Washington feel as much at liberty as if they were over in Washington at a Washington meeting.

Mr. H. C. BRYSON. Mr. Householder, Mr. McLean, and the Washington men who are here went into these matters and I took into consideration all the data and all reports Mr. McLean has in addition to information I already had on the subject and I feel the resolutions adopted at the various Idaho meetings are consistent and to the point and cover everything you can expect to cover and the legislation you can expect to get and for the purpose of getting the matter before the meeting, I move that these resolutions as read by Mr. McLean be adopted.

(Motion seconded by President Steen.)

Mr. HALSEY. Some people might think it might be possible to make the grazing lands we have in this section pay without the use of summer range, but I can not see any way. I don't think there is any way that the grazing areas of this section of the country here can be utilized to make the land pay the taxes even if you haven't got some way to get away from it during the summer season and use it for winter range. The other day a man bought some pasture land and came to me and asked how he could make that land pay, but I didn't say anything. After a week or 10 days he came and asked me again if there was any way that he could make it pay. I told him I didn't think there was any way to make it pay without summer range in connection. I would like to see the homesteading stopped for the protection of the homesteader and his family and for the good of our citizenship, but if the Idaho people think best to leave that, all right I think this public domain should go under State control. I think the States that control and protect the interest of the people on this land using it and the people that are policing this land should have the control of the land and whatever income it might bring. Only one feature in leasing, it goes in large areas and crowds out some small users. The average State land to lease costs too much, but if we can get the cost down I feel that is where it belongs. What it would bring should go to our educational institutions, and have less drawing on the taxable property.

Mr. BRYSON. Oregon has a law that where transient livestock in the State for a portion of the year for grazing on public land is subject to personal property tax the same as other property and the tax where sheep are ranged in more than one county shall be pro-rated. In the State of Washington, the 1st day of March you are subject to tax. You let the public domain revert to the State and belong to the State and you are subject to full tax in the State of Oregon for sheep already taxed in Idaho where they are owned. Men ranging in three States would have a prohibitive tax.

President STEEN. We have been very liberal with outside stock. We assess for the portion of the year for which they are in our State, and Oregon treats our stock the same way, but Washington will not. If they go over there, they are assessed if they are there only 15 minutes and anyone finds it out.

(There appearing to be no further discussion, the question was put. Question carried and resolutions adopted.)

Mr. HOUSEHOLDER. If anyone could make a living on a piece of land, I have no objection to his homesteading it, but I think the Forest Service would take care of that, if it were given to them to control, if it can be shown that it is better adapted to farming than grazing. The present Forest Service in many cases has tested these lands to see if they are suitable to farming, not only tested the soil but planted different kinds of grass seeds and watched them. I know in Bear Valley and Payette Reserve a colony moved in and the forest people fought those people until they finally moved out, because it was not agricultural land. In summer it looked good. They cut some hay in the summer, but were snowed in in the winter for a period of about six or seven months, and there was no school and no advantages of any kind. The Forest Service discouraged that in every way possible and asked them to move out. As I remember, they took court action against them and had them put off. The repeal of the homestead law wouldn't interfere with the reclamation work of any kind if any could be handled. It would not interfere with irrigation systems of any kind.

(There appearing to be no further discussion, the meeting adjourned.)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE MEETING HELD AT PAYETTE, SATURDAY, JUNE 20

Mr. Householder presided as chairman, explained the purpose of the meeting, and introduced Donald McLean, who reviewed the testimony taken at other meetings.

GEORGE NESBITT. From the thought and study we have given this question there is no one, I think, who has any definite plan that will be feasible. From experience, we had a meeting a few years ago, when the Forest Service called together at Ogden representatives of the 11 Western States for the purpose of trying to revise the regulations on the forest reserve. Some of the men conceived the idea of having these representatives get together two or three days before time for this meeting with Colonel Greeley and then go before him with ideas we agreed on. In getting together, we men from the different States found conditions were entirely different in our different States. No State had a similar condition, and we fought day and night working on the different problems, and finally got together, with the exception of the State of Utah. They had conditions very different from the other States and couldn't agree with any plan that suited the rest of us, and when we went to Colonel Greeley we were unanimous in what we wanted, except Utah. In matters like this, when so many States come together with different problems, the men that represent you may not be able to get just what you want to get, but must give and take. There is no use going before the congressional committee unless you are unanimous. Colonel Greeley was the worst surprised man when we designated one man to say what we wanted and to do all the talking. Metcalf, of Nevada, was the man, and he was an able one. Colonel Greeley finally said if we could agree to an advance in the grazing fees that he would grant every concession we asked for, but we didn't feel that we could agree with him, so we didn't get anything, That was three years ago and the revised manual has never been printed. It provided for 10-year permits, and in some places they have issued 10-year permits, as they were supposed to do. Colorado is one of the few States where they have 10-year permits, but there are none in this State.

Mr. MCLEAN. Yes; there are a few in Idaho now. Colonel Greeley was finally forced to print these revisions in the Congressional Record, and there are some 10-year permits here.

Mr. NESBITT. I didn't know there were any. I attended a convention of Oregon Cattle and Horse Growers' Association and Cavanaugh said they hadn't had a copy of the revised manual, and he didn't think it had been printed. He said there was no change he knew of. He is assistant district forester. I haven't seen a copy if they have it out.

Mr. MCLEAN. It is not printed. It is just in the Congressional Record.

Mr. NESBITT. On the public-lands question in some parts of the State of Idaho they are vitally interested, and others are disinterested. In places most of the public lands had been homesteaded and no range left, and in other places quite a lot of it is left. The people aren't coming out and taking the interest I think they would in this question. It was put up by some of the congressional committee that the revenue derived from these public lands should go to the States. The forest fee, a portion of it, is divided among the schools in Counties forests are in, and that eliminates a number of counties in Idaho. They all have public land. For school purposes, if they are going to have a fee for this grazing, the State should get it instead of the Government, and we should keep it at home. This is of vital interest to every taxpayer.

Now we come to the question of having a right to fence on the forest reserve and not on the public lands. We have the right to fence in a way. You got to build the fence and maintain it. At the end of 10 years it becomes the property of the forest reserve. They claim it depreciates in value every year and at the end of 10 years isn't worth anything. If you build and maintain a fence, repairing it every year, it should be in very good condition at the end of 10 years; but they don't figure that way. From the talks I have heard, the opinion I have formed is that unless we are able to find some way of getting our differences arranged different from what it is on the Forest Service that we don't want the public domain in that jurisdiction.

Mr. MCLEAN. Then you are for reorganization of the Forest Service?

Mr. NESBITT. Absolutely. This man Cavanaugh admitted to me and he is the first forest officer who ever would-the other day in talking to him I told him the policy of the Forest Service was to protect the timber interests, and that their men were all graduates of forestry schools and knew nothing about

stock interests. They are not educating anyone to handle livestock, and the people telling you how to handle stock are graduates of forestry schools and know nothing along the line of livestock. Colonel Greeley made a statement a few days ago that he thought they should have livestock men to handle the livestock industry. That is the first time he ever admitted that. Timber men can't handle livestock.

Another thing, I think we are vitally interested, and I think people generally should be. Colonel Greeley has a hobby of wanting to make a playground of the national forest and exclude grazing entirely. He wants a good playground for the easterner without regard of the grazing interests. The livestock industry on the forest is paying three and one-fourth million for grazing, and according to Greeley's figures the cost of administering is less than $170,000. Congress appropriates around six million, so the livestock industry is paying over half the bill. They are spending this money more on roads and trails than anything else, and as they build roads they exclude the livestock and it becomes harder and harder to handle stock all the time. In working to determine the people who are using the forests, I think the livestock as essential as any other crop. We can not raise hay unless we have something to eat it. We can not all go into the dairying business. If we did the business wouldn't pay either. I think if the people will get together and be unanimous there is no question but what we will get what we want. Lack of cooperation is where we have failed in the past. Everybody wants to leave it up to the other fellow, too. Most of the men who should be here to-day are putting up hay and feel that they can not spare the time; but if they expect to continue in business they are going to find themselves left out if they don't give a litle time.

The statement was made a short time ago that in the 25 years of handling the Forest Service they have failed one way in their handling it. The Forest Service was created for timber first, and in their transplanting they have not reforested any areas to any great extent with all the money they have used. Through regulation of the Forest Service the grazing has gotten better, not through their management so much as through the fact that it isn't grazed two or three times during the season. I think we are 25 years late in starting to build up the feed on the public lands. I go on it and feed, and when I leave another man comes along and it is tramped out more than it is eaten out. It has come to a time when we have to conserve what feed we have in order to raise stock enough to eat what forage we can grow in the valleys.

Mr. HOUSEHOLDER. Don't forget that the agricultural interests of the West are dependent on livestock. We have the experience of the East to go by. When you get East, if you sow grain or wheat, you have to put in 2,500 to 3,000 pounds of fertilizer. We have to raise a certain amount of hay to keep up the fertility of our land, and when we raise hay we have to have stock to consume it. Another thing, we are so far from market our grass and hay have to be fed here, so don't forget that the stock industry is very essential to agricultural interests. The more stock we produce, the more benefits the agricultural interests will receive from it.

Mr. NESBITT. I think Mr. McLean spoke of different organizations getting into conflict over legislation that is introduced. I think that is from lack of knowledge of the other man's interests. All the organizations should centralize on what they think is their needs and then work for that. If we don't have cooperation of all organizations, we aren't going to get anything. As I look at this question, it is just as vital to the agricultural interests and to the business man as to the stockman. The business man makes his living from the farmer and stockman largely, so he should take an interest, too. If all the organizations would get together and thresh these things out, it would be better. We don't know the other fellow's troubles because we don't attend meetings like this one. We wait until the last minute and begin to wire that. we don't want this or we don't want that because it will ruin the country and spoil everything. Good legislation is often defeated in that way.

Mr. MCKNIGHT. I guess I am like the fellow that got into the right church and the wrong pew. I am not a stockman at the present time and I am a representative in a way of the Federal Government. I am in the land office at Vale and I would feel it was out of place to undertake to influence you people in your decisions either one way or the other. I have not been a stockman for three years but was for 30 years before then, and was president of the Oregon Wool Growers three years and this very subject you are discussing we discussed a long time ago and formed opinions. I remember one time I went to a meeting of Oregon Wool Growers and I was asked to make a talk

on this subject of management and control of the public domain. I had my ideas that a leasing proposition was the best idea for the stockman and I wrote a speech to that effect and it looked good before I got down there. When I got down there Stanfield and a number of the fellows got around me and said, "For God's sake cut that out; it won't go," so I changed it and made a different speech. I thought at that time that the control in some manner of the public domain was the right thing. There are many sides to this question. You are now approaching a question that has confronted the Federal Government for a long time and I heard in the arguments some censure of the Federal Government. I can not agree with those ideas. The Federal Government is doing the best it can for us all. It can not do better with all of our conflicting interests. Think of the conflicting interests throughout this Nation. Stop to think when you take a man from the North, one from the South, one from the East, and one from the West; how different they are. Our President speaks the Yankee dialect, a language almost foreign to our people; the northerner another. Us fellows get a little Indian in ours and the southerner a little coon. With all of the conflicting interests, think of the Government undertaking to serve us. There is one thing you must take into consideration and that is go back into ancient history and come down through the line and you will find the civilization of the earth has been made by the pastoral people. Then come along the agricultural people. The agricultural people always crowded the livestock industry back. So it always has been and I suppose always will be. In speaking of conflicts, you people right here have them yourselves. We people can not agree. We are having trouble with forest men and commercial organizations because we do not think they recognize our industry as they should do. This is a Cooperative proposition. You take from the Federal Government clear down into State, county, and city government and they must be cooperative. Every representative interest in business must give and take and even give considerably more than they take. That is what you have to look at.

I heard something about priority. In the first place your national forests were withdrawn to preserve the timber. The privilege of grazing livestock was only extended to us as a side issue. Under Roosevelt the forests were withdrawn for the purpose of reforestation. They had an idea they could reforest them. We didn't believe they could. We told them to try and see if they could start new alfalfa in an old alfalfa field. Ask the orchardist if he could start a new tree in the place where an old one has just been. Neither can you reforest these forests. The fact is the forests are ripe for harvest and until they are taken off you can not start new timber. The Forest Service have found out more or less about this after all the money they have spent. Then you come to the question of priority, and whether or not you should be given a life lease. I see from Oregon a young man from Scotland, another from Spain. I was born in Oregon in an early day when there was much public domain. I used it and other men came along and claimed and took it. The question comes to me if I have a prior right over these young men. Who is to determine that? These young men are among the best citizens in Oregon. They are garnering the wealth that would otherwise be wasted and are putting it in every avenue of business and are an asset to the country and the question comes up of priority, would I have a better right than they? If it hadn't been for the open public land they probably never could have started in business. If it had been necessary for them to buy land and buy out some other outfit, they probably couldn't have done it. The Government of the United States recognizes that fact and have kept the land open to these settlers. Speaking of the homesteaders: The Federal Government, first, to encourage the settlement of the West gave what was a donation land claim. As it became scarcer they cut it down again and again and got it down to a small tract of land. As the more desirable lands were taken they enlarged the homestead. When they saw a man couldn't make a living on 160 acres they made it 320 acres and then made what was known as the stock-raising homestead of 640 acres. They felt a man could take this up and make a living. They don't require any cultivation. Grazing carried that homestead to patent. They have had in mind to raise some of the requirements on that and allow this land to go to patent. They have another plan and that is to put land up for sale. We have many applications to buy these lands but it has always been the policy to put a high valuation on them. They are inspected by a field man and a value put on them and they have been putting it high. Some people advocated

putting it cheap so people could acquire title. There is an argument not very strongly brought out here. You find most agricultural people where taxes have been so high it is forcing them out of business. All over the Nation we hear of people leaving lands. It isn't only on homesteads, but everywhere. Taxation is the big question in this country. It always was. Many people advocate the placing of those lands at a minimum price so title will be acquired and they will go on the tax rolls. Then they will assist these people in carrying the burden of tax. It might be worked out in a leasing proposition to apply moneys in that way. That might be possible, to give man a life lease on those lands and put them at a lot rate so as just to bear expenses. I am afraid, though, your eastern Representatives and Senators will say that they own an interest in those lands that they are a part of the public lands and that they will in that way derive no benefit. They think anyway that you are a lot of get-rich-quick fellows. They have always thought that. There is a thing you people want to look out for. As I said in the start I am not in a position to take sides or to advocate any plan. I am in a way a representative of the Federal Government and it would be out of place for me to do that but I am glad to be here and to hear your arguments and anything in the world I can do without coming out and taking sides I would be glad to do.

Mr. McLEAN. Secretary Jardine said the other day, "I hope to train the East not to assume that the western man who is an as high class citizen as there is, and who has raised his family on these lands, isn't as interested in the development and proper use of the public lands as some little young eastern forest-school graduate."

The

Mr. HOUSEHOLDER. Mr. McKnight brought up another question about the sentiment of the East in regard to the free range, and that they claim that because it is a public resource they are entitled to some of the benefits of it. Just like the ocean. It is a public resource, but if you want to be benefited by that resource you have to move to the ocean. The same way here. eastern people seem to think that we are sitting on top of the world and that they should have some interest. I think they should have to come out here and take a whirl at it. If you want as low rates as water rates you have to move down there on the coast. Same way when eastern people figure we have something they should have some benefit from; it is up to them to come out here and try it.

Mr. A. W. DRINKWINE. It is hard for me to express an opinion, as I am not posted as I should be. It is only in the past week that I have taken any notice of it, so I am not in a position to make any public talk.

Mr. HOUSEHOLDER. Now is the time to express yourself. You live on the range with public land near you and you no doubt know your needs, and this should be settled in some way so the man who lives there and has a few stock on the range should have an equal or preferred right. In regard to this priority right, some get the idea of that a little wrong. Priority right, I think, would mean the man who has used it and is now in use of it at the present time, not some man who has used it 40 years ago. An allotment system that would come into effect at the present time would have to be worked out. The present user should be taken care of first. That would be the right idea of it. There is a little Government land where I am. I would like to have first chance at it, as I have been using it and paying taxes and lease fees on all the deeded land around it.

Mr. PENCE. I think it is high time to do something. I thought 25 years ago was the time something like this should be done. In looking over the country I find we have quite a little public land left and think we should do something with it. The priority right doesn't mean so much as qualifications. You must work in harmony with the hay grower and the farmer before becoming a qualified leaseholder. If you allow Swift and other companies to come in and lease at high prices, more than the bona fide settler can afford to pay, there is something wrong. A man should be made to show where he is interested in the country and the raising of feed other than grazing feed to avoid tramp outfits coming along and taking the feed away from the people that should own it. The priority right-I have been here quite a while myself. I was raised in Payette Valley and have run stock most of my life. We feel we have been here quite a while and at the same time this country doesn't all belong to us. We have to give and take. The priority right is for the man who qualifies. If he can't quality, you want to look out for him, for he isn't what you want in the country.