
 
 Mr. Denkett. Do you mean th£|,t the land o|5ce would pot have the 
 right to raise the question of fraud if on tljie proof papers themselves 
 there was no indication that |rp,ud was perpetrated? 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. I would not s^y th^t. 
 
 M[r. D||;nnett. We haye gtppd on that; ground all along, and we 
 have reserved this rigM u^der fihe ^ct di 1909 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. What I objected to was t^e refusal to issue patent 
 whether or no there was anything in the record or subsequent to the 
 
50 HOMESTEAD LAWS. 
 
 record to raise the question of good faith. You raised the question 
 of good faith in all cases by dumping all of them into the Divisioa 
 of Frauds. v 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Suppose that were true. Suppose it was aU 
 true. How could you get these cases into court? The circular calls 
 upon the entryman to elect 
 
 Mr. MoNDEiiL. The contention is that the department did not in- 
 terpret the law as we who wrote it understood it. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. It does not make any difference. If you have 
 gone so far as to practically claim that we can not interfere in this 
 question of bad faith 
 
 Mr. MorfoBLL (interposing) . I have not done so at any time. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I am. glad to know that I misunderstood you. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. You have the right to go into the question of good 
 faith at any time. 
 
 'Secretary Fisher. Even though the evidence established the fact 
 that the land was not known to be coal land at the time of final 
 proof. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. But if the entryman had no means of knowing, 
 and did not know 
 
 Secretary Fisher. It is a question of what we knew---not what he 
 knew. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. The question of good faith is based on what the 
 entrj^nan knew. 
 
 Secretary Fishee. And so we had the right to inquire into what 
 he knew at any time? 
 
 Mr. MoKDEUi. Yes, sir. 
 
 Secretaiy Fisher. And that is all this circular means. 
 
 Mr. Mondeu,. But there is still the intimation that he had better 
 take the other side of the question. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Well, we will investigate for you any par- 
 ticular case. The questions suggested by you could not be decided 
 on appeal. In those matters the courts would not help you one frac- 
 tion of an inch. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. Of course my idea was that if the court decided that 
 the law was so-and-so it would then be plain to the department, and 
 It would be settled. Now, of course I do not want people to get lands 
 as agricultural lands that are not agricultural lands, and we do not 
 desire unnecessary litigation 
 
 Secretary Fisher f mterposing) . Therefore you introduce a bill 
 to promote litigation? 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL In your opinion, and your opinion on many matters 
 IS very excellent. We can not accept it in this. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Do you know how many cases were decided on 
 appeal in the department from June to the first of last month? 
 There were a little over 300 cases, and it would not take a very large 
 percentage of these cases going into the court to tie up pretty nearly 
 all of the Land Office business, because, as you understand, every time 
 a man claimed a misconstruction of the law on the part of the de- 
 SSf w^ department would have to wait until his ca^e was 
 decided. We could not decide other cases involving that question of 
 law at all, and I shudder to think of the condition that the Land 
 Omce business would be m. 
 
HOMESTEAD LAWS. 51 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. I think after we had a few decisions on the leading 
 points that it would materially reduce the number of contested cases. 
 
 Secretary Fishee. Don't you think that if we get an opinion from 
 the Attorney General of the United States or from a tribunal in the 
 Interior Department we will get just as good an interpretation of 
 the law as we could from the courts? 
 
 Mr. Mo^'DELL. If you could get a tribunal in the Interior Depa,rt- 
 ment that would not be influenced by hysterical public opinion, that 
 would simply try to determine what the law is, that would probably 
 be true. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. You could get it just as nearly there as any- 
 where. I assume from what you state that you agree with me that 
 these cases should not be appealed to the circuit courts throughout 
 the country, because, in that event, we would have a number of dif- 
 ferent rules of construction all over the land. No matter what the 
 advantages might be from such an arrangement, that is a conclusive 
 argument against that proposition, and, therefore, we can not adopt 
 that. The result is that you have got to fix some basis. In the 
 decisions in the department, the construction of the law by the de- 
 partment has been, on the whole, more favorable to the entryman 
 than the decisions of the local courts here have been. As a matter of 
 fact, in every case that has gone to the Supreme Court within the 
 brief period of time that I have been in the Department of the In- 
 terior or that have been decided in that court in that period or 
 within any other recent period, the very strictest constructions of the 
 law have been sustained^ The decisions there have gone further in 
 literal construction against the entryman than the decisions of the 
 department have gone. I think the practice that has prevailed dur- 
 ing the past six months in the department has been mudi more liberal 
 toward entrymen than it has been in any other period of time. We 
 will take, for instance, the construction of the homestead law, to 
 which I have referred, in which the department construed the act to 
 mean, " shall reside on or cultivate the same for a period of five 
 years." The Supreme Court takes out the word " or," and says, "• he 
 shall reside on and cultivate the same for a period of five years." The 
 department construed the words, " the same " to mean, " any part of 
 the same," while the Supreme Court construed it to mean all of the 
 homestead. Now, if an entryman carried to the Supreme Court a 
 case involving that same provision, the court would say that he must 
 cultivate his entry, according to the construction given the law by 
 that court. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. But in such a case as that we could amend the law. 
 
 Secretary Fishek. That is true, but I am satisfied that the inter- 
 pretation given the law by the department was correct. Now, your 
 complaint was against the insinuation in the circular. Now, if you 
 would take the time to prepare a list of the questions arising under 
 the construction of the land laws that you think might properly go 
 into a court on appeal, I venture to say that you could not find a 
 dozen such questions. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. My thought has been at all times that the number 
 of appeals would not be large, and that they would be upon the im- 
 portant controlling points. 
 
 Secretaiy Fishek. That, unfortunately, in my humble judgment, 
 is not true.' I have had some little experience in the practice of law, 
 
52 HOMESTEAD LiAWS. 
 
 and my personal judgment is perfectly clear that when you pass a 
 Jaw providing that questions of law can be taken up, you will find 
 that these cases appealed will not be those involving the construction 
 of the law, such ap these half dozen principal questions you think will 
 go up on appeal, but you will find that cases will be appealed involv- 
 ing only the question" of whether the law in those particular cases has 
 been correctly applied to the facts in those cases, and you will find 
 that every entryman who thinks he has a ghost of a show to win out 
 will go into the court, and out of that 300 cases decided in the Land 
 Office, to which I have referred, there would not be probably more 
 than 10 in which the decision would be different from that of the 
 department. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. I desire to call your attention briefly to this bill 
 which was referred to in Mr. Taylor's letter to you. It is House bill 
 ]Sfo. 8781. The bill reads as follows : 
 
 Be itenactcrl iy the Senate and Rouse of Reprcscntatirrs of the United 
 States of America in Congress assembled. That from aud after the passage of 
 this act no final proofs on land entries shall be suspended except for good and 
 sufficient reasons under the law ; and in e^ery case where action on final proof 
 IS thus suspended it shall be the duty of the oflicer upon whose protest proof was 
 suspended to furnish the register and receiver with his reasons for such suspen- 
 sion, which shall be imniedititely transmitted to the entryman with notice of 
 suspension and with oppprtunity to answer the same or ask for hearing, which 
 hearing when demanded shall.be promptly had. 
 
 Now, this bill was introduced to meet this condition. There is 
 nothing in the regulations to prevent' special agents from going into 
 the land offices and, with a rubber stamp or otherwise, marking pro- 
 tested every entry that happens to be on the docket, and we are in- 
 formed, and everybody who has had any experience in public land 
 matters knows that it has been the practice of certain special agents 
 to mark entries suspended on the merest hearsay or suspicion. There 
 is nothing in the regulations to compel the officer to notify the entry- 
 man that his entry is suspended, and he may know nothing about it 
 until he makes inquiry a year or a year and a half later to know why 
 he has not received his patent. Then he will discover that some one 
 at" some time has suspended the entry, but for what reason he does 
 not know. He has not been called upon to answer at a hearing, and 
 has not received any notice of the cause of suspension. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. That is a defect of administration. I know you 
 will agree with me that as promptly as possible each entryman should 
 be called on for his final prrfof , and that a definite disposition should 
 be made of his entry as quickly as possible. However, the question 
 as to how much can be given from the reports of the special agents 
 is a question. As you have already stated at different times during 
 this hearing, we have been going through a period of considerable 
 public agitation of , all of these questions, and that has naturally led 
 to the tying up of many entries, but I hope we have now gotten to a 
 point where we can go ahead and have the mechinery of the depart- 
 ment move on more smoothly. At the same time, we are always con- 
 fronted with this i)roblem of what to do in the case of a given entry 
 when some one intimates that there is something wrong with it, and 
 when the specia>l agent has reason to suspect that there may be some- 
 thing wrong with it. There is nothing he can do with that case 
 coming to his notice except to stamp it or write out a protest with- 
 holding it subject to protest. The real question is how quickly can 
 
HOMESTEAD LAWS. 53 
 
 we get action on that claim, because as soon as we do get action on it, 
 and as soon as the special agent has finished his investigation and 
 is ready to take the matter up, the entryman is giveii full information 
 of the charges against his claim, and he has every opportunity to 
 nieet them. You complain of the situation in which the entryman 
 is placed before any action has been taken. I do not Imow of any 
 wa,y to help him. It is not going to do him any good, and it is 
 going to do the department harm, to have the department called upon 
 to specify the reasons. There are cases where conspiracy is charged ; 
 the charge is made that there is a conspiracy, and the special agent 
 wants to investigate the charge. Now, shall we stamp that informa- 
 tion on the entry and serve notice on the man, so that he can go out 
 and destroy the evidence and get rid of it ? The reports of the 
 special agents are always confidential, and ought to be regarded as 
 confidential. We can not give the man the reports of the special 
 a^nt that ought to be regarded as confidential. 
 
 Mr. iloxDELi.. Do you thinli it would be objectionable to notify 
 the entryman that his entry has been suspended ? 
 Secretary' P'isher. On a charge of conspiracj^? 
 Mr. MoxDELL. Well, simply notif\' him that his entry is suspended 
 if that is as far as you think you should go. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I do not know of any particular objection to 
 having him notified that it has been suspended. 
 
 Mr. MoNDEUL. Well, that would not fully cure the matter; that 
 would not wholly cure it, but that notice would remove a great deal 
 of the ground of complaint of the entrymen who do not Imow any- 
 thing about the suspension. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. I do not know of any particular objection to 
 notifying the entryman that his claim is suspended. 
 
 'Sir. Dennett. That would involve that sftme proposition of con- 
 spiracy. If the ground of susiDcnsion was conspiracy and the entry- 
 men were notified that his claim was suspended, his mind, which 
 would be a guilty mind, would immediately fly to the reason of sus- 
 pension, and it would be in effect a notice of the grounds. He would 
 immediately take steps and precautions for his own protection and 
 destroy the evidence. 
 
 Mr. MoxDELL. Do you not see the temptation j'ou place before the 
 special agent? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. Yes, sir; I see that, and I am modifying that. 
 For instance, I am issuing an order that all cases must be reported 
 on within a year that may be in the hands of the special agents, and 
 if delayed beyond that they must report the reasons for failure to 
 comply with the order. There is a suggestion which has been re- 
 peatedly made by Mr. Dennett that I think woiild be of far grektei* 
 benefit to you on this point and all along fhe'line than anything else, 
 and I would like to know why it would not be advisable to haVe this 
 proof taken on the land. If we could get a law under which the proof 
 could be taken on the land there would be fewer of these qufestipns of 
 delay and fewer instances in which the entrymen would have to get 
 the witnesses and take them off to the land 'offices or thfe special 
 agents' offices. I think that would simplify the -ivhole thing, 'and 
 that there would be fewer ca^s suspended "than now.' What possible 
 objection is there to a bUl of thsit kind? . i-.-,^ 
 
54 HOMESTEAD LAWS. 
 
 The Acting Chairman. I think the main objection is that it would 
 almost necessarily involve the creation of some new offices. _ 
 
 Mr. Dennett. You would get rid of a great many special agents. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. To get rid of a lot of special agents 
 
 The Acting Secretary. It seems to me that if _ there would be 
 enough special agents eliminated, that would be an inducement. 
 ■ Mr. Dennett. It would be a self-supporting proposition. I do not 
 thinli there is any question about that. In my judgment, it V70uld be 
 self-supporting. I do not think there is any question about it. The 
 agent could take about 225 in the course of the year ; that is, in the 
 ordinary prairie — open country. Of course in a wooded country he 
 could not handle that amount. The fee of the homesteader would be 
 $20, and that would be Very much less than the expense now incurred 
 by the homesteader in bringing his witnesses to the local land offices. 
 Fixing the fee at $20 would bring $4,500 for the work of the agent, 
 and the agent will be paid, say, $2,000, and he would be allowed $3 per 
 day for expenses, so that you would figure on about $3,000. That 
 would leave $1,500 for traveling expenses, and that, I think, would 
 meet the expense. That is a rough calculation. I think, in the event 
 such a provision should be made, that the Secretary of the Interior 
 ought to be given authority to install the system gradually, and not 
 all over the United States at one time. He should be given authority 
 to install it in different districts, and in that way he would get the 
 benefit of the experiments made in some given area. I think the plan 
 is perfectly feasible. The agent would pass over the homestead and 
 could see for himself whether the regulations had been complied with. 
 He would know the facts absolutely and, as I say, many of them from 
 his personal observation. 
 
 Secretary Fisher. It would insure certainty as to residence and 
 cultivation. 
 
 Mr. Dennett. Yes, sir; and it would greatly simplify the work 
 of the General Land Office, as well as the work of the local service, 
 and would also obviate delay. It is from the homesteaders that we 
 have the most complaint. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. Of course there are some arguments in favor of that 
 plan, and perhaps it could be worked out advantageously, but at 
 best it would take some time, if we could see our way clear to adopt 
 it, to get the plan in operation. In the meantime we have this ' 
 situation before us: The special agent, like the balance of us, is 
 human. The special agent may not care to have all of the business 
 closed up or closed up to an extent that would put him out of busi- 
 ness. _ Congress several years ago very largely increased the appro- 
 priation for special agents. For a great many years, when we had 
 much more public domain than now, and when we had the forest 
 reserves, the appropriation for special agents was along about 
 $200,000 annually. It was raised to $500,000, then to $750,000, and 
 then, I think, to $1,000,000. -*- ^ ■> 
 
 Mr. Dennett. I think it is from $500,000 to $1,000,000. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. At any rate, it has climbed to a million, with the 
 assurance that that amount of expenditure would in a very short 
 time clear up the cases and bring the work current. This is what 
 happened— the larger the appropriation the larger the number of 
 cases made— which leads to one of two conclusions, either that the 
 people, m view of the larger appropriations to the special agents. 
 
HOMESTEAD LAWS. 55 
 
 are more careless about complying with the law and are, to a very 
 great extent, defying its provisions, or that the special agents are 
 making a. larger number of cases out of the same conditions that ex- 
 isted prior to the increased appropriation. Those of us who live in 
 the West do not believe that the entrymen are less careful about 
 complying with the laws than they were before. "We know, in fact, 
 that the reverse is the rule. As a matter of fact, the law is complied 
 with much better than it was years ago, and therefore there ought 
 to be fewer cases. Yet the number of cases increases, and how easy 
 it is to make cases when all that is necessary for the special agent 
 to do is to go into the land office with a rubber stamp and mark 
 theni protested. He can mark these cases protested and say they 
 require investigation, and it does not matter whether there is any 
 foundation for that or not. It makes not a particle of difference 
 whether there is any sort of foundation for the suspicion under 
 which they are being stamped. They must. all be ground through 
 the department, and all of them bring grist. to the mill of the special 
 agent, every one of them. All of them delay the issuance of patent. 
 The examination of the cases consumes time and costs money. Very" 
 few of them are ever held to have any substantial basis, because most 
 of the cases eventually are clear, listed. 
 
 Mr. SHEEniAN. Would' you. care to have the facts on that matter? 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. I am confining myself to the facts. Is there not 
 some way whereby these men shall have some check placed upon their 
 almost unlimited power to cast suspicion on entries? 
 
 Mr. Dennett. There is a way, and just now we put a check on 
 them, but the special agent has an important duty to perform. Dur- 
 ing the time to which you referred, when the appropriation was only 
 $100,000, fra.ud ran rampant. I never realized until I began to in- 
 vestigate these matters how rampant the fraud had been. In my 
 own State, and I lived in a locality in which the land was valuable- 
 for agricultural purposes, and, in consequence, there was a stricter 
 compliance with the law, because of the fear of contest, than in many 
 other parts of the. country, but anyone traveling through that coun- 
 try, could see. some of the most flagrant abuses in the way of non- 
 compliance with the law that you could imagine. You take the cases; 
 arismg under the commutation powers of the homestead law, and I 
 venture to state that from the investigations made in the timbered 
 country 86 per cent were fraudulent. 
 
 "These cases that have been referred to in the hands of the special 
 agents include more than the homestead cases. To-day the special 
 agents look after Carey Act investigations, and I have known of in- 
 stances where, because of poor investigations made in the first place, 
 grea,t hardship was caused by reason of the segregation. You may 
 remember where segregations were made in your own State and there- 
 was a great deal of delay. Not only that, but take the State loca- 
 tions. In the State of Colorado to-day the State is locating coal 
 lands that they have no right to retain. 
 
 Mr. MoNDEix. There is no question but what they are entitled to- 
 the grants in peace if the coal character of the lands was not raised 
 before the time of the grant. 
 
 Mr. Dennett. -Before the time of the grant ; you are absolutely 
 correct. But Would you absolutely advocate the proposition that they 
 should not be investigated at the time of the grant? That is the very 
 
56 HOMESTEAD LAWS. 
 
 question we are making through our special agents. These lands 
 should have been properly segregated. In fact, there is much more 
 careful work done now than before. Railroad grants passed to the 
 railroads, and at the time of the passage it was not known that they 
 were valuable mineral lands, and it is a serious question whether we 
 can recover them again. 
 
 Mr. MoNDEtL. ■^'^at we complain of is simply this, and it comes to 
 us through correspondence with our constituents, and it comes within 
 our own knowledge through inquiry made in our district: That a 
 great many cases are reported for investigation on mere rumor, or 
 possibly no rumor at all. There is nothing in the world to prevent 
 the special agents from protesting every entry in a local land office. 
 There are cases in which a man may have a little trouble with his, 
 neighbors and might make a general complaint against all the entries 
 in his neighborhood. 
 
 Mr. Dennett. Cases like that may arise; but when a letter of 
 that kind goes to the special agent, who frequently resides 300 miles 
 away from the place, how is he to know that the complaint is merely 
 due to a quarrel in the neighborhood ? 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. At any event, he should be at least notifiecj. How 
 is he to find it out ? 
 
 Mr. SiiEEiDAN. He generally finds it out by communicating with 
 the local man or the chief of the field division. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. But the entryman on the public domain can not 
 spend his time running to the land office to see what the record shows 
 with regard to his entry. The land office may be from 50 to 100 
 miles away. 
 
 Mr. Martin of South Dakota. Is there any good reason, in the 
 administration of the land service, why the entryman can not be 
 notified of the protest, whether it is a conspiracy case or any other 
 case ? Why not give him a notice and. save him the necessity of going 
 to the land office to find out ? 
 
 Secretary Fisher. It is not contended, as I understand it, that he, 
 should be told of the ground of the protest, but merely notified, of 
 the reason for the delay— that is, that his entry is under protest. 
 If you assign the reason or give the entire reasons you immediately , 
 give the case away; and if you should notify him in some cases and, 
 not in others he would understand at once the significance of it. 
 
 Mr. Dennett. In cases of conspiracy, I am free to admit that I 
 would rather the man would not know that the case was under inves- 
 tigation at all. 
 
 Mr. Martin of South Dakota,. What percentage of the protests filed 
 under the homestead law develop into cases of conspiracy ? 
 
 Mr. Sheridan. From 80 to 85 per cent. 
 
 Mr. MoNDEU.. Will you furnish a statement showing the number 
 of cases that fall in that class^that is, conspiracy cases? 
 
 Mr. Dennett. I will furnish it, but I will have to telegraph the 
 officers for the data. 
 
 Mr, Sheridan. They will average 85 per cent. 
 
 Mr, Martin of South Dakota. What percentage of all the cases 
 brought against entrymen result in convictions ? 
 
 Mr. Sheridan. Do you mean cases of every kind ? 
 
 Mr. Martin of South Dakota. Yes, sir ; of every kind. 
 
HOMESTEAD lAWS. 57 
 
 Mr. Sheridan. That would be impossible to state without looking 
 up every kind of investigation. Mv recollection is that in times past, 
 of all entries investigated, all the way from 8 per cent to 12 per cent 
 or 13 per cent have resulted in (.-ancellation. 
 
 Mjc. Volstead. Let me suggest this as a possible solution of the. 
 difficulty: Suppose you provide that in this case where the person 
 charged with any criminal act no notice be given to him ? 
 ' Mr. Dennett. And state the grounds? 
 
 Mr. Volstead. "Well, state' the grounds if not based upon any 
 charge of a criminal nature. 
 
 Mr. Dennett. As I stated before, I do not think it would he well 
 to put them on notice of the grounds of the protest. 
 
 Mr. Sheridan. These complaints come in to the field officers and 
 the agent goes out to make investigations when he thinks there is 
 sufficient grounds to warrant an investigation. Facts may be called to 
 his attention that can only be developed by the passage of time, and 
 it would not be wise to make a charge upon information furnished 
 until the passage of time and the matter is developed. The statistics 
 show that 28 per cent of the cases protested are cases referred to 
 the field division throughout the country and result in compliance 
 with the law ; 60 per cent result in cases that, under the regulations, 
 go to the General Land OflBce for further investigation; 12 per cent 
 are originated by the field service — that is, by the special agents, 
 ^ow, the field agents go out to make their investigations and some- 
 thing else is frequently called to their attention. Many of these cases 
 are called to their attention while they are in the field. 
 
 The views of the Secretary of the Interior on the matter of amend- 
 ing the reclamation law are set out in bill introduced by Mr. Taylor 
 of Colorado, which is as follows : 
 
 [H. R. 20490, Sixty-second Congress, second session.] 
 A BILL To amend the reclamation law. 
 
 Be it enacted 6// the Senate and House of Reprencntatives of the United States 
 of America in Congress assemWed. That public lands withdrawn under the 
 second form prescribed by section three of the reclamation act, approved June 
 seventeenth, nineteen hundred and two (volume thirty-two, Statutes at Large, 
 page three hundred and eighty-eight), may hereafter be taken up only by entries 
 made under this act, hereinafter called " reclamation entries." In opening to 
 entry such lands the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe regulations con- 
 cerning the time and manner in which such lands may be settled upon, occupied, 
 or entered by person.? entitled to make entry thereof, the payments or deposits 
 to be made by applicants, and the conditions under which the payments or any 
 part thereof may be forefelted for failure to make entry or under which they 
 may be refunded : Provided, That the fees and commissions to be paid on 
 account of reclamation entries shall be the same as are now required by law 
 for homestead entries. 
 
 Sec. 2. That nermanent right to the use, for lands in private ownership, of 
 water from works constructed under said act and acts supplementary thereto or 
 amendatory thereof may hereafter be acquired only by purchase under this 
 act or under the provisions of the act entitled "An act to authorize the Govern- 
 ment to contract for Impounding, storing, and carriage of water, and to co- 
 operate in the construction and use of reservoirs and canals under reclamation 
 projects, and for other purposes," approved February twenty-first, nineteen 
 htinded and eleven. Each tralct of private land for which a water-right pur- 
 chase is or may be made under this act shall be known as a " reclamation 
 
 Sec. .3. That the Secretary of the Interior shall fix, as prescribed by section 
 four of the said reclam-ation act, the limits for each recalmation entry on 
 
58 HOMESTEAD LAWS. 
 
 public lands, and for each reclamation laolding of private lands, at such areas, 
 not In any case exceeding one hundred and sixty acres, as in his opinion may 
 in each case be reasonable for the support of a family on said entry or hold- 
 ing. The tracts so limited for reclamation entries shall be known as "farm 
 units." No person shall under this act make more than one reclamation entry, 
 nor purchase awater right for more than one reclamation holding, nor shall any 
 one person both make a reclamation entry and purchase a water right for a 
 reclamation holding. 
 
 Sec. 4. That no purchase under this act of a water right for a reclamation 
 holding shall be made except upon the express condition that the United States 
 and its successors in the control of the project, in consideration of such sale, 
 shall have a lien on the reclamation holding superior to all other claims and 
 demands whatsoever attaching thereto, after the filing of application to pur- 
 chase water right, for all amounts then due and thereafter to become due on 
 account of such water right, plus the costs of enforcing such lien, and no such 
 sale shall be made to any landowner unless he be an actual bona fide resident 
 on such land or occupant thereof residing in the neighborhood. 
 
 Sec. 5. That every entryman of a " reclamation entry " shall have the quali- 
 fications now prescribed. by law for homestead entrymen : Provided, That here- 
 after, in the administration of the homestead law, a reclamation entry shall 
 be deemed and taken to be equivalent to a homestead entry of one hundred 
 and sixty acres ; and every such reclamation entryman shall, within two years 
 from the date of his entry, build or require a habitable house on his farm unit 
 and establish a residence thereon ; and shall actually reside thereon for the 
 period of three years beginning at the expiration of the two years aforesaid. 
 Every such reclamation entryman and every purchaser of a water right for 
 a reclamation holding shall progressively reclaim and cultivate, to the satisfac- 
 tion of the Secretary of the Interior, tlie irrigable area of his farm unit or 
 reclamation holding, as determined by or under the authority of such Secretary, 
 in such time and manner that there shall be so reclaimed and cultivated not 
 less than one-eighth of such irrigable area during the first year after the date 
 of his entry or of approval of his water-right application, two-eighths during 
 the second year, three-eighths during the third year, four-eighths during the 
 fourth year, and five-eighths during the fifth year, and thereafter until patent 
 ■or final water-right certificate shall issue; but in no case shall the portion of 
 the total Irrigable area so reclaimed and cultivated be less than five acres 
 in the first year, ten in the second year, fifteen in the third year, twenty in the 
 fourth year, twenty-five in the fifth year and thereafter until patent or water- 
 Tight certificate shall have issued, proper deductions in the discretion of the 
 Secretary of the Interior being made for buildings, yards, and other like 
 purposes: Provided, That if the entire irrigable area (less deductions as afore- 
 said) shall have been so reclaimed and cultivated before the fifth year such 
 reclamation and cultivation of such entire area shall continue until patent 
 or final water-right application shall have Issued as aforesaid : Provided further, 
 That clearing and breaking the ground during the first year of cultivation of 
 any portion of the tract, without the sowing. or harvesting of any crop, and 
 that the planting and proper care of orchards in any year, shall be considered 
 •cultivation within the meaning of this section. 
 
 Sec. 6. That every such entryman or purchaser of a permanent water right 
 for a reclamation holding, within six years after date of his entry or approval 
 of his application to purchase, or within such further time as the Secretary 
 of the Interior may fix for good cause shown, shall make, to the satisfaction 
 of the Secretary of the Interior, due proof of compliance with all the require- 
 ments of this act as to residence, improvements, reclamation, and cultivation, 
 and may receive a certificate that such proof is satisfactory. After such proof 
 is made and upon payment of all amounts, with interest, then due on account 
 of his entry or purchase for building, operation, and maintenance, including 
 drainage, if the amounts then and theretofore so paid on account of the building 
 ■charge shall be not less than one-half thereof, patent or final water-right 
 certificate shall issue to such entryman or water-right purchaser, with reserva- 
 tion of a Hen as hereinafter specified. A failure by any such entryman or 
 purchaser, before such patent or certificate of water-right purchase shall have 
 been earned, to comply with the requirements of this act as to residence, im- 
 provement, reclamation, or cultivation, shall render the entry and water-right 
 application subject to cancellation, with the forfeiture of all moneys paid 
 thereon and of all rights with respect thereto. 
 
HOMESTEAD LAWS. 59 
 
 »j,^T"J~^' ^^^"^ patent ana water-right certificate Issued under this ajct 
 shall expressly reserve to the United States a lien on the land patented for 
 which a water right is certified, superior to all other claims and demands what- 
 soever attaching to such land after the making of the entry for the farm unit 
 J."" t iii°^ "f the application to purchase such water right for the reclama- 
 tion holding, for all amounts then due and thereafter to become due to the 
 United States or its successors in the control of the project under this act 
 on account of such entry or water right. Upon default of payment of any 
 amount so due, title to the land shall pass to the United States free of all 
 incumbrance subsequent to the entry of the farm unit or the application to 
 purchase water right for the reclamation holding, subject to the right of the 
 defaulting debtor to redeem the land within six months after the default shall 
 have been adjudged by payment of aU moneys due, with interest as hereinafter 
 provided, and costs; and the United States may, at its option, cause the land 
 to be sold at any time after such default is adjudged, and from the proceeds 
 of the sale there shall be paid into the reclamation fund all moneys due, with 
 interest as hereinafter provided, and costs. The balance of the proceeds, if any, 
 shall be the property of the defaulting debtor : Provided, That in case of a sale 
 after default under this section the United States shall be authorized to bid 
 in such land at not more than the amount in default, including interest and 
 costs. Land acquired by the United States under this section may be opened 
 to entry, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior. Jurisdiction of 
 ■suits by the United States for the enforcement of the provisions of this section 
 •by foreclosure or otherwise is hereby conferred upon the United States district 
 court for the district wherein the land or any part thereof lies. 
 
 Sec. 8. That the Secretary of the Interior shall cause a record to be kept at 
 some convenient place or places within the limits of or convenient to each 
 reclamation project, so long as the United States shall continue to operate the 
 reclamation works, showing, for the information of the public, the amount due 
 at any time on account of any entry made or water right purchased under this 
 act, and he shall provide for furnishing copies of such records, or of portions 
 thereof, duly authenticated under seal by designated employees of the Reclama- 
 tion Service, and for charging and collecting fees for such copies. Copies so 
 authenticated shall be admissible in evidence in like manner and to the same 
 extent as copies authenticated under section eight hundred and eighty-two of 
 the Revised Statutes. 
 
 Sec. 9. That all moneys now or hereafter due to the United States in connec- 
 tion with any operations under the reclamation act and acts supplementary 
 thereto or amendatory thereof, including this act, shall be paid to such officer 
 or employee of the United States as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe. 
 Hereafter in determining the charges to be made per acre with a view of re- 
 turning to the reclamation fund the estimated cost of construction of any 
 project, and the number and amount of annual installments, not exceeding ten, 
 in which such charges shall be paid, interest at six per centum per annum from 
 the day when the first installment on account of any farm unit or reclamation 
 holding is due to the day when each subsequent Installment on account thereof 
 is due shall be reckoned by the Secretary of the Interior as a part of the cost 
 of construction. And the Secretary of the Interior shall, by regulation or 
 otherwise, provide for allowing a discount at said rate of six per centum for 
 cash payments of any installments after the first in advance of the date when 
 the same shall be due, but no contract heretofore duly made by the Secretary of 
 the Interior with any landowner or association shall be hereby affected without 
 the consent of such landovvnier or association, and no installment or charge 
 heretofore liquidated and fixed by public notice or otherwise under the said 
 acts or either of them shall bear interest before the same shall be due, nor be 
 allowed a discount for payment in advance by virtue of this section, unless the 
 same shall have been readjusted with the consent of the entryman or water- 
 right purchaser as hereinafter provided. AU moneys received from the above 
 sources shall be paid into the reclamation fund. Upon all charges or install- 
 ments or portions thereof due and unpaid, interest at eight per centum per 
 annum from the date when such charges or installments are due, respectively, 
 shall be paid as a part thereof. A failure to pay when due, with Interest 
 thereon as aforesaid, any two installments or the final installment shall render 
 the entry and the appurtenant water-right application, or the water-right ap- 
 plication or final water-right certificate for a reclamation holding, as the case 
 may be. subject to cancellation by or under the authority of the Secretary of 
 
60 HOMESTEAD liAWS. 
 
 the Interior, with the forfeiture of all rights thereunder, as well as of all moneys 
 theretofore paid thereon, and the Secretary may,, In his discretion, enforce such 
 other remedies as may be applicable. No right to the use of water shall per- 
 manently attach until patent or water-right certlflqate shall have been earned 
 under this act after full compliance with all the requirements made hereby as 
 conditions precedent thereto. 
 
 Sec. 10. That entries and water-right applications heretofore made under 
 the said reclamation act and acts supplementary thereto, or amendatory thereof, 
 including desert-land entries made subject thereto in pursuance of section, five 
 of the act of June twenty-seventh, nineteen hundred and six (volume thirty- 
 four. Statutes at Large, page five hundred and nineteen), upon which patents 
 or water-right certificates have not yet been issued, may, upon tlie request of 
 the entrymen or applicants, be made subject to this act by and at the discretion 
 of the Secretary of the Interior, who shall in such case equitably readjust the 
 unpaid installments of charges for building, operation and maintenance, and 
 drainage^ In conformity with the provisions of this act, reckoning interest for 
 that purpose at six per centum, per annum. 
 
 Sec. 11. That the Secretary of the Interior Is hereby authorized to make all 
 needful rules and regulations and to do and perform all things necessary or 
 proper to the execution of this act. 
 
 Sec. 12. 1 That all acts and parts of acts Inconsistent with this act are hereby 
 repealed. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. I think that at least the entr3rman is entitled to 
 notice that his entry is under protest, and he ought to know promptly 
 the reasons therefor. 
 
 Thereupon, at 2.15 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned. 
 
Cornell University Library 
 
 HD 171.A4H76 1912 
 
 Amending the homestead laws.Hearlngs bef 
 
 3 1924 009 296 405