Senator HATCH. Mr. Jamison, just for the record, Senator W: wants to know about your own particular business, and are you holder of a permit under the Taylor Grazing Act?

Mr. JAMISON. I am in the cattle business and I have been pr tically all of my life. I do hold a permit. In fact I own one in name and I am in partnership with John Neal, of Kingman, another. These permits we have held since the beginning of 1 administration of the Taylor Act. John Neal and I were both at c time members of the local advisory board and both of us have wi drawn from that board for reasons of our own. Personally, I wi drew because after the administration of the Taylor Act was taken and the groundwork laid, the organization part laid, why my inter in the administration of that act waned. After that it seemed to 1 that the board members' job was merely a matter of routine and I w only interested in the constructive and not the administrative er Senator HATCH. You were there in the early formative period. Mr. JAMISON. That is right. I helped to make the original orga zation. I attended meetings in Washington and Salt Lake Cit I was in Washington twice, I believe, on matters when they we forming the policy. That was the part in which I was very mu interested. When it became a matter of routine, I lost interest. was there at the meeting when the original grazing fee was set. fact, I was the chairman of the committee on fees and finances whe the 5-cent fee was set and at the present time I feel that any increa in the fee would be uncalled for from our point of view because th service, the grazing service, which was rendered us at that time still practically the same as it was then. We received the service fe 5 cents a month a head on our cattle in 1935 on up to 1945, and can't see any reason for changing it now. We are not receiving an more service now than we did in 1935.

Senator HATCH. May I interrupt just a moment?
Mr. JAMISON. Yes, sir.

Senator HATCH. I should have said awhile ago, gentlemen, th Senator on my left is Senator Willis from Indiana, and on my right i Senator Gurney from South Dakota. Senator Willis, coming from Indiana, doesn't live in a Western State. Will you please explain fo the record of what this service consists?

Mr. JAMISON. I will.

Senator GURNEY. I think the record ought to show the grazing fe that was set at the time you were on the advisory committee. Could you tell us the year and have it in the record, and at what the fee wa set?

Mr. JAMISON. January 1936 at Salt Lake City we had a meeting at which I think there were four members of each grazing district four directors, that is the advisory board, the local advisory board met in Salt Lake City in January 1936, and at that time Ferry Car penter was the director and he divided us up into committees and we discussed all of the matters that we thought were pertinent to the organization of the grazing districts. I happened to be on the committee that was assigned the duty of deciding on what fees and finances should be considered. At that meeting there were 22 members of that committee, 2 men from each one of the 11 Western States. We got into a deadlock. Some of them were insisting on the livestock industry paying the entire cost of administration under the Taylor

4 you all know, 25 percent of our fees go to the administration The other 75 percent goes back to the States, 25 percent to ar district and 50 percent to the State and counties in which ates. I believe it is to be disbursed as decided upon by the slature. In this State the State legislature provided that should be spent for range improvement at the direction of advisory board. The local advisory board under the rules stration of the Taylor grazing districts found it was imposem to disburse those funds, so they are disbursed through Service, as I understand it.

re that is rendered to the rancher, the original service is up his allotment. In the early days everyone ran all over We acquired a piece of property that controlled the nghts of certain areas which generally would control the water. Nothwest that is the most important thing. If you have the will take care of the grass. If you don't have the water, ..: We found we could control the water but couldn't controĺ because of the public domain in each area. We were profrom fencing or controlling those areas under the law, so whergrass grew everyone came and ate it up as quickly as posp the other fellow from getting it. So range improvements for nearly 40 years in Arizona. The Taylor law came along ame possible for us to control the use of these lands. We ted certain areas based on the base property which we d controlled, usually considering the priority of use of each , and when the allotment was fixed, then we were able to That was done shortly after the act went into effect.

each area, in each allotment in our particular district, the ts are set up individually and are fenced, and we can control of those lands and if we want to set aside a piece of ground A grow up and go to seed, we can do so. A neighbor can't and eat it off before we get to it. That is the general practice unty now. For instance, last year it never rained a drop for and if under the old system it had been fed off before that arted, we would have had nothing at all for 8 months. There thing to do but ship them out. That happened a good many the past. We were forced to do that.

e the Taylor law came in we have been able to control our In times of drought we usually do have some reserve feed. onths is a pretty long period to prepare for, however, and a ay men had to ship them out again last fall as we did in 1925 and numerous other occasions in the past.

then, of the money that we pay on this grazing fee, 50 percent ack for us to use on our ranges. It seems to me that that 50 troming back to our ranges is sufficient at the present time for ds that we may have and also 25 percent comes back to be e direction of the Division of Grazing, and that is sufficient. matter that could be in question here today, from my point would be the 25 percent for administration costs. It seems Eat the administration we receive is no different than it was 55, 36, and '37. At that time the 5 cents apparently was because no effort was made to increase it. And another ht now everything we have to buy is enormously increased Our manpower shortage is very severe. We are using cow

boys that are 65 years old that can't tip a calf over after they him caught. Use women? Can you imagine a woman tryin handle a 400-pound calf on the end of a rope? It is pretty 1 Our manpower shortage is pretty severe and there is also a shor of equipment. We can't get lumber to build corrals. There any. We can't get a new truck. It takes months to get a new t and it seems to me that our load is about all that we can bear at moment.

From our particular ranch there are eight boys now in the ser that were working for us when this thing started out and we hav boys left. The youngest man is 47, and a disabled war veteran f the other war. Those are matters that we have to take into sideration.

It seems to me that an increase in grazing fees can only accomp one thing, and that would be to add to the administration c That is, it would go toward paying administration costs. Tha the only thing that could be added, so we oppose any grazing raise. If any grazing fee raise is made, we think that it should made reasonable, and our interpretation of reasonable would be t it would be comparable with the fee that we pay for other land: like quality in the same neighborhood.

Senator GURNEY. Will you tell me what the grazing fee was set in 1936, and if there has been any change since then and, if so, h

much?

Mr. JAMISON. The grazing fee at that time was fixed at 5 cent month a head. That wasn't fixed by the board, as I understand but that was the recommendation made by the committee at t time, 5 cents a month a head. There has been no change from t day to this.

Senator GURNEY. January 1936 until now?

Mr. JAMISON. That is right. That 5 cents a month per head I animal unit on land actually owned by the Government.

Senator WILLIS. On what basis was that amount fixed?

Mr. JAMISON. We came to a deadlock in that committee meeti as to whether it ought to be the full amount necessary to pay the f cost of administration. Representatives from Nevada felt we shou pay no grazing fee until the Taylor law was in effect and permane permits granted. Other members felt that the livestock industry h always paid its way and we should pay it now, so we called in M Ferry Carpenter, who was at that time Director of the Division. Grazing, and asked him how much of a fee would be necessary to tal care of administration costs, and he told us it would be 10 cents month a head. So we compromised on 5 cents as 50 percent of th cost, since we were only in a license period. We were not getting fu benefit of the Taylor Act. That is the way it was set at that time That was a compromise and that was the recommendation of tha committee and apparently accepted by the Grazing Service and i has been in effect from that time to this. However, we felt tha there was no obligation under the law for the users of the publi domain to pay that full cost of administration and we still feel tha is true, and I am quite sure that the 10 cents a month a head would not anywhere near pay the cost of the service now with the 25 percen set aside for administration costs. I am sure that would be the cas because at that time I think there were 22 men in the Federal office

hington under Mr. Carpenter, and there is probably a good mes that many in the Service now. We feel that in our ar area the grazing fee should be fixed approximately the pay for other lands in the same neighborhood.

var HATCH. I wish you would discuss that, Mr. Jamison, for on. The charge is constantly made, and we have to meet it, ve out in the West, that the Federal fees are far lower, almost isproportionate and out of all reason with the cost of leases se land.

T

JAMISON. On our particular allotment we have approximately res in one pasture. Of that acreage approximately 56,000 owned by the Santa Fe Railroad Co. For the use of those acres we pay three-quarters of a cent, plus taxes.

or HATCH. That is an acre?

JSON. An acre a year. We feel that 60 acres, or approxi

acres, will carry a cow the year around, in average years. es that three-quarters of a cent plus the taxes would be about or 8 cents. It would be about 80 cents per cow unit per year. or HATCH. That would compare with 60 cents per cow unit under the Taylor Grazing Act?

JASON. That is right.

A HATCH. A difference of about 20 cents?

Jonson. Yes, and in that area we also have some 18,000 acres that belong to the State, for which we pay 3 cents an acre a We realize that is too high. If we had to pay 3 cents an scre hole area, we would quit because we couldn't make a living We would have to.

HATCH. Let me ask you this: Didn't you folks in Arizona a reduction in the price of your State leases during depression

JAMISON. We did.

Var HATCH. How much was that?

JAMISON. A cent and a half an acre.

or HATCH. At the time the 5-cents-an-acre fee was fixed, you ng 1 cents an acre for State leases?

JAMISON. That is right. A cent and a half for State leases, hat time three-quarters of a cent, plus taxes, for the railroad part of the time we paid a straight 1 cent an acre.

ator HATCH. But the State has now increased its fees, or put it *.3 cents an acre?

JSON. That is right. Under the State law, the State land soner may collect a fee as high as 5 cents an acre, but they sed and set it at 3 cents and it has been that way for years. Vor HATCH. Did you ever have it 5 cents?

Maor HATCH. We did in New Mexico.

WILLIS. What would be the fee, then, per acre, the present nt fee?

JSON. Five cents a head is 60 cents a year and 60 acres of ld be approximately 1 cent an acre.

or WILLIS. Sixty acres?

JISON. Yes, and we are paying three-quarters of a cent plus This past year through the tax commission the rate is only * on a hundred, the State tax rate this year, through a fluke.

Senator HATCH. You say a fluke?

Mr. JAMISON. Yes, sir.

Senator HATCH. You don't think that is going to occur any mo Mr. JAMISON. I hope not. The regular fee should be around dollar. That is a dollar-per-hundred valuation, and I think this ye it will be possibly around $1.15, but last year it was only 25 cen It didn't pan out.

Senator HATCH. I don't want to go into the question of Arizo politics, but I was a little bit interested in how a fluke like that cou happen.

Mr. JAMISON. I will explain it to you later.

Senator HATCH. All right. Go ahead.

Mr. JAMISON. I think that our grazing fee compares very favorab with the other land. You understand this, all the land that was any value was taken up 40 years ago. All the land that is no public domain is what was left after everyone got through takin anything they could use. That is true in this case, in Arizona, ar I think you will find it true in all the other Western States.

Senator HATCH. And is that true of the State lands too?

Mr. JAMISON. Yes. They withdrew some areas not desirable ar exchanged it for other areas. Under the enabling act they were ab to make certain selections. All selections were made with the idea getting land they could lease and all the State selections you will fin in any community in the State which you go into are the most desirab lands in that community every time.

Senator HATCH. Generally throughout the State, how do the land under the Taylor Grazing Act compare with State lands and privat lands like the Santa Fe lands that you lease, in quality, I mean?. Mr. JAMISON. In a great many cases it is checkerboarded. Senator HATCH. The Santa Fe lands?

Mr. JAMISON. Yes; the Santa Fe lands are all checkerboarded but along through the area we have it happens to be near the rai road where selections were made, and the whole block is owned solidl by the Santa Fe.

In every area where water showed up, some one acquired title t it long before the Taylor Act was passed. So water shows up o Taylor land very seldom. I remember when I was back in Wash ington 3 years ago, that some of the members of the Forest Depart ment constantly reminded me of the fact that the land we wer holding, the public domain we were holding, was a gratuity, that the Government was giving the lease to this land to us. It was quite a little job to teach those fellows before we could use that land it wa necessary for us to put more money into that piece of land than the thing was worth. In order to use à section of Government land you must first have fences and water, corrals, and build the ranch buildings. You must have equipment, horses. We had a great deal of investment. I presume we have 10 times as much invested in the ranch equipment and property than the public domain is worth, and we don't feel that that land was given us or donated to us in any way I might do further and point out some of the ways we feel about that public domain out in this country. Back in Indiana where you came from, Senator Willis, you own your land in fee simple and pay You acquired that land in the first place by homesteading it Under the Homestead Act you paid a $14 filing fee, put a certain