SD 
 
 S. H 
 
 c^V 
 
 
 
 .tx 
 
 (^yVvC;tA/^A_ 
 
 
 .^■-v-Vv^^- 
 
 • W^ 
 
 /fVU 
 
 / ■ .' , 'H 
 
CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIN FOREST LANDS 
 
 HEARINGS 
 
 BEFOEE 
 
 THE COMMITTEE ON THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 ON 
 
 SENATE BILL 4745 
 
 FEBRUARY 28 and 29, 1912 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFEIOE 
 
 1912 
 
e 
 
 ^""4^ 
 
 n. m 11- 
 
 ^-;: n'.. -^1^ 
 
CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIN FOREST LANDS. 
 
 Committee on the Public Lands, 
 
 House of Representatives, 
 
 February 28, 1912 — 11 a. m. 
 
 The committee this day met, Hon. James M. Graham (acting chair- 
 man) presiding. 
 
 The Chairman. Is the subcommittee ready to report Senate bill 
 4745? 
 
 Mr. Taylor. Mr. Dent is chairman of that subcommittee, and it 
 was reported at our last meeting on Monday. At that meeting some 
 of the members that were not members of the subcommittee desired 
 to have some further information about it, and more particularly Mr. 
 Raker, who lives near there; so we defeiTed further action on it 
 until to-day, leaving that as unfinished business to take up this 
 morning. Mr. Hawley is here, and Mr. Potter is here, pursuant to our 
 request for them to furnish this additional information, and I pre- 
 sume they are here for explanation or cross-examination by either the 
 gentleman from California or from Iowa, or other members of the 
 committee. 
 
 The Chairman. Will you indicate what the specific information is, 
 first? 
 
 Mr. Raker. We would like to consider the bill oft'ered by Mr. 
 Hawley. 
 
 STATEMENT OF WILLIS C. HAWLEY. 
 
 Mr, Hawley. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, through the Paulina 
 National Forest, in Oregon, there runs a body of land which formerly 
 belonged to an old wagon-road company. Another company, the 
 Oregon Land Corporation, has recently acquired a part of these lands. 
 The lands acquired by the company run down through the national 
 forest, taking in every odd-numbered section. The company has 
 filed on water rights under the laws of the State of Oregon for the 
 purpose of irrigating these lands, which will be valuable lands when 
 irrigated. The Southern Pacific Railroad is building an extension, 
 which will be its main line, we understand, between San Francisco 
 and Portland, and it will run through these lands. The lands that 
 the company wish to exchange are in the northern part of the forest 
 and are covered with yellow pine. The lands they wish to acquire 
 are in the southern part of the forest and are covered with jack pine. 
 The yellow pine is very valuable pine and the jack pine is of little ^. 
 value. 
 
 Mr. Volstead. I understood it was pole pine. What is the differ- 
 ence between pole pine and jack pine? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. I don't think there is any difference. There is a 
 different name in different localities. 
 
 3 
 
4 CONSOLIDATION OP CERTAIN FOREST LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Raker, Isn't jack pine the little, low, and the stumpy pine ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. I wdl witlidraw the term "jack pine," I said "jack 
 pine" because that is what it is called locally sometimes. Now, the 
 Government will make a very good exchange, getting a compact body 
 of land that is easy to administer, covered with good timber, the yellow 
 pine. The company will be at a loss so far as the timber value is con- 
 cerned, but they will save in distance when budding their main canal, 
 and that saving will benefit the settlers that will come in there in 
 reducing the price that they will otherwise pay for that land on account 
 of increased cost in construction. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. You are standing there pointing to a map that none 
 of us can see. I must confess that I do not laiow what you are talk- 
 ing about. 
 
 The Chairman. Don't they also gain in the character of the land? 
 
 Mr, Hawley, Yes, sir. The lands are located in the Paulina 
 National Forest, which is this section of the State of Oregon [indi- 
 cating]. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. Those are the lands you want to incorporate in this 
 bill that you want to have exchanged ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. Yes, sir; the lands are located right in here. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. 1 don't know anything about it, because you were 
 pointing to a map on the table. 
 
 Mr, Hawley. An old wagon road land grant ran down through 
 this section of the country. Subsequently, these lands were ac- 
 quired by another body of men who desire to irrigate their holdings. 
 At present they own the odd numbered sections, and the Government 
 owns the even numbered sections, and it is all within the boundaries 
 of the national forest. The upper part is covered with a good deal 
 of yellow pine and very valuable timber. 
 
 Mr. Volstead, Is any part of tliis land in litigation in those wagon 
 road land-grant suits? 
 
 Mr. Hawley, No; this is entirely different from the Oregon and 
 California land grants. That land lies within 30 mdes of the railroad 
 right of way and on either side of it. This land lies at a much greater 
 distance. 
 
 Mr. Volstead. Was this grant made upon any condition such as 
 the lands involved in those suits ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. No, sir; this is granted without conditions. It has 
 been patented for years. 
 
 Mr. Volstead. There is no condition in the grant ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. No condition at all; they own the land in fee simple. 
 
 The company has filed under the laws of Oregon on certain water 
 rights here, which will expire with the extensions granted them 
 on the 1st of April, If they can not get this exchange by that time 
 they will begin their irrigation and irrigate the odd-numbered sections 
 both in the northern and southern portions of the land. But if they 
 can exchange their lands, consolidate the Government holdings in the 
 national forest with the good timber, they will then get a consolidated 
 body down here, with timber that amounts to nothing, practically, 
 and will get a comparatively level area in exchange for a somewhat 
 broken area in the north. The Forest vService considers that they will 
 get a very valuable tract of timber and the Government will have the 
 advantage there, and the company wiU have the advantage in that 
 they will only have to irrigate a compact body of land, and that saving 
 
CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIN FOREST LANDS. 5 
 
 then will result in a saving to every settler that goes on the land, 
 because he will have to pay that much less for his water to irrigate 
 the land. 
 
 Mr. Taylor. Is that a Government project ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. No; it is a private project. 
 
 Mr. Taylor. That is upon the assumption that the company will 
 equitably pro rate that. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. You think they will get all the traffic will bear'^ 
 
 Mr. Hawley. No; I do not. They assured me that any saving 
 that accrued would be a saving to the settlers; because they want 
 to settle up that land. 
 
 Mr. Taylor. Theoretically, that is always true. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Has this company surveyed out its main-line canal ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Have you any map of the main-line of those canals ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. I have not. They may have been filed with the 
 Senate committee. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. If we had such a map showing exactly the lands 
 which lie under their canal line, which would be the lands they 
 would desire to exchange, it seems to me we would be in a veiy 
 much better position to pass intelligently on this matter than we are, 
 as the bill gives the Secretary general permission to make the ex- 
 changes. 
 
 I can see that it might be very advantageous both to the forest 
 reserves and to the people to the settlers who are coming on the 
 irrigable lands under the canals under private ownership. But in the 
 absence of any definite information as to what lands come under those 
 canals, and therefore what lands the company would care to use in 
 exchange, we are called upon to pass on a very general piece of legis- 
 lation, which doesn't bind the company to exchange all of its land 
 under its canal or any definite portion of them for lands outside, and 
 it might be that the company would desire to make only certain 
 exchanges of lands under its canals for lands outside, still leaving the 
 forest boundaries as they are, with no reduction of the cost of admin- 
 istration, and still leaving the public and private lands intermixed as 
 they are at the present time. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. Well, that could be done if you think it to be neces- 
 sary by an amendment providing that they must exchange all of 
 their lands. But I understand that they wish to exchange all of the 
 lands in the northern part for an equal area in the southern part. 
 They will not retain any of their lands in the northern portion, in my 
 judgment, but you could meet that objection by putting in an amend- 
 ment providing that they must exchange all of their lands in the 
 northern portion for lands in the southern portion. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Has there been any application to the department for 
 ditch and canal rights of way to the Secretary of the Interior ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. It is my understanding that there has been 
 such an application. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Their files would show this whole thing in good shape. 
 
 Mr. Potter. I am quite sure that they have on file in the Depart- 
 ment of the Interior a map shomng the right of way. 
 
 ^Ir. Raker. They have filed on the water riglits and you say it 
 expires April 1. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. In about 30 days. 
 
6 '. CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIN FOEEST LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Raker. They have a year in which to commence their work 
 after they iile their notice ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. No; they must begin by tlie 1st of April this year.' 
 
 Mr. Raker. I mean from the time of filing ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. From the original filing; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Now, if they commenced work on any part of that 
 ditch in any place in good faith, to carry out, irrespective of what 
 they get from the Government, whether it is an exchange or not, the 
 water right will be maintained just the same, won't it? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. If tliey don't get the exchange they intend to con- 
 sider that the Government will not make the exchange, and begin 
 at the northern limit of the holdings, and irrigate it in that way. 
 They can't very well begin anywhere else, because the contour of the 
 land is such that if they are going to irrigate all their holdings, they 
 will have to begin at the north. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That project will cover all of their holdings on the odd 
 sections; that is all. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. Odd sections. If they do not get the exchange, they 
 are going to begin at the north end of the present holdings. 
 
 Mr. Raker. If they make the exchange, they wouldn't have to go 
 so far north, because that would be an exchange for Government 
 lands. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. In other words, they would construct one big canal 
 down south instead of making a lot of lateral canals. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. They would construct their main system, beginning 
 at the upper end of their holdings. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. Is the topography of the country such that it is pos- 
 sible for them to divert the water at the northern end of the territory 
 they own ^ 
 
 Mr. Hawley. Yes, sir. They have water rights on the lakes in the 
 north for that purpose. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Then, it will require two systems. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. They have five little lakes from which they expect to 
 build if they do not get an exchange; they will build canals and take 
 water from those three places. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Do you know what lakes they are? Is it Crescent 
 Lake; is that one of them? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Another one is Fish Lake ? 
 
 Mr, Hawley. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. Do you know why, if this company has been desirous 
 of having this exchange made, they have not called upon the Agri- 
 cultural Department to have an examination made locally and in 
 detail ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. I think such an examination has been made. I was 
 reading from the report. 
 
 Mr. Potter. Only in part. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Just going right down with a few more questions with 
 regard to water rights. There isn't any question that these people, 
 if they made the filings, would have their canals and ditches all sur- 
 veyed, and actual and bona fide commencement of the work before 
 the 1st of April, would retain all of their rights, so far as the filings 
 are concerned. 
 
CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIN FOREST LANDS. 7 
 
 Mr. Hawley. They would retain their rights where they had 
 begun, actual construction. 
 
 Mr. Raker. The water on which they began to work. 
 . Ml'. Hawley. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Their purpose, then, is to get the south part of the 
 tract, 48,000, so that it will be one compact body? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Have you estimated what amount of timber there is 
 upon the 48,000 acres of land that the Government now owns on the 
 south part of tliis tract ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. Forty-eight thousand acres in the whole tract, half 
 is owned by the Government and half by the other people. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Has there been any cruising on it ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. We haven't completed cruising it. We have ex- 
 amined a part of the lands, but did not finish our examination. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You were to do that ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Has there been any cruising in the northern part of 
 tliis what you call the yellow pine, to determine the quantity of pine 
 on each particular 40 acres or each particular 160 'acres? 
 
 Mr. Potter. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. None at all ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. No. Not any estimate of the timber. 
 
 Ml'. Raker. Has there been any of these lands in the northern 
 part cut, the original timber ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. I doubt it, though I have no information. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Hasn't there been several sawmills up on that road, 
 what we know as the old road that goes from Eugene and cuts through 
 the timber there? Has there been any sawmills there cutting off 
 this land ? 
 
 ^h. Hawley. I have been in that section and I never saw any 
 evidence of it, but I couldn't say whether there have been or not. 
 
 Mr. Raker. What is the value, the present market value, of this 
 land in the southern part of the tract, which you say is now owned 
 by the companies? What do they estimate its value; do you know? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. It is worth but very little in its present state. 
 
 Mr. Raker. $10 an acre? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. No. 
 
 Mr. Raker. $5 an acre. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. No; I wouldn't say that. It is just pummice soil. 
 It gets very dry. It has a little grass in the spring, and it gets very 
 dry in the summer, and it is no use in the winter. 
 
 Mr. Raker. It is a level tract and it can be irrigated ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. Yes, sir; they can irrigate most of it. 
 
 Mr. Raker. If water is obtained on that land it \\411 be worth 
 from $75 to $200 an acre. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. Yes; it will be worth — I hardly know exactly how 
 much to say — but it will be worth a good price. 
 
 Mr. Raker. This land in the northern part, is that susceptible to 
 irrigation ? The land owned by the Government. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. There are portions that they will irrigate if they can 
 not make the exchange. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Is any of that land now owned by the Government 
 on the northern end of the tract susceptible to irrigation ? 
 
8' CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIN FOREST LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. I think some could be. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Do you know about liow much? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. No; they didn't state how much to me. 
 
 Mr. Raker. How mucli Government land in the northern half is 
 susceptible to irrigation ? * 
 
 Mr. Hawley. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. Raker. As to this south half m particular. If these people go 
 ahead and complete their project, as it now is, and the Government 
 still owns the southern part, after they have brought their ditch and 
 run it down on these odd sections, of course the Government lands 
 will have been enhanced in value from $5 and acre up to $50 and $75 
 an acre; won't it ? Then they have to put the balance of it as water 
 rights. If the Government wanted to abandon this land as a national 
 forest and open it up to homestead settlers, you would then have a 
 tract of land about 48,000 acres of land, under an irrigation system, 
 ready to turn over to the homesteaders: won't it? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. The Government owns only 24,000 acres. I don't 
 suppose the Government would ever open this to homesteaders. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Why not ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. My supposition is that they would keep it as a 
 national forest. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Now, if this private mstitution can so change that land 
 by a little grubbing and handling to make it tillable land, why couldn't 
 the Government throw it out of the reserve and open it up to home- 
 stead settlers ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. They could, if they would go to the expense of put- 
 ting in an irrigation system. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Let us leave out the irrigating system entirely for just 
 a moment. The land is worth nothing for agriculture without irri- 
 gating. If the Government should see fit hereafter to throw this 
 land open for homesteaders for farming purposes, from your state- 
 ment it is more valuable for that puipose than it is for a national 
 forest. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. The lower half is more valuable. 
 
 Mr. Raker. The lower half. Now, if this company had already 
 
 Erocured ditches and canals down through this land and they would 
 ave to cross the Government land as they wanted to do then there 
 would be a system, a water system, ready to be applied to this land, 
 wouldn't there? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. I don't see where they would get their water. The 
 water would belong to the company. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That would be the fact if the ditches are there and 
 the water has been stored in the mountains. These people bring 
 _ their ditches down across these particular tracts 
 
 The Chairman. On the northern part ? 
 
 Mr. Raker. On the southern part. Isn't that right? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. The system would be there. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Now, the Government throws this open from a reserve 
 and permits it to be occupied by settlers, and those settlers under 
 the laws of Oregon would be entitled to demand and receive their 
 proportion of water from that canal, paying for it under the State 
 utilities biU. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. They would if they had the water to spare. Those 
 already on the project and having the water would have the use of 
 
C0iSrS0LIDATI(3N OF CERTAIN FOEEST LANDS. 9 
 
 the water. Those on the northern part of the present tract would be 
 using considerable water that would be other^\ise available to be used 
 on the southern part if the exchange was made. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Is that the character of your law in Oregon now, that 
 the first fellow who appropriates water may cut off the subsequent 
 man when it is for public purposes ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. The man who buys water from the owner of the 
 ditch has the right to have it maintained. 
 
 Mr. Taylor. The first man can enjoin the Government from selling 
 to the second man. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Let us see now. 
 
 Mr. Taylor. They can in Colorado. 
 
 The Chairman. If the exchange were made, area for area, wouldn't 
 that give the road company a considerable amount of land above their 
 liigh-line ditch ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. No; if the exchange is made 
 
 The Chairman. In an exchange of that a consolidation of each 
 interest would take place, giving the Government the northern half 
 and the company the southern half; wouldn't that throw some of the 
 company's land above their high-hne ditch ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. There might be areas where there are ridges, where 
 they couldn't get their water on the land. 
 
 The Chairman. They will take it anyway? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. Yes; they will take it anyway. Then they would 
 release, as I understand it, the water rights that they have on the 
 northern half. 
 
 The Chairman. Suppose we hear from Mr. Potter. Perhaps he 
 can make this matter clear. Mr. Potter, you have gathered from the 
 discussion what the crucial difficulties are. Will you address 3'ourself 
 to them ? 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. E. F. POTTER, ASSOCIATE FORESTER, 
 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUITURE. 
 
 Mr. Potter. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, from the examination 
 we have been able to make of the land we are satisfied that the 
 exchange which the company desires to make would be advantageous 
 to the Government from the standpoint of the national forests, for 
 the reason that the lands wliich they propose to give are worth more 
 for raising trees than the lands wliich they Avish to surrender. We 
 have had an examination made of part of the lands, and I desire to 
 read a few extracts from the district forester's report : 
 
 |[ [Extracts from district forester's report.] 
 
 The soil over the whole area shown on the attached map is of a character ijeculiar to 
 this locality, and contains practically no loam or silt. It is in the main pure pumice 
 to a considerable depth . It is very light and granular, and is formed from large pumice 
 stones deposited on this area by volcanic action in the past ages. Dm-ing the heat of 
 summer the soil becomes exceedingly dry on the surface, while at varying depths, 
 from a few inches to a few feet, it is not only moist, but in many cases even contains 
 free water. Although there is considerable moisture at varying depths, it does not 
 appear to be available for plant life on the surface, consequently it has been considered 
 that irrigation is necessary for successful agriculture. The portions shown in red on the 
 map are covered with lodgepole pine, a moisture-loving species. The lodgepolc pine 
 areas, it will be noticed, lie usually quite level and just below the benches and steep 
 country on which the yellow pine is usually found. The yellow pine areas shown in 
 
10 CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIN FOREST LANDS. 
 
 orange color include the rougher portions of the ti'act. In fact, some of the lodgepole 
 pine areas are of too steep a slope probably to permit of successful irrigation in a soil 
 which is so extremely liable to erosion as this pumice soil, which readily floats in 
 water. It is therefore plain that any irrigation company with agricultural develop- 
 ment in mind would desiie very much to exchange the areas of uneven topography 
 for level lodgepole pine lands. The decreased cost of irrigating a compact body of 
 land, together with the more level character of the lands desired in exchange, makes 
 the exchange, it seems to me, advantageous to the corporation. 
 
 I understand that the Oregon Land Corporation is interested in making an exchange 
 of their lands for leval lodgepole pine unappropriated Government lands in Tps. 
 27, 28, and 29 S., Rs. 7, 8, and 9 E. The lodgepole pine on this area is of a rather 
 inferior character. Very few tie trees can be obtained per acre; the pine is valuable 
 mainly for fuel, fencing, and pulp wood. Many areas of considerable size can here be 
 found with no growth at all upon the land, as shown in the photographs exhibited by 
 the corporation. The land is much less valuable for forestry pm'poses and more valu- 
 able for agricultural purposes than the yellow pine land claimed by the corporation, 
 which they desire to reconvey to the Government in exchange. So far as the Forest 
 Service is concerned, it seems to me that there is no doubt but that the Government 
 is obtaining not only land having an intrinsically greater value for forestry purposes, 
 but also land containing timber which at present is much more valuable than the lodge- 
 pole pine land. 
 
 Owing to the fact that the Forest Service has not in its possession a definite location 
 of the lodge pole and the yellow pine areas, it is not possible to inform the corporation 
 just what lands we should give up in exchange. Consequently, it is advisable that 
 any bill which receives your approval should allow the selections to be made by us 
 after careful field examination. 
 
 The Chairman. Allowing what selections to be made ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. The selection by the company of the lands which it 
 will get in exchange. 
 
 Now, the only photographs I have are these two, which you may 
 pass around. They will give you a ])retty good idea of the character 
 of the lands which the company desires to secure. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. How far is the land from the Klamath Lake ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Fifty miles, I should say. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. And how far from the Southern Pacific Railroad, 
 the main line ? 
 
 Mr. Raker. The new line will run right through it. 
 
 Mr. Potter. The new line will run right through it. It is at least 
 75 miles and possibly 100 miles to the ])resent line. 
 
 Mr. Raker. The railroad is at least 75 miles to 100 miles west of 
 the land. 
 
 The Chairman. On the theory of the bill, isn't it the object of 
 making each party owning alternate sections, to yield up the alter- 
 nate sections, and the other party yield up sections in the other part ? 
 There isn't any selecting to do, is there? 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. It wouldn't be necessary for the company under 
 this legislation to surrender all of its land in the northern part. They 
 could surrender such portions of the land in the northern part of the 
 reservation for such portions in the southern part as they desired to 
 irrigate, such portions in the northern part of the reserve as would 
 be necessary to secure the acreage in the southern part that they 
 desired. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Susceptible of irrigation. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. I judge from this map, that the lands they would 
 desire to secure are not in a compact body. He refers to the lodge 
 pole ])ine lands as being tlie lands in red. 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir; that is correct. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. And the other is the land in orange. 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. 
 
CONSOLIDATION OP CERTAIN FOREST LANDS. 11 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. So there is some territory in the soutliern part of 
 the reserve wliich the company perha})s coukl not irrigate because 
 it wouhl be above the hne of its canal, as indicated by the topography. 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir. And this was outside of their grant. Their 
 grant was there [in(UcatingJ. 
 
 The Chairman. I understood Mr. Hawley to say that tliey would 
 accept the land above the ditch in order to make a solid dividing line 
 of the land between them. 
 
 Ml'. Hawley. I think I could say that if it is amended re({uiring 
 them to exchange all lands in the northern portion for the lands in the 
 southern portion, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Agricul- 
 ture, that would be satisfactory. 
 
 Mr. Raker. This railroad going through this land, and this water 
 project being developed, this land in the southern part being more 
 valuable for agriculture than for forests, wouldn't it be a good policy 
 on the part of the Government to throw open all of this land on the 
 southern part and admit settlement and permit settlers to take it up 
 as homesteads or desert entries, and then deal with the other parties 
 in regard to water rights ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. What advantage would it be to the settler, Judge? 
 He couldn't get his water any cheaper under one arrangement than 
 under another, and the lands are practically of no value without 
 water. He woukl get it just as cheaply from the company and he 
 would get it at once, and the State of Oregon would have the benefit, 
 and the people who came to that section would have the benefit 
 immediately. 
 
 Mr. Raker. He would get it from the Government for homestead 
 purposes. He would only have to pay so much for it for the improve- 
 ments, putting it in fine shape, and he would get his water from the 
 company at just the same price, with the same regulation and under 
 the same condition that eveiy other man under that project gets his 
 water. 
 
 Mr. Ferguson. vSuppose there is n<jt enough water and it has been 
 a}3propriated prior to that ? 
 
 Mr. Raker. According to their statement thay have water to irri- 
 gate the whole thing. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. Twenty-four thousand acres. 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. This identical bill, here's the Senate report on the 
 bill. There is a Senate bill wliich is also before this committee. It 
 has passed the Senate and there is the report. 
 
 Mr. Potter. I would be glad to answer any questions in reference 
 to the matter referred to by Mr. Raker regarding the allowing of 
 these lands to be taken up as homesteads for settlement and would 
 say that this is already provided for in the forest homestead act of 
 July 11, 1906, whenever the condition of this land is such that it 
 would be suitable for agriculture. Of course, in its present condition 
 it isn't what we consider agriculture land. It isn't land upon which 
 crops can be raised until an irrigation system has been developed. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I think it is worth the consideration of this committee. 
 Some of the farmers down in the Salt River Valley — their testimony 
 before the Committee on Irrigation — showed that they are holding 
 these lands since the project has been completed, or partially com- 
 pleted; that this land has increased in price without any water right 
 all the way from .S7.5 to $100 to $150 an acre. Wliether the private 
 
12 CONSOLIDATION OF GlilRTAIN FOREST LANDS. 
 
 individuals made that amount of money from an expenditure of $10 
 to $20 on up fi'om the original price of what they would figure of $10 
 or $15 on it fi'om $75 to $150 an acre. If this land is exchanged now 
 by the Government to the company, the Government says to the 
 settler that comes in there, "Take this land; we, the Government, 
 will give you a permit to make a home upon it because you are a 
 citizen, but we \\Till permit tliis private company to charge you for 
 that land, without water right, all the way from $50 to $100 an 
 acre." That is the tiling which appeals to me in the matter. Under 
 the law of Oregon, as well as of Cahfornia and others where private 
 companies have been permitted to make diversions of water for public 
 purposes, it must supply to all alike as long as it has a sufficient 
 amount of water, ana permits of no discriminations. 
 
 The Chaieman. Doesn't it recognize priority ? 
 
 Mr. Raker. Not in public utilities. Otherwise they could thwart 
 the very purpose of it. All of the contracts made in California, on 
 the basis that under a private system you would have private water 
 rights to ])articular lands, the Supreme Court of the United States 
 has held those contracts void as against public policy. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. You, unfortunately, in California, have a constitu- 
 tion which recognizes the law of riparian rights which you have 
 tried to qualify by court decisions and you have had a hard time to 
 do it. But the State of Oregon has, I think the law of appropriation, 
 just as in the other Western States. 
 
 Mr. Raker. The law of Oregon is stronger than that of California. 
 So I am somewhat familiar with the law of Oregon upon that point. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. There can be no question, of course, but that if this 
 company provides a system of irrigation for the irrigation of its own 
 lands, witli only sufficient water for irrigation of its own lands, there 
 is no power on earth which could compel them to divert water to other 
 lands which they had on their own expenditure diverted for their own 
 lands. There is no power on earth could compel them to surrender 
 that water to any other lands. If they only had water enough for 
 the irrigation of 48,000, or 40,000, or 30,000 acres, or whatever it is, 
 it is to the advantage of everybody to have those lands in a compact 
 body, if they are irrigable in a compact body, and the only question 
 in this matter, it seems to me, is that it isn't clear as to just how much 
 of an exchange it is proposed to make. 
 
 It seems to me that if it is intended to give the company all the 
 irrigable lands under its ditches, which it does not now own, in 
 exchange for better timber lands, which it does own, and we had that 
 matter clearly before us, there would be no question but what the 
 arrangement would be wise both from the standpoint of the people, 
 who are to inhabit those lands, and from the standpoint of the Gov- 
 ernment, as owner of the forest reserve. The only difficulty is that 
 the legislation isn't definite enough, and I don't know how you can 
 make it more definite, on account of lack of information. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. That could be corrected. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. If the Secretary of Agriculture had made an exami- 
 nation of the lands l^ang below the company's supposed ditches, and 
 we knew what those lands were, it would probably be wise, I assume it 
 would from what we know, for Congress to say that the Government 
 may make the exchange provichng it secures good timber land in 
 
CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIN FOEEST LANDS. 13 
 
 exchange, so tluit the company can consohdatc its liohUngs under its 
 canals. 
 
 Mr. Potter. We liave made a pretty complete examination of a 
 large portion of the lands, Mr. Mondell, and the lands which the corn- 
 pan}" proposes to irrigate, but we liaven't made a careful examination 
 of the yellow-pine lands wliich they propose to give us in exchange. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Do you know the lodge-pole-pine lands that are 
 talked about have very little timber on them ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Very little timber, and they are level lands. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. They are not lands that are likely to produce valu- 
 able timber ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. No; they are not. If they were even put under the 
 ditch and retained in Government ownership, and it was not possible 
 for the Government to secure water from the company for irrigation, 
 they wouldn't have any great value for agricultural purposes. With- 
 out irrigation they wouldn't be as valuable for the purpose of raising 
 timber as the higher, rougher lands, which produce naturally yellow 
 pine. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. Is it not true that in the southern half, though, 
 greater areas of lands are adapted to agricultural purposes ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir; it is practically level, as shown by these 
 photographs, and there is a scattering growth of lodge-pole pine. 
 The northern half is rough and hilly. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. So that in effect we would be exchanging lands 
 which are hardly adapted for agricultural purposes for lands — we 
 would be giving them lands that are adapted for agricultural pur- 
 poses and receive those which are not. Let me ask 3'ou, what 
 would be the value of these lands if they were subject to irrigation ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. I would have to make a very rough guess on that. 
 I should say, though, not less than S150 an acre after they have been 
 developed and put under cultivation. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. It would be, then, very good business on the part 
 of the corporation, 
 
 Mr. Potter. It would. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. They would be able to control the development of 
 the lands. 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes, sir; if they made a success of that proposition, 
 of course it would be a good thing for them. 
 
 The Chairman. What would the value of them be as they are 
 now, without any irrigation ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. The value without taking into consideration the 
 possibility of their reclamation or the nearness to the new railroad 
 would be very low, probably not over $2 an acre, but of course the 
 fact of the railroad coming in and being near to them, and the fact 
 that they are possibly lands which may be reclaimed by irrigation, 
 would give them a higher value. It is, of course, almost impossible 
 to say what that value would be. 
 
 Mr. Taylor. Wliy does not the Forest Service open all these lands 
 to homestead entry ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. We wouldn't hesitate at all to open this land to settle- 
 ment if anyone wanted to take it under the prevailing conditions. 
 
 Mr. Taylor. If a homesteader wanted to go on this land he would 
 have to go and make arrangements with the company for water ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. That is the point exactly. The land in its present 
 condition is of no value to the homesteader. 
 
14 CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIN" FOREST I^ANDS. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Isn't that the condition in the case of practically all 
 of the remaining public domain that is not forest or hills ? 
 
 The statement I intended to make was that water appropriated 
 and diverted by a corporation for its own individual purposes is 
 controlled just the same as by a private individual, but water ap- 
 propriated by a corporation or a private individual for a public pur- 
 pose or use becomes a public utility and it must be served to all 
 alike, equal to the ranging price provided either by the public-utilities 
 commission or by the county commissioners. Therefore, an3'body 
 on the project has the same right as the other. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. The right to divert water is the right to divert it 
 onto certain lands. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Not at all. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. Under the law of the State of Oregon an apj)lica- 
 tion to divert water is an application to divert and use it upon certain 
 specific lands. Fortunately the State of Oregon has gotten away 
 from the idea of private ownershi]) of water to the idea of })ublic 
 ownershij) of water, and the diversion that you are discussing that 
 these people have made is, T assume, a diversion for the irrigation of 
 certain lands. They have the right to irrigate those lands for which 
 they have made the application, and until those lands are irrigated 
 that water is dedicated to those lands, not to the company, but to 
 those lands, and no one who hasn't taken the trouble to acquire any 
 rights can come in and say give us the water which has been dedi- 
 cated to these lands for our lands. If there is a supph^ of water 
 after the lauds to which it has been dedicated have been irrigated, 
 then of course those waters can be used on adjacent lands. 
 
 The Chairman, The court could only interfere wherever there 
 was waste. 
 
 Mr. Raker. It depends upon the application, whether there is 
 sufficient water for the use of others. 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. My understanding of the law of Oregon is that 
 the first man who appropriates the water is entitled to its use, unless 
 there is a sufficient amount for subsequent users. 
 
 But about the merits of this bill, I would like to say just a word, 
 as it appears to me that it is to the advantage of the people of the 
 country generally to have this exchange made, as well as to this 
 company. 
 
 The Chairman. Just a question on tliis bill as it comes from the 
 Senate. Do you see anything in the bill as it now stands to pre- 
 vent the land company from picking out certain lands and saying 
 to the Government, We will give you that, and only that, and you 
 give us land in equal area for it ? We do not propose to make a 
 complete exchange and allow you to consolidate us on one side of 
 the line, or to consolidate ourselves on the other side. Does it 
 leave it to the land company to make such selection as it chooses 
 out of those 24,000 acres, acre for acre ? 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. I understand the bill just the other way exactly. 
 Just the opposite to that. The proposition is left entirely with tlie 
 department to say whether or not this exchange shaU be made even 
 after the bill becomes a law. 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes; that is right. 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. The department wrote the bill. 
 
consSlidatiox of certain forest lands. 15 
 
 Mr. Taylor. The department can make the company relinquish 
 all of the land in the reserve. 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. Or take nothing. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. Or take any attitude between those two extremes? 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. Yes. The Government has the absolute power 
 under the terms of this bill to say how the exchange shall be made 
 or refuse to enter into the exchange altogether. And while it seems 
 the point that Mr. Raker made here is that the Government could 
 obtam an advantage by refusing to make the exchange, by compelling 
 the company to run those ditches through on the odd sections, and 
 thereby enhancing the value of the Government lands, I think that 
 would be very unfair. In the first place this irrigation project will 
 not go through unless this exchange is made, but the proposition to 
 force a private company to run its irrigation ditches in order to make 
 the Government land more valuable would be unfair and unreasonable. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You didn't quite get my view. I feel that as a member 
 of this committee I always have the liberty to direct my questions 
 as they appear to me to get the facts from the witness. My feelings, 
 I try not to divulge. I ask questions to get information. I asked 
 this question for the purpose of fuiding out whether they have already 
 sought rights of way across this Government land, if the ditch could 
 not be constructed as well along those lines as across the Government 
 land, and if they already have those plats on file with the Secretary of 
 the Interior. 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. These lands are held by the Government in trust 
 for the people of the United States. Now, then, certain sections in 
 the southern portion are going to be given up for certain sections in 
 the north, in which the people of the United States will get the equi- 
 table title, and not only that, but they will get more than they are 
 giving up. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Part of that land in the north was to be cultivated 
 according to Mr. Hawley's statement. It is owned by private indi- 
 viduals, isn't it ? 
 
 Mr, Lafferty. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Now, as a matter of fact, this entire southern part 
 of this tract can be put under cultivation, part of it by the company 
 and part of it by tlie Government, and they can permit homesteaders 
 to go there. Wouldn't it be better to take that much land out of 
 the forest reserve and put it into actual use ? 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. If the forest department is disposed to open up 
 any portion of this land to settlers, it would be in a much better 
 position to do that if this exchange is made, by opening up a solid 
 body, the north half, to settlers, than it would now to open a tract 
 which is OAvned alternately by the Government and private holders, 
 for nobody wants to go and settle in a section where those conditions 
 obtain. They have the disadvantage of having the company hold- 
 ings there and they can't develop the neighborhood. 
 
 The Chairman. How much of this is susceptible to irrigation? 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. Of the northern half? 
 
 The Chairman. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. I think ])ractically all of the northern half. Prac- 
 tically all of this land is capable of being irrigated. Now, in order to 
 be used — of course, if this company is going to take the southern half 
 and use the water, appropriate the water that the public might use on 
 
16 CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIN FOREST LANDS. 
 
 the northern half of the land, make an earlier appropriation to the 
 southern half, it would leave the Government with the northern half 
 without any available water; and that would be probably a bad 
 arrangement; but there is nothing of that kind — this company is 
 going to take this water from a point down adjacent to the southern 
 half, and it is going to abandon its rights to the water in the northern 
 half. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. That is their plan as I imderstand. 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. Yes; under this bill. So that the rest of the people 
 have been very well protected by the forestry department in this bill. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Now, if they are going to do this, what brought about 
 this change ? If they originally figured upon Crescent Lake and 
 waters right there, with their ditches and canals, and the Government 
 hasn't anything to do with their original license, why should they now 
 seek to abandon the entire north and simply apply to the south ? 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. Because the Government demands that they shall 
 do so. You have the idea, and it is a very good one, that the Govern- 
 ment may want to open up this northern half to settlers. If it does 
 so, it will have to have some available water. This private corpora- 
 tion has got to relinquish its claim to the water available for the 
 northern half. 
 
 INIr. Raker. But I understand f]om Mr. Hawley that the northern 
 half is filed on and they have been working on a ditch, bringing a 
 ditch down from the north. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. If no change is made they plan to begin at the 
 north; but if an exchange is ma'de, they intend to abandon their 
 water rights in the north. 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. And here is where they take out the water [in- 
 dicating]. They abandon their claims on what they have already 
 filed on here [indicating]. 
 
 The Chairman. Is there anything regardless of that which would 
 com])el them to abandon their claim in the northern part? 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. No; they could bring their ditch down from the 
 north half. If they have surrendered and have no lands in the 
 north to irrigate, they will have no ditch there. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That wasn't quite my question. That would leave 
 the option with them whether they would or not give it up. There 
 is nothing that would compel them to abandon their claim on the 
 northern water supply, and they could still retain it. 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. Only to the 1st of April. H they didn't begin their 
 ditches by the 1st of April they would lose the water that they 
 hadn't begun to use. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Suppose this bill passes as it is now, what guarantee 
 have we that they will not retain their filing on the northern water 
 supply, anyway? Doesn't that deprive the Government from getting 
 water on the north ? 
 
 Mr. Taylor. Why shouldn't we put in a clause requiring them to 
 relinquish that? 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. I have no objections to that. The department 
 ought to require that to be done anyway if that is the understanding. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. They told me that they were going to abandon it 
 if they obtained this exchange. I have no objection to your putting 
 into the bill any safeguard that you think advisable. 
 
CONSOLIDATIOlSr OF CERTAIN FOBEST LANDS. 17 
 
 Mr. Ferguson. Suppose it be leqiiiied as a i)ai-t of the excliange 
 that tliis water right be reserved to the Govermnent ? 
 
 The Chairman. We do not surrender our claim to the water right 
 which wouhl irrigate the northern half. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. a provision could be inserted in the })ih, covering 
 the releasing of the water rights on the north. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I understand from your statement that the future 
 reservoirs, with the canals and with the water supply that they 
 have arranged for, would be suliicient to irrigate the entire southern 
 part, both Government and private land. 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. Irrigate 24,000 acres which they have arranged for. 
 
 Mr. Raker. That includes the Government lands ? 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. What is now Government lands. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And that will not then need the northern reservoir 
 system ? 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Then the statement made before by some gentleman 
 that there wouldn't be water enough for the whole tract; there isn't 
 anything in that, is there, because both systems furnish enough water 
 to irrigate the whole tract ? 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. I don't think the amount of water in the north; 
 but if they do not make the exchange they will bring ditches from two 
 places in the north, owing to the contour of the country, down to the 
 south half. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Isn't it as a matter of fact very largely against their 
 interests to abandon that water line in the north because they can 
 bring it down on the southern part, too ? 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. No; if they can get their land in a body, they can 
 make their canal so much shorter out of Fish Lake and adjacent water. 
 They wouldn't go up to the northern portion and bring the canal in a 
 zigzag manner for 25 to 30 miles. There would be so much evapora- 
 tion, and so much opening into the soil, that it would be a loss to them 
 to do that. 
 
 The Chairman. When the matter can be obviated so easily, I think 
 it is hardly worth while to reason about it. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. Put any reasonable limitation you see fit in the bill, 
 and I think the company will agree to it. 
 
 We endeavor to develop our State. Here is a matter that is going 
 to put under cultivation 24,000 acres and furnish homes to many 
 people and which will be on the main line of a railroad. It will mean 
 a number of new citizens for our State. It is largely a local matter. 
 The Government will make an advantageous exchange. I urge that 
 you take a favorable view of the bill and pass it. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. You talk about opening it up and settling it. That 
 is just the sticker in this thing from my viewpoint. If you were 
 opposed to opening up and setthng and giving homesteaders the right 
 to go in there, that is one proposition. But it seems to me that we 
 are turning over this land to this corporation when they have got the 
 strategic situation where they can hold a fellow up for any price they 
 see fit. It seems to me like a purely commercial proposition. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. They must sell their lands. They put under water 
 on a certam expense. But they will be compelled to sell their lands 
 at the price the settler will agree, and can afford, to pay. They will 
 34536—12 2 
 
18 CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIN FOREST LANDS. 
 
 under that restriction as to price ; it seems to me it would take care of 
 itself, as it does in every other irrigation project throughout the West, 
 and there are many. As a general proposition in the case of irrigation 
 projects, the water is furnished at as low a price by private corpora- 
 tions as by the Government reclamation projects, so I am informed. 
 
 The Chairman. On that point, it seems they have got that right, 
 and we can't take that right away from tliem. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. That may be true. I ha.d looked at their blue prints, 
 and the way they have colored it uj:), there is very much good land in 
 the northern part owned by the company to exchange for the good 
 land which they want in the southern part. 
 
 The Chairman. Is there any limit in the amount of land that a pri- 
 vate corporation may hold in Oregon? 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. No. 
 
 Mr. Raiver. They own about 1,000,000 acres originally. 
 
 So that I may be in a position simply to take fair action in the 
 matter, would the chairman of this committee have present the appli- 
 cation of this company for water rights across the national forest of 
 the Government, the Paulina National Forest Reserve, from the Sec- 
 retary of the Interior; will he kindly have some one bring it up ? 
 
 The Chairman. I think we ought to have more light. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. I don't think 3'^ou will find them there; they are 
 probably filed with the State engineer, in Oregon. 
 
 Mr. Raker. You do not understand the right of way application. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. It is only 30 days before the exchange will be off, as 
 their rights will expire in that time, and that I respectfully request the 
 committee to take into consideration. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I am ready to-morrow, if you bring that up. 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. There is just one thing about this water right: As I 
 understand they filed on the Crescent Lake water right before the forest 
 reserve limits were extended over this line. Now, the proposition 
 is to agree to make this exchange on such terms as may be presrcibed 
 by the department. The department is going to prescribe as one of 
 those terms of exchange that they surrender their right to this Cres- 
 cent Lake water, and that will absolutely guarantee that this water 
 will be held for use in the northern part. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you consider that this committee could act on 
 what you say the department is going to do ? We ought to have some 
 evidence. 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. We must presume the department will protect the 
 Government in the matter. 
 
 The Chairman. We can't go onto the floor to defend this bill on 
 such a statement as you make. 
 
 Mr. Potter. The Pauline Forest was created last je&r from a part 
 of what was originally called the Cascade Forest. 
 
 Mr. Raker. According to Mr. Lafferty's statement they already 
 own the water right. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. That is, they have a right to apply it to these lands. 
 Don't say that anybody actually owns water. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Oh, yes; I have said it many times, in the courts. We 
 do it in California. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. Here is a suggestion, I don't know that it can be 
 carried out at all. But there is a way in which this matter could be 
 adjusted satisfactorily to everybody. If there are certain lands which 
 
CONSOLIDATION OF CEETAIN FOEEST LANDS. 19 
 
 the Government owns under these ditches that ought to be irrigated, 
 there is a way for this company to irrigate them and get paid for doing 
 so, and that is to have us pass a bill subject to the discretion of the 
 Secretary of Agriculture, to his approval, to allow these lands that 
 belong to the Government, under the ditches, to be segregated under 
 the Carey Act. Then the company would control, as to their disposi- 
 tion, but the only charge they could make would be the charges fixed 
 by the State of Oregon covering the cost of reclamation. I don't 
 know if it would be possible or practicable to do that, but that would 
 be one way out. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I would not like to express myself on any subject or 
 any matter connected with it until we get all of the evidence in here. 
 I understand the chairman will bring the rest of it here. When we 
 get that all in, then of course we can be in better shape to present 
 the matter. 
 
 The Chairman. You are the chairman of that subcommittee, Mr. 
 Raker ? 
 
 Mr. Raker. No, sir. 
 
 Whereupon the . committee adjourned to 10.30 a. m. to-morrow 
 morning, February 29. 
 
 Committee on the Public Lands, 
 
 House of Representatives, 
 
 Thursday, Fehruary 29, 1912. 
 
 The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. James M. Graham 
 (acting chairman) presiding. 
 
 The Chairman. This is an adjourned meeting from yesterday, and 
 the committee will please be in order. The penchng question is 
 Senate bill No. 4745. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. W. C. HAWLEY, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS 
 FROM THE STATE OF OREGON. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. I would Hke to call the attention of the committee, 
 in a summary way, to the situation here. The land to be exchanged 
 lies four and one-half townships long north of the Klamath Indian 
 Reservation and is two townships wide, covering part of nine town- 
 ships. I have a letter from the assistant secretary of the Oregon 
 Land Corporation — which is the name of the company you desired, 
 Mr. Chairman — which says : 
 
 This entire tract of land, extending from Crescent Lake to the Klamath Indian 
 Reservation, is irrigable from Crescent, Odell, Summit, and Fish Lakes and Big 
 Marsh, and all of these lakes have been filed upon by us with a view to irrigation of 
 these lands. Our trouble in the past has been that we did not hold the title to the 
 lands, and our irrigation project has been accordingly retarded. About two months 
 ago [Jan. 1, 1912] we purchased these lands outright and now have a clear deck for 
 action, and we wish to get busy. 
 
 The Chairman. About what time did you purchase it? 
 Mr. Hawley. About the 1st of November from a land-grant 
 wagon-road company, 
 
 Mr. Raker. Oregon Military Wagon Road Co. ? 
 
20 CONSOLIDATION OF CEKTAIN FOREST L-ANDS. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. Yes, sir. Tlio letter further says: 
 
 As you will note by reading our letter to the Forester, an exchange of these alternate 
 sections through the strip in such manner as to consolidate the lands on the south half 
 for our irrigation project and the lands on the north half for the forest reserve would 
 be of decided benefit to all parties concerned. 
 
 I want to make two observations on two paragraphs of his letter. 
 He says all their lands are irrigable from these lakes. That question 
 was raised yesterday about irrigation projects for the lands the Gov- 
 ernment might own, which might hereafter be opened to settlers. 
 Now, if the exchange is made, then the lands that they exchange in 
 the north half that may be good agricultural lands, whatever there 
 are of them, could be then opened to irrigation from these lakes upon 
 which they would release their water rights. 
 
 In the second place, you will notice he says "to consolidate their 
 holdings" in the south and to transfer to the United States their 
 holdings in the north for a forest reserve. The question was raised 
 as to whether they were reserving a part of the lands in the north. 
 His letter indicated the intention to transfer to the Government all 
 their lands in the western part of the tract. However, the amendment 
 suggested yesterday coukl be inserted in the bill if thought advisable. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, an effort has been made to find the plat showing 
 surveys for canals, and Mr. Potter says he has also taken the matter 
 up with the Interior Department, and it seems that no plat of these 
 surveys has been filed there — it has probably been filed with the 
 State engineer for Oregon, with whom the water-right filings are also 
 filed. 
 
 The Chairman. How do you hope to get the canals from the Gov- 
 ernment without any notice to the Government ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. They do not. I understand they have applied for 
 permission to pass over the Government lands. 
 
 The Chairman. What we asked for was the location of their canals 
 and the Government lands over which they proposed to bring them. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. Mr. Chairman, I think the reason why the plats 
 were not filed here is that if the consolidation is agreed to, the canals 
 wall not go over the Government lands, except possibly for a very 
 short distance. Their canals would be all on their own lands. 
 
 The Chairman. 1 know, but their filing would be in the theory of 
 consolidation ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. But I mean the application for exchange was on the 
 theory of consolidation. I am sorry that the information is not 
 available, but I am sure if it had been available, Mr. Potter would 
 have found it. 
 
 Mr. Kaker. Did I understand that they had made appHcation to 
 the United States for rights of way across the forestry lands there ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. I suppose that they have, Judge; I wired the district 
 forester at Portland for that information, asking him to wire me 
 whether or not they had made application for a permit, and I have 
 not received any reply to the wire, so that I don't know for certain 
 whether they have a permit or not, but when these gentlemen were 
 here the • made the statement that they had made application for 
 a permit for the irrigation ditch. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. I understood you to make that statement yesterday. 
 
 Mr, Potter. Yes, that is what the gentleman said, that they had 
 made the application. 
 
CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIN FOREST LANDS. 21 
 
 Mr. Pickett. Mr. Potter, what would you say if some plan could be 
 devised under an act like the Carey Act, whereby all of the tillable 
 ground could be opened to settlers? 
 
 Mr. Potter. That would be a very good plan, sir. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. What would you say about such a plan as compared 
 to this measure ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. I don't know which would result in the greatest good, 
 but any plan that contcm})latcs the development of those lands 
 would meet with our approval. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. Would not some such phm accomplish the purpose 
 so far as the settlement is concerned, and at the same time give the 
 settlers the benefit rather than this corporation? 
 
 Mr. Potter. Yes. If it was opened under a Government reclama- 
 tion project, or, as was suggested yesterday, by a private corpora- 
 tion under the provisions of an act that woidd define the conditions 
 under which settlers could get the land. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. I think your suggestion, Mr. Pickett, would be a 
 good one, if it was not that half of these lands are already in private 
 ownership, and these people have a fight on for available water, and 
 one of their ditches will have to be some 25 miles or more long. 
 
 Mr. Speer. Won't they, as it is now, in order to carry out an 
 irrigation scheme, have to get the right of way over the land that 
 the Government owns ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. I suppose they would arrange to cross the Govern- 
 ment lands for as short distances as possible. 
 
 Mr. Speer. If this exchange is made, they won't have to go over 
 tlie Government lands at all ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. I was going on t6 state that the ditches will be in 
 lands that are porous, and they will absorb a great deal of water, 
 and there might be no water left over from the five appropriations; 
 but I understood them to say their engineers thought that the 
 water they had filed on would be about sufficient for the irrigation 
 of their lands both in the north and south. Now, if they irrigate 
 their half of it with their main canals and laterals, put in their drain- 
 age system, and then you put in another irrigation scheme on top 
 of that, you are going to have conflict and some of the lands are 
 bguiid to suffer in the matter of drainage. Under the consolidated 
 plan the matter of main canals, laterals, and drainage would be 
 taken care of so that none of the lands would be foul or sour by reason 
 of the drainage ditches. I think there is some alkali in the lands, 
 and a drainage system is very necessary. 
 
 The CiiAiRMAX. Are you prepared to-day to give us any more 
 definite knowledge of tlie comparative values of the land in tlie south 
 and the land in the north half of this tract ( 
 
 Mr. Hawley. 1 liave no more information; I wouLhi't give, as the 
 lands now staud without water, more than .1^2 an aci-e, wliile the 
 stinnpage of the timber land in the north is {{uite vakuible, and will be 
 greater when the railroad goes througli. 
 
 Now, there is another thing. If they retain their half of the north 
 with the forest on it, then when the Government wishes to sell its 
 timber the men wlio cut it will have to cross over private lands. 
 
 Mr. Raker. As a matter of fact, in the noi'tliern part all the good 
 land is owned by the Government, that is agricultural land, according 
 
22 CONSOLIDATIOlSr OF CERTATISr FOEEST LANDS. 
 
 to the plat, and (lie timber land they have is scattered all over, so 
 that they may pnt a sawmill in ? 
 
 Mr. Pickett. I couldn't discover wliich land on the north the 
 company owned. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. I think that is the case, the land in the southern half 
 is principally valuable for agricultural purposes when irrigated, and 
 in the northern half, more valuable for its timber, speaking generally. 
 
 Mr. Raker. And the Government lands seem to be of the pine 
 character, so as to be suitable for irrigation. If that is a fact, that 
 is just in an ideal condition for the Government to irrigate it and then 
 sell off this little timber land to the various homesteaders for improve- 
 ment, and such as that, and if they put a railroad in there, w\\j of 
 course, that would make it a verj" ideal condition to sell it. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. Is it not true that a railroad has already been pro- 
 jected and will be built through the center of this piece of land? 
 
 Mr. Hawxey. It will be rather in the eastern side of the tract. 
 
 Mr. Rakee. Does that railroad come near the httle town of Quaker 
 there ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. I couldn't say, Judge. In answer to your statement, 
 if there are any of the lands in the north that are level, and I think 
 there are some now covered with valuable timber, if no exchange is 
 made the company intends to irrigate those lands and remove the 
 timber, so that what is now a solid body of timber in the north would 
 become one on which the alternate sections would be irrigated, and it 
 will be very difficult to get the Government timber out over the irri- 
 gated lands without doing a great deal of damage to them. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. I suppose you would favor such plan as would open 
 up the greatest number of acres to settlers ? 
 
 Mr. Haw^ley. That is the desire. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. And if thej devised a plan to open it up it would be 
 agreeable to you ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. If it be such a plan as would be taken advantage 
 of and put into effect. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. That would be placed under the Carey Act ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. You would have then two systems of main canals, 
 two svstems of drainage. I think it would be a source of continual 
 trouble to the settlers, because under the Carey Act you would have 
 even-numbered sections in one project and the odd-numbered in the 
 other. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Under the Carey Act some private company would 
 irrigate it then, and if this company is engaged in the business of 
 building irrigation canals the same canal woidd do for all the lands, 
 wouldn't it ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. I can not speak for the company, but I suppose it 
 might possibly agree to do that if it could make a reasonable charge 
 for the water service to the Government lands. If the company is to 
 build canals to irrigate its present holdings it will have to be done 
 within the coming month, before its rights expire. 
 
 Mr. Raker. What do you think, as a matter of public policy solely 
 now, of the advisability of reserving this land nortli of Coral Springs, 
 or, in other words, the north half of the township, since the railroad is 
 going through that country and there is, from all observations from 
 the statement made from the letters from the company, sufficient 
 
CONSOLIDATION OF CEETAIN FOEEST LANDS. 23 
 
 water by building some dams and holding the water back in those 
 lakes to irrigate these lands ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. The letter says they have water enough to irrigate 
 the land they own. I couldn't answer further than tliat, whether 
 their engineer found water enough to irrigate all of the tract or not. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Since the railroad is projected through these lands, 
 would it not be better to permit all this land to be obtained from the 
 Government by homesteaders or desert-land claimers than it would 
 be to let it in the forest ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. I don't see that there would be any difference under 
 the proposed bill. The area of land which can be settled upon will 
 not be decreased but rather increased by the exchange, and I was 
 looking for the prospect of an immediate development. I don't see 
 any prospect for the development of that country for a considerable 
 length of time to come outside of the present project. I want to say 
 that I have no personal interest in this matter, I never saw these 
 gentlemen until about a month ago when they came and talked to 
 me about the matter. I think it would be a good exchange on the 
 part of the Government, and I know it would be a good thing for that 
 section if a system of irrigation would be introduced to irrigate the 
 land. 
 
 Mr. Raker. What was 10 year ago or 15 years ago worthless, even 
 in places where they have obtained title since, and 8 years ago it was 
 considered to be worthless, by virtue of the good land being taken 
 where there is water, we find where men have taken their money and 
 developed a water system, gone back into the mountains and put in 
 reservoirs, that the land that was considered worthless with water on 
 it to-day is just as valuable as the good land, and just because it had 
 a water-right clause to it fi"om the hills, and with the railroad going 
 through that country, of course that is beginning to develop it to 
 where it never was before, 3"ou find that to be the condition, don't 
 you ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. Yes, that country is filling up in the southern part 
 under the Government reclamation project. But if the proposed 
 project is completed with the water rights that they would have and 
 with the canals they intend to build, it would be very difficult to 
 induce anybody to go in there and parallel those canals and it would 
 be difficult to settle the question of damage from drainage and other 
 matters. 
 
 Mr. Raker. Wouldn't it be more advantageous to the Government 
 if those people went on "v\ith their irrigation project and said to the 
 Government, "Well, if you will throw this land open to actual set- 
 tlers, homesteaders, or desert land claimers, but suppose they are 
 homesteaders, we will agree vdth them on the water right, the same 
 as we do with our own land," you should have the land all settled 
 inside of a year, then you would find every foot of this land in the 
 south there open to settlers, and you would ffiid the land in the north, 
 which your letter shows could be irrigated, inside of a month j^ou 
 would find it all open and you would find Government sections all 
 applied for ready for actual settlers. 
 
 Mr. Speer. Is it advisable that these lands be kept as a permanent 
 United States forest reserve or that they eventually be disposed of? 
 
 Mr. Potter. We are perfectly willing to recommend the opening 
 of the lands for settlement but nobodv wants them without water, so 
 
24 CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIISr FOEEST LANDS. 
 
 that there is no demand for the hmd at present from homesteaders, 
 because there isn't any way in which agricultural crops could be 
 raised on them. 
 
 Mr. Raker. The only trouble in this matter is that this land is 
 below the water supply according to the to])ographical map here. 
 
 Mr. Ferguson. That doesn't make any difference if it is necessary 
 to drain the water down to preserve the source of the water by pre- 
 serving the timber. 
 
 Mr. Raker. If the timber is below the water supj^ly and below the 
 lakes, it certainly don't retain the water that makes the lakes and 
 the streams below. 
 
 Mr. Ferguson. Is that a fact ? 
 
 Mr. Raker. I judge so according to the map. 
 
 Mr. Speer. If this company should make an ap]:)lication to the 
 Land Department, the Forestry Department, and the Secretary of 
 the Interior, and ]:)ut the necessary documents and records on file that 
 they wouhl ])ermit the homestead claimants or the desert-land claim- 
 ants to participate in tliis water there, don't you believe that the 
 Government would see tliis land opened immediately by settlers or 
 that such an arrangement could be made for settlers ? 
 
 Mr, Potter. Yes, sure. We would recommend favorably on 
 applications for listing the land if there was an irrigation system by 
 which the land could be irrigated. 
 
 Mr. Speer. Then you don't seem to think that these lands are 
 suitable to be kept for permanent forest reserves ? 
 
 Mr. IIawley. Not the land in the lower half. The theory is now 
 that we ought to acquire the western portion for forest reserves. 
 
 The Chairman. The clerk of the committee telephoned to the de- 
 ))artment yesterday. They informed us the}" have absolutely no 
 information about it. They side-step this question entirely. Now, 
 we haven't got sufficient information as to values to enable us to act 
 intelligently. I doubt if there is a gentleman on this committee who 
 would tliink for a moment of exchanging this land, under the circum- 
 stances, if it were his own, and I suppose we ought to look at the 
 question as if it were our ow^n, and it seems to me that there should 
 be hearings on this matter and that we should have sworn statements 
 printed to protect us in the action we would take in this matter as to 
 values, as to water rights, and as to other conditions affecting this 
 exchange, and it does seem to me as if we are not in a position to take 
 action in this matter at this time. If the majority of the committee 
 are of that opinion, I think we are wasting time discussing it further 
 now. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. I am of tlie o})inion that we are not sufficiently 
 advised. 
 
 The Chairman. The way to be advised, I think, would be to refer 
 the matter to a subcommittee with authority to take testimony or 
 have the witnesses come before the whole committee and have a 
 reporter here to make a report and liave something to protect us if 
 we made a favorable report. 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. Wliile I am in no way interested myself in this 
 matter, these three young men come to me highly recommended. 
 The land is in Mr. Hawley's district, and that is why we are both 
 here. It seems to me that the trouble that has overtaken tliis dis- 
 cussion is this fact : Wliile some member of the committee suggested 
 
CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIN FOREST LANDS. 25 
 
 informally when we came in this morning that the trouble was lack of 
 information, I observed that the trouble was too much information. 
 If tliis bill or discussion of it had been confined to the sirnple question 
 involved whether or not this was a good exchange, if the simple propo- 
 sition had been put up to the committee whether or not the Forestry 
 Department would be authorized, or the Interior Department would 
 be authorized on recommendation of the Forestry Department, to 
 exchange certain desert lands for certain lands to the north, of a 
 greater value for forestry purposes, thereby sohdifying the facts, it 
 would have gone through this committee and through the House 
 without any objection, as numerous other bills did dunng the Sixty- 
 first Congress; but these three young men came from Portland and 
 thought they were strengthening their case by explaining their 
 project to the committee and left the papers with Mr. Hawley to pre- 
 sent them to the committee. If the question of the feasibility of 
 different irrigation projects had been left entirely out of the question, 
 there would have been no trouble here. However, I think it is very 
 well to have brought the matter up; I have profited myself by these 
 discussions here as to what ought to be done \vith other lands to the 
 north that are adjacent to the forest reserve. We have over 16,000,000 
 acres of land in the forest reserves, more than one-fourth of the 
 State, not pajnng any taxes. The people of Oregon are friendly to 
 the Forestry Service; but there are millions of acres of desert land 
 without a tree on it in the forest reserves in Oregon that ought to be 
 opened up to homestead settlers. I think the Government is getting 
 the best of the trade. Whether they go ahead and irrigate it or not, 
 the Government is getting the best of the trade. It would hardly be 
 practical for this committee or Congress to go into the question of dis- 
 posing of various lands in this bill ; but I am glad that the discussion 
 has taken the vnde range that it has, because I feel we all got some 
 benefit out of it. 
 
 The Chairman. If you wOl pardon me, I don't deny anything you 
 have said. Sustantiiilly you tell us that the Government is getting 
 the best of the trade. ^ While you are probably right, do you think 
 the committee would be justified in accepting that statement from 
 you and acting on your statement ? 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. 1 think if we can not accept the statement of the 
 Forestry Department, we are absolutely helpless. 
 
 The Chairman. No; it isn't the duty of the committee or Congress 
 to accept the statement of any of the departments as an absolute 
 fact . 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. I have been m this country myself and I know tliat 
 this land is worthless in its present condition. A man can take a 
 tree 3 or 4 years old and pull it up by its roots. 
 
 The Chairman. If we had these facts in the form of evidence, we 
 could turn them m mth our report or refer to them, and then we 
 would stand on better ground; but if we went on the. floor of the 
 House to defend this measure and told them there that Mr. Lafferty 
 was interested in this deal, and that Mr. Hawley was mterested in 
 this deal, and told us so and so, do you think they would accept that? 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. I think they M^oiild. I don't want the committee 
 to understand that I am trying to hurry the matter, if a further con- 
 sideration will result in opening up lands. 
 
26 CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIN FOREST LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Speer. The purpose of the Government keeping forest lands 
 is to keep them reforested permanently. 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. This is a condition well known to everybody 
 familiar with forestry matters, and you can preserve those forests of 
 Oregon as long as this world shall last, and at the same time you will 
 be able to furnish sufficient timber from our forests for all the needs 
 of this country and have some for export. I don't think there is 
 any doubt about it. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. The Government would not be any better off if they 
 grew forests on ground they now own than they would to exchange 
 that now in a barren condition for lands that already have good 
 timber. The Government, if it grew good trees, would have no more 
 trees 300 years from now than they would have to-day if they made 
 the exchange. 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. Mr. Chairman, I have traveled through central 
 Oregon in my campaign last fall — three-fourths of the State is in my 
 district — and I went all over it in an automobile, and I rode through 
 several townships in forest reserves where there wasn't a tree in 
 sight. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. It is my desire to assist the committee in getting 
 any information it desires, and will be glad to help it in every way 
 possible; but there is this thing confronting us at this time — the 
 water rights expire on the 1st of April; that is just 32 days from 
 to-day, including to-day. The company must make a substantial 
 beginning before that time with the work, and they must begin within 
 a few days. 
 
 Mr. Taylor. What water rights have they got if they haven't 
 made a filing in the office of the Secretary of the Interior ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. They have the water rights under ffiings made with 
 the State engineer of Oregon. There is no doubt in the world but 
 what they have the legal water right. It will take 10 days to get 
 representatives of the company here. 
 
 Mr. Taylor. Is there no way to refile that ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. I think not, if you gentlemen are satisfied that the 
 exchange is a fair one to the Government. There had been a great 
 deal of speculative matter that has been interesting, but it seems to 
 me that is more speculative than of immediate value just now. It 
 may become true and it may not. But if you think the exchange is 
 fair and proper, it gives the Government a large tract of good timber 
 land in exchange for valueless, practically valueless, barren land. 
 It gives 24,000 acres to the company in a solid body. But if you can 
 not see your way clear to accept the proposition, I would like to be 
 able to inform the company who are waiting upon you in the matter, 
 so that they can save themselves. I hope you may see your way clear 
 to report the bill. 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. I would be willing that an amendment be put into 
 this bill, saying that the Forest Service shall not recommend this 
 exchange unless thej^ find the lands that the company offers to 
 relinquish are of a greater value. 
 
 Mr. Potter. In reference to the matters which Mr. Lafferty has 
 referred to, I have to say for the information of the committee that 
 during the past three years, as the result of careful examination, 
 over 9,000,000 acres of land have been eliminated from the national 
 forests, and since the passage of the act of June 11, 1906, we have 
 
CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIN FOEEST LANDS. 27 
 
 listed for settlement 1,000,000 or more acres. In reference to this 
 matter of land exchange, the Forest Service, of course, hasn't suffi- 
 cient information about this particular land to say definitely just what 
 exchang'e should be made. 
 
 The Chairman. What do you think of the suggestions made ? 
 
 Mr. Potter. That is the reason why we recommend general legis- 
 lation. It may be that we would follow exactly the same plan in this 
 exchange that has been followed under the Kansas bill passed at the 
 last session of Congress, which was exactly the same in its provisions 
 as this bill, or we might follow the plan adopted in the exchange of 
 South Dakota lands with the State, which was to examine carefully 
 each section of land and determine what its value was, taking into 
 consideration all of the different factors. I brought with me this 
 morning the papers in the South Dakota case, merely to show you the 
 plan under which we made the exchange. In each section the exam- 
 mer reported on three types, type 1, type 2, and type .3 of timber- 
 lands, and fixed the values for each of those types, then the amount 
 of the young growth of trees as to whether it was very good, good, 
 fair, or poor and what value should be placed on that ; also the value 
 of the bare land, without the trees, for agricultural purposes. We 
 determined the value of each section on that basis, and then found 
 lands that on the same basis of value could be given to the State in 
 exchange. I contemplated that in making any exchange of the land 
 we would take the necessary steps to determine the exact value of the 
 lands from these different standards and then offer an exchange which 
 would be absolutely fair to the Government and give equal values. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. I would like to ask some gentleman here this ques- 
 tion: If this bill does not go through, from which lake would the 
 Oregon company take its water ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. They will take their water from five lakes — Crescent, 
 Odell, Summit, and Fish Lakes, and Big Marsh. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. These lakes are in the northern portion of this land ? 
 
 The Chairman. And they will do that in case the consolidation is 
 effected. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. Then they will run their main canals down through 
 the center of this tract, I presume ? 
 
 The Chairman. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. Do I understand that under the laws of Oregon they 
 can run their canals down through, for instance, several sections of 
 land that is under private ownership and refuse to give them water ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley. They must supply water to those with whom they 
 may have made prior contracts ffrst. 
 
 The Chairman. I suppose they can condemn under the eminent- 
 domain laws, same as tliey would for a railroad or public highways. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. Here they pass over a tract that they don't own 
 and then again they will go through a section which they do o\vn or 
 somebody else owns. Do I understand that under the laws of the 
 State of Oregon that as to these sections which were sold to settlers 
 that they absolutely could not get any water unless the company 
 wanted to give it to them ? 
 
 Mr. Raker. Well, I have asked these gentlemen, and they have 
 not explained it yet. I made a few observations but they differ with 
 me; but being both attorneys from Oregon, I didn't feel like going 
 into the record at tliis time as to my opinion of the matter. 
 
28 CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIN FOREST L-ANDS. 
 
 The Chairman. Let me make this suggestion: That either at this 
 time or quickly hereafter, the bill be amended so as to secure from 
 this company a waiver of all claims to the water rights from those 
 lakes or streams north of the proposed consolidation before the con- 
 solidation of the bill goes into effect and is passed, and that we put 
 in the bill a provision that the Agricultural Department shall care- 
 fulh^ examine the ground and not make the exchange until it is satis- 
 fied that the Government is getting at least as much value as it is 
 giving. Would the bill be a good one to pass if those two features 
 were in ? 
 
 Mr. Hawley, I would be wilhng to add a third, that they shall 
 surrender all their holdings in the north for lands in the south. 
 
 The Chairman. That would be embraced in the consolidation to 
 draw a line, north of which the Government would govern all. 
 
 Mr. Volstead. It seems to me that it would be a better provision, 
 if it is practicable, to irrigate tlie lands both in the north and the 
 south and make such exchanges of lodge pole pine land for the yellow- 
 pine land as will give to them an opportunity to take. the irrigable 
 lands and turn them over to the settlers. 
 
 Mr. Potter. It miglit, if the classification could be made solely on 
 the agricultural value of the lands. I think it would be possible to 
 reach an agreement in a general way. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. You take this map, and it seems to me it shows very 
 clearly that there is a draft of this land in the north, as well as in the 
 south, to give irrigation there, and also showing the land in the 
 north that is owned by the Government and by this company. It 
 seems to me we can consolidate the timber land and consolidate the low 
 lands in separating the separate ownerships that we are contemplating 
 by this change. We may require that the}^ should irrigate the whole 
 of it,- and in all probability there is plenty of water for both. That 
 would make it a good deal better than the proposition that is sug- 
 gested, tliat probabh^ ties up the nortliern half of this country and 
 probably leaves it where it never would be irrigated. 
 
 The Chairman. Let me raise another question on which we have 
 not enough light, and that is how much water — that is, how much of 
 that land that can furnish water to irrigate? 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. It is perfectly evident that there is considerable, 
 anvway, in this section. 
 
 The Chairman. You may have a big lake and mighty little water 
 to irrigate the land. You see a lake may be fed by a comparatively 
 small spring that will keep it up to a certain level, and not furnish 
 much overflow. What is the flow anyway there ? That is a question 
 we have no light on. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. I want every foot of this land that is really suitable 
 for farmers and not for forests to be opened up if it can be done, 
 and it seems we are trying to prevent it for a good many years, 
 preventing the opening on the north half of that tract. That is one 
 of the things wliich you should take into consideration. 
 
 The Chairman. What immediate action do you propose by the 
 committee ? 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. The first thing we should do is to find out whether 
 we have sufficient water supply up there, and if we have, I would 
 suggest that we draft a bill so as to make the exchange with that 
 
CONSOLIDATION OF CEETAIN FOEEST LANDS. 29 
 
 purpose in view so as to encourage the opening up of lands rather 
 than discourage that. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. I beheve in opening up every foot of fertile or tillable 
 land, but the point to tliis proposition is largely this: Here is this 
 corporation that ^^dll get the land for practically nothing. Instead 
 of doing as is done under the Carey Act, tliis company, in addition to 
 the cost of construction, can add $50 or more per acre and a few mil- 
 lion dollars at the expense of the settlers. It seems to me that the 
 Government if it opens it should do so equitably and fairly. 
 
 Mr. MoNDELL. We could do that in some such fashion as this: 
 We could provide that they shouldn't get more than a certain amount 
 above the expenses of irrigation. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. The only objection is that we don't have that time. 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. I have information from the State engineer 
 through Senator Bourne that these water rights will be extended, if 
 this bill is passed during the present Congress ; that the water rights 
 filed will not be held forfeited on account of the failure of the com- 
 pany to begin work, but will be held open during the present session 
 of Congress, I should have said, to see whether or not this measure 
 passes. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. I had no such information. They told me that 
 they had to begin operations before April 1, 1912. 
 
 Mr. Mondell. Can your State engineer tell how much water 
 there is in that section ? 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. I will \^ire liim for the information. This com- 
 pany will have to borrow money no doubt to put in the work; it is 
 going to be very expensive, and there is a hazard to it, and it is not 
 going to be as valuable as lowlands where you can raise fruit. They 
 are men of the highest character. I doubt if it might not prevent 
 the building of their project if there are too many restrictions thrown 
 around it. I am willing to have it referred to a subcommittee. 
 
 Mr. Speer. I move that it be referred to a subcommittee, of which 
 I am not to be one, but I think Mr. Volstead ought to be on it, and 
 that they be requested to report promptly. 
 
 Mr. Ferguson. Let me suggest that as it comes up now that I 
 presume that motion ought to be referred to a subcommittee. 
 
 Mr. Speer. Then I move that it be referred to a subcommittee. 
 
 Mr. Pray. We have had such information as you have before the 
 committee, and we felt satisfied that they were perfectly satisfied to 
 have it referred to the Secretary of the Interior. We were satisfied 
 that it was a fair exchange. 
 
 The Chairman. Let me state Mr. Sneer's motion, with some sug- 
 gestion that comes to me: That the bill be recommitted to the sub- 
 committee, with suggestions to that committee that it ascertain by 
 evidence how much land can be irrigated by the water available; how 
 much of the north part, which would fall to the Government, is 
 adapted to agricultural purposes; to amend the bill calling for a waiver 
 of the claims the company now has on the water toward the north end 
 of this tract of land, and to further amend it, putting the burden on 
 the Department of Agriculture to determine the comparative values 
 before the exchange is made; and such other steps as occur to the sub- 
 committee as relevant to this matter. 
 
30 CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIN FOREST LANDS. 
 
 Mr. Volstead. I would like to suggest this addition, that they take 
 into consideration whether all of this land that is suitable for agri- 
 cultural purposes can not be put under irrigation by making a suitable 
 exchange both in the north and south. 
 
 I? Mr. Pickett. And that some supervisory control on the part of the 
 Government be had as to the prices charged, etc. 
 
 Mr. Speer. I have been very much impressed with what has been 
 said; that what we should keep is the land which would be available 
 for forestry purposes in the near future and let the land that is suitable 
 for agricultural purposes only go. 
 
 The Chairman. 1 suppose that the company's land would lie to the 
 south and the Government's land to the north. 
 
 Mr. Potter. That would be my idea. 
 
 Mr. Lafferty. This subcommittee is composed of three members 
 and only one of these has heard the discussion to-day. How would 
 it be if the subcommittee be increased to five and two more members 
 be designated by the chairman, who have heard this discussion, to 
 meet with Mr. Pray in this matter ? 
 
 Mr. Raker. In addition to this, before I can at least intelligently 
 act, I want to know the kind and character of the improvements, 
 and the kind and character of the business that they intend to engage 
 in, whether it is to be a strictly private enterprise or whether it is for 
 the purpose of disposing of all of this water for any purpose — agri- 
 cultural, irrigating, power purposes, or whatever else it might be. 
 
 The Chairman. What do you think of^the suggestion? 
 
 Mr. Pray. I will say this. We had *some difficulty in getting 
 together. In the first place the members were very busy — Mr. Dent 
 was busy, and Mr. Estopinal and Mr. Ruby, and it seems to me that it 
 would be a good idea to have a new subcommittee take hold of it. 
 We have had the hearings. Mr. Hawley appeared before us, and also 
 Mr. Lafferty, and we had the report from the Forester, and we were 
 satisfied that if the bill was properly safeguarded it would be safe 
 to leave it to the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior and the 
 Secretary of Agriculture to make this change, because it had been done 
 heretofore. I think it would be a good idea to appoint a new sub- 
 committee. 
 
 The Chairman. The Chair is not in sympathy with that subcom- 
 mittee being reappointed. In the absence of any objection, the chair 
 wiU take the liberty of adding two members to that committee. Is 
 there any objection? The chair hears none, and we will add to that 
 subcommittee Mr. Raker and Mr. Pickett. 
 
 Mr. Raker. I would like to be excused from serving. 
 
 Mr. Pray. Well, if I am to be retained on that subcommittee, I 
 will insist on Judge Raker being on it. 
 
 Mr. Hawley. I would like to go on the record as saying that we 
 appreciate very much the courtesy of the committee, and it has been 
 a very remarkable exhibition of l^indness and courtesy on your part. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Speer's motion remains that the matter be 
 referred to a subcommittee, with suggestions. 
 
 The committee thereupon adjourned. 
 X 
 

GATLORO BROS. 
 
 MAKERS