record, so that it will be concrete evidence to your people that the publie lands of the State of Wyoming are on the public tax rolls of the State in this form, indirect, but nonetheless the tax is collected. Senator O'MAHONEY. I wanted to be quite clear the tax is being collected from private occupants, and not from the Government. Mr. BROCK. That's correct; yes, sir. I would say, furthermore, that, in the controversy over the overvaluation of privately owned lands, the State board at one time admitted they were placing a tax of the equivalent of privately owned grazing lands of 13 acres for each cow unit in the State of Wyoming. That same method still prevails, although the base valuation may vary either up or down. Congressman BARRETT. Mr. Brock, will you yield for a question here? Mr. BROCK. I will. Congressman BARRETT. I want to congratulate you on your remarks, Mr. Brock, and I want to call attention to the fact that the historie concept of the public domain comes from the common law of England, which was developed down through several hundred years and adopted in this country as the law of the land, except where specifically changed by legislative sanction. Under the cominon law, cattlemen had the right to use the public domain of England, without charge, subject only to misuse or overgrazing or something of that kind or character, and I think the Congress of the United States had it in mind when they passed the Grazing Act, that only a charge or fee should be made that should compensate for administration and improvement of the range. Consequently I think that was the very reason that Secretary Ickes made the statement at the time the act was passed that there was no intention of ever raising the fees nor to get à fee commensurate with the cost that the private owner might get from his land, or the State of Wyoming for its own State lands. Mr. FORSLING. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if Mr. Brock would mind if I should interrupt and ask him a question there with relation to taxation! I should be very glad to have that information, Mr. Brock. Of course I know in some cases, I feel pretty confident in some cases what you say is true. I made a pretty thorough study of the State board of equalization reports for Wyoming, and tried to detect whether there was an increase in valuation or a difference in levies for lands assoctated with Federal range. It was my conclusion-now I may be wrong -that each county places a valuation on grazing lands for taxing parposes, and then that it assesses on all land at that rate, regardless of whether or not the land happens to be associated with Federal range. For instance, in Fremont County, that's the highest valuation per nere, $1.91; Sweetwater County is $1,05 an acre. The county assessor, as I understand it, does not make any distinction whether an acre of land is associated with Federal range, his base property, or whether it isn't, and when he classifies the land; isn't that correct! Mr. BROCK. That is not correct, Mr. Forsling, and that misunderstanding is quite common. That's why I'm so anxious to get this in the record. The board of equalization-understand, their powers are hinited to equalization, but they in substance fix values by that method. They do leave to the county assessor the right to evaluate an individual piece of land; but the over-all of that county must conform with this suggestion; and just to give you some suggestion as to what that means, I'll take up Fremont County, Fremont County has a total acreage, which is on the record, a certain percent of which is forest, Indian lands, and so forth, and then it has all the balance of the lands in column No. 3. The next column, No. 4, is all the lands privately owned. Then the percentage of the area of deeded land and the percentage of open lands, and the percentage above or below the average, which in that case is plus 32.35 of the average of the State. Therefore, a portion of that which is added to the valuation of those lands, because of over and above the average amount of public lands is plus 0.0647 of the percentage of the base value. Now that's quite complex, but that is an increase in the valuation of those grazing lands, by virtue of the fact that public domain is there; therefore that is direct evidence of taxation and assessment of the public domain to the owners of private lands. This will be clarified to you when you can see it, and I'm going to ask permission to put a copy of the office formula of the board of equalization in the record, because I think it's very valuable. Mr. FORSLING. I'd be very glad to - Mr. BROCK. Because when you come and ask, when you come and ask for an increase in rental on lands that we have presumed to have settled up this country with the free use of, and which we're already paying a tax on, and then you ask an additional increase in the revenues now being derived from them to your agency, it's quite an important factor. Mr. FORSLING. I agree with you fully, Mr. Brock Mr. BROCK. I submit these for the record. Senator O'MAHONEY. They may be received. (The material referred to is as follows:) The State board of equalization makes the following suggestions as to the average values of lands for the year 1933: In all cases the assessors are to use their own judgment as to values of respective parcels of land. The values as suggested by the State board of equalization are for averages only: First-class irrigated lands from__. Dry farm lands from____ Grazing lands are dealt with below: Per acre $30-$45 20-30 20 10 4 8 At the meeting before the State board of equalization on the 11th day of January 1933 held in Cheyenne to consider values of livestock and lands, the livestock interests presented in tabulated form what they designated an equalization of the values of grazing lands, having for its basis the recognition of the fact that the proportion of open grazing land had not been considered as a factor in the original calculation as to the respective average values that should apply to the various counties. The State board of equalization recognizes the fact that the open grazing lands should be considered as a factor in trying to equalize the average values of this class of property in the different counties, and they have prepared the following table in correction of the original one prepared; it will be noticed that in the table the average open grazing land in the entire State has been used as the demarkation line between credit or debit to the various counties, as this would have been the result had this factor been used in the original calculation; also, by dividing this differential by five, we have tried to place this factor on the same basis as the original factors used; the State board of equalization has also altered the unit value from $3.50 to $3.25 for this year. The State board of equalization has been working on a plan for the equalization of properties in cities and towns; but as this work is incomplete, no suggestions are made regarding such properties at the present time. Mr. FORSLING. Mr. Chairman, I think that is very fundamental matter in policy determination here, as to whether it should be recognized as a governmental policy, that there should be a difference in the rate charged for use of public lands, in view of the fact that value may be transferred, so to speak, into the private land and be taxed. I can see how the situation grew up. It's very easy to see; but what should we do about it, now? Should the Government go ahead and recognize that, and make a difference in allowance for that, in arriving at a reasonable fee? That's a real difficult policy question that I have to meet, and I certainly hope I can get some help on that subject. Senator ROBERTSON. I shall hope to help you in a few moments, Mr. Forsling. Mr. BROCK. This table is on the base rate at the time this was fixed, which was on a base rate of $3.25 an acre, which has since been reduced to $3. Since that change in the base rate there has been no change. Mr. Chairman, perhaps some of my testimony might not fit in here, but it will be very brief. I want to ask, while the gentlemen from the General Land Office are here, why we're not getting better action on the sale of isolated tracts? STATEMENT OF THOMAS C. HAVELL, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. HAVELL. Mr. Brock, perhaps I can answer your questions best by giving you the figures on Wyoming as to action taken on isolated tract applications from January 1, 1940, to June 15, 1945. These are broken down into those within grazing districts and those outside of grazing districts. In grazing districts for the State of Wyoming, we received during that period but 25 applications. Three of those were withdrawn, 11 are now pending or were pending when the table was prepared, about a month ago; two were rejected upon recommendation of the Grazing Service; seven were rejected for other reasons; and two were patented. Outside of grazing districts we received 185 applications; 9 were withdrawn; 40 were pending; 61 were rejected; and 75 were patented. The tabulation of those two is this: a total of 210 applications received; 12 withdrawn; 51 pending; 70 rejected; 77 patented. Does that Mr. BROCK. Some of these applications, including one of my own. and some others of men in the audience, have been pending for a long time. We wondered why we couldn't get more prompt action. I can say further that had the disposal of these lands been carried on more promptly, the applications would have increased many fold. Mr. HAVELL. Were your applications within grazing districts or outside of grazing districts? Mr. BROCK. They were outside of a grazing district. May I ask, is it possible to isolate lands within a grazing district and dispose of it? Mr. HAVELL. Under the isolated tract law? Oh, yes. Mr. BROCK. Regardless of the action of the Grazing Service? Mr. HAVELL. All applications for isolated-tract sales of lands within grazing districts, when received by the General Land Office, are referred to the Grazing Service for report and recommendation, and we follow their recommendations generally. If the disposal of the piece of land would disrupt or affect adversely the administration of the grazing district, the application is rejected. Mr. BROCK. I didn't know it was possible to isolate land, to sell land under section 14 if it was within a grazing district? Mr. HAVELL. Yes; as just indicated here, we haven't had many applications in the State of Wyoming for lands within grazing districts; we've had 25, and I gave you the analysis, it came out that two were patented. In some of the States that runs higher, but there's no difference in the application of section 14 to lands within grazing districts and lands outside of grazing districts. Senator O'MAHONEY. How many isolated tracts have been patented throughout the public-lands States in this period, within and without grazing districts? Mr. HAVELL. Senator, I can give you all but Oregon; unfortunately Oregon was omitted through error. The table has been revised, but unfortunately I didn't bring with me a copy of it, but it will appear in the record of the hearings at Burns, Oreg., 2 months ago, and I shall be very glad, Senator, to supply for convenience, a copy for this record here. Omitting Oregon, there have been patented during that period 39× isolated tracts, of which 20 were within grazing districts. (The complete tabulation is as follows:) Isolated tract applications, Jan. 1, 1940, to June 15, 1945 The above figures do not include isolated tract applications file 1 in the state of North and scaÐ. Þakuta Wa baryton, and those which have no di tract land offices, as there are no grazing distracts theron Senator O'MAHONEY. Thank you. Mr. BROOK. We feel that is being handled very slowly. When the Taylor Act was passed it was indicated a great deal of these lands would pass into private ownership, in an orderly way, through sales of these isolated fracts. Instead of that, we find the acreage of public lands increasing rather than decreasing. Wyoming is especially anxious to do that, and the stockmen are, to get these lands out of the way; to get them into private ownership; to get them away so they do not have to be leased for their nuisance value. The State legislature has prepared the way, and invited these lands into private |