best thing to do is to face it in the most practical manner that can be devised. In order to do this we must study what has been found practical in other countries, and through their experience perhaps we can devise a law for our situation here. While we may have some conditions that do not prevail in other countries, through the study of their leasing systems we can get something worth while. I think the grazing lands should be put under one head. You can not have too many bosses and make business successful. It would be impractical to have the Forest Department handle one department and put the other some place else. It must all come under one head.

Mr. MCLEAN. At a number of hearings it has been suggested that we would all be better off if we had one or two laws passed making it a Federal offense to in any way injure the watersheds or the forests or grazing areas and then turn the business over to the stockmen themselves and let them run it to suit themselves. Answering one of Mr. Nash's statements, there has been no one asking that the Forest Service be done away with, or that any law be passed that would hamper the development of real homes in this or any other State, but there seemed to be a feeling that it was nothing short of criminal to allow and encourage the stranger to go on land where he couldn't possibly make a living. He not only loses his time and his money but comes out a "red" and hating the Government. He should be kept from homesteading when he can not do it profitably. Everyone has felt that the Forest Service is a good thing and everyone wants homes developed, but we do want reorganization of the Forest Service and a board of appeals that stockmen could appeal to when they felt an injustice was done them.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Stanfield's idea is along the same line as Bicknell's; that this land should be leased for a term of years for not more than onehalf cent per acre or about one-quarter cent per acre for land not as good. You can see from the report of the Senate committee that Stanfield doesn't agree with Greeley, Barnes, and Rachford. They admitted during this investigation that there was no law whereby there is a right to graze the national forest. There are only about 50 words in the law establishing the national forest that says anything about grazing.

Mr. CLINTON. I want to make some reply to Mr. Nash regarding the stabilization of the livestock industry. Had we had a leasing bill enacted about 20 years ago, at a nominal rental for the land, we never would have suffered the crash we did following the war. The thing really responsible for the depreciation of values and the thing that destroyed the financial condition of the stockman was the extensive investment he had to make in order to protect his range and which never should have been made. To go back further, I was in business when the forest reserve was created. When the range was created they gave us two or three or five years in which to acquire real estate commensurate with our range holdings. In other words, making farmers out of sheepmen. I never saw a sheepman that was a good farmer. We had to acquire land. It caused us to take from our sheep industry more money than we had in sheep to put in ranches and range land to protect our business. Our failure to enact this same sort of legislation 20 years ago is more responsible for the condition of business to-day than anything else.

Regarding the proposed legislation, would say that as far as I know the most successfully regulated public domain in the world is in Australia. They have the most workable system for controlling the public lands of any other country. The conditions in the States vary more or less, but if I were undertaking to frame some legislation, and had in view leasing rather than purchasing the land, I would find out exactly what they are doing in Australia and in other countries and modify the system, where necessary, to meet conditions we have here. If we disregard what has been done in other countries, we will be 10 years longer accomplishing definite satisfactory results. We should profit by the experience of stockmen in other countries. One of you said that in Nevada they are undertaking to follow a system similar to Australia's and it looks to me like they are starting with a well-grounded experience, and I think that is really what we should do here. There are probably 50 different opinions in this room as to what we should do with a bill to frame to take care of this trouble. The Australian system has worked out there 25 or 50 years and worked successfully. Find out what they are doing and modify it to meet the conditions here, where they are not the same as they are there, and at least for the first 10 years I wouldn't allow anything in that bill that would require us to pay rental for those lands beyond the

cost of administration. Considering the prices of the period in which we are beginning to operate these lands, the rental charged should be confined entirely to the cost of administration. Whether those lands should be administered by the Forest Service or by a separate body, I should say by the sepa rate body. I have no criticism of the Forest Service. They have improved much during the last few years in the administration of the reserve, and I believe stockmen are better satisfied than they have been since it was started. Mr. NASH. I just want to make my position clear. I asked the questions I did to bring out discussion. I want to make it clear that I am for stabilization of the grazing law and for a law to give men assurance how long they will be there. The point I was trying to make, however, was that most of our troubles came from overspeculation. I am informed that the chairman of this congressional committee speculated beyond the limits of any ordinary man and had at the time of this trouble over 100,000 head of sheep grazing right on our forest reserve. I believe the public range should be divided more equally among citizens of the State and other States who wish to come in here and graze stock. I don't believe because old users who have used rights for a great number of stock should sit on those old rights and deprive citizens who are developing the State of any right whatever. I don't think, however, that some farmer who is not accustomed to grazing stock should be permitted to go in and make a failure to the detriment of other men who could succeed, or that one person should be permitted to monopolize the whole range. Mr. Bacon doesn't favor the Forest Service taking over the range. This thought came to me. Much of the range now in the forest reserve is also timbered. There may be a conflict of administration if we attempt to have two administrations cover the same land; therefore, it is necessary to make some careful investigation of how that would work out. Take Idaho, for instance, the northern sections of the State are practically all timber. The question of control there is minor. It should be in the forest reserve and there is very little territory suitable for grazing. When you come to the territory south of the Salmon to avoid conflict in that you must step rather carefully. I don't want the impression to get out that I am not in favor of stabilization. I am trying to bring out the point that we all went hog wild during the war and that was largely the cause of our late troubles, but I believe this thing should be stabilized, and I agree that many credits were impaired because there was no stabilization.

Mr. BICKNELL. My idea was this: It would be necessary to maintain the forest reserve, but it would not be in a practical position to handle the public domain, as it isn't composed of practical men of practical knowledge of what they would handle. If the Forest Service was eliminated from handling the grazing proposition it would eliminate fully 50 per cent or more of the necessary employees in the Forest Service. It would be more economical and give better results in every way if the grazing proposition could be handled by practical stockmen. That is what we want. I can not see where it can be handled in any other way than by practical men if you expect to get practical results. As the land suitable for grazing predominates over the acreage in forests, I think the grazing proposition should handle the whole thing. I should say 75 to 80 per cent of the entire grazing area of this State is composed of land suitable only for grazing and has no timber on it to speak of. Therefore it would take very few people to look after the forest reserve proposition. There may be some conflicting interest, but that could be eliminated by working in cooperation. We could have certain rules which must be observed and I think they would get along together.

The CHAIRMAN. In his report Greeley said the Forest Department had been trying to get the public domain under their supervision, but on account of the jealousy between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture that never could be accomplished, and in this bill the lands adjacent to the forest would be put under the Forest Department and the public domain under the Secretary of Interior, so it would make an enlarged forest, and then the other land, whatever it might be, would be under the Secretary of the Interior. That would make it worse than ever. We would probably have the spring and fall range under one head and the summer and winter range under another head.

Mr. BICKNELL. How would you determine who would have the right to lease

this land?

Mr. BACON. I think that is a thing that must be studied out.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you do like they do in the Indian reservation-put it up at auction?

Mr. BACON. I don't think that would be a good plan. Some people would have to pay more than it is worth. There must be a plan studied out that would be fair and give the man who had been using the range or owned or leased adjacent land the prior right.

The CHAIRMAN. Who would you have say who was entitled to the range

now.

Mr. BICKNELL. The people who want to use it. If you are capable of using it to advantage you should have the right to use it.

The CHAIRMAN. Who should say who the present users are? The Department of Agriculture or somebody must say who they are.

Mr. BICK NELL. That might be regulated by forming grazing associations. The CHAIRMAN. One livestock man in Nevada proposes that this be put under the Forest Service and that livestock associations select two men who shall be appointed by the governor as State officers and act in conjunction with the forest officers and have equal say with the forest officers as to who would be entitled to this land.

Mr. BICKNELL. Why ask politicians to appoint these men?

The CHAIRMAN. To give them State authority. Livestock associations would name these men and then the governor would appoint them as State officials to work with the forest department on these questions.

Mr. BICKNELL. The administration of these things should be confined as nearly as possible to the users and people practically interested. I can not

see where men growing timber has any right to supervise a sheepman's business.

Mr. MCLEAN. We had one suggestion that this land should be adjudicated as water rights are.

(At this time the chairman had Mr. McLean read the resolutions which had been adopted at previous meetings and asked for discussion.)

Mr. ANDY LITTLE. It seems to me you are going to have too many problems to get around. The fact is, most of the homesteaders come into the range and takes it up for speculation. He should have to stay there and make a living and not be there simply for speculation. He comes in there with no intention of making a home and wants $10 or $15 an acre from the sheepman who has been using that range.

I am against the supervision of the Forest Department. There are enough forest rangers now. I don't want any more. We should have some way of leasing the range from the Government. I think we should be allowed to handle the land as we see fit under the supervision of some department to see that we don't destroy the grazing or the watersheds.

Mr. MCDERMOTT. I think there is nothing more I can add to what has already been said. It strikes me that the consensus of opinion at this time is probably in favor of a leasing proposition, and the thought strikes me, in connection with that, that we would get away from some conflict if we could hire the lands we graze under a long-term lease. I presume it should carry with it a provision that if we go in and lease a certain part of the range we are given to understand where our boundaries are and it would be up to us to feed according to our judgment, and in case of trespass we would have a case against the trespasser the same as when a man runs his stock on our lands and that it would work out in that way. I have no rocks to throw at the Forest Service. I could offer some criticism of the way they spend our money, as they aren't getting much good from it. I think Mr. Clinton's suggestion that we study the policies adopted by people in our countries is worth while. If we know how they handle their range conditions it would no doubt be a help to us in guiding us to make proper suggestions to Congress. In order to get anywhere there are two or three things we must consider. We must recognize the rights of everyone in the East and others who are interested in this grazing land. We all know that the reclamation people claim they have an interest because by certain abuse of the range we destroy the watershed when it could be protected.

The mining interests certainly have something to say if we were not considering their rights. I am inclined to think that a bill that would carry with it a provision for us to lease the grazing lands and, as far as the grazing of our stock is concerned, make us accountable for its proper use would be the

43213-25-PT 10-13

best thing. We would know for a period of 10 years where we were going. I think the price should be nominal. I think that is more or less secondary now, though. I believe if those eastern Congressmen had any idea of what it means to get this grass from the time you leave the feed ground until you get back they would have a better idea of what the proposition should be. I don't think any of them are ever held up with a chapparal mountain side trying to get sheep or cattle through, and no conception of the loss incurred as compared with eastern cattle run under the fence. I feel after this meeting we will be in better position to form definite opinions. At present I believe the proposition crystallizes toward leasing proposition, avoiding as much conflict as possible. By all means, get practical men to represent us. We need the Forest Department, and it is getting better; but we all know they have had men in there handling big stock propositions telling us when and where to go, and they knew nothing of stock.

PARIS MARTIN. I have lived in the State a good many years, and no one who has lived in Idaho can be disinterested in the range question. I wish to give my idea as for whatever value it might have. It seems to me before we get too far into details that it might be well to consider the fundamentals. Mr. McDermott has stated, it seems, it is coming somewhat to a leasing system; but I believe the time is coming, if not already here, when we are going to recognize the difficulty and disadvantages of having the authority concerning the disposition of our lands too far away from the people. I have no objection to make to the Forest Service. It is doing some good, but that is no argument against the fact that we should have the disposition of these State lands in our own hands. I have had much to do with contests over range rights in forest reserve and in State lands, and I have found that as a general thing you get more satisfaction when you deal with your own people than by following a set rule and having some authority in some distant place have the right of decision when it doesn't know the conditions like the people right here at home. There has been the suggestion that we take into consideration the conditions in other countries, but certain conditions prevail here unlike conditions in any other country. Before we pass a bill that chains us to a leasing system we should get things turned over to the State of Idaho. It may be if we actually want this land turned over to the State, which is the proper way to handle the grazing land, our resolution should ask for it at this time. There would be some criticism of the State land department if the land was turned over to the State, but I don't believe as much as in the department and bureaus that are already in charge at Washington.

Mr. McLEAN. We have many stockmen who winter in Oregon and then come through Idaho and summer some place else. Some range their stock in three States. The opinion has seemed to be against State control, because there would be three different governments to deal with. Our idea is to simplify the management rather than complicate it by putting it under two or more sets of officials with as many sets of rules.

PARIS MARTIN. We have laws here in the State regarding the disposition of our water. Water in the rivers run from Idaho into Oregon, and when it is necessary to make a law that has to do with relations in Oregon we pass a law of reciprocity, but don't give away water without due consideration and proper thought on the matter, and that is the answer to this question you brought up. It seems the East holds these lands as a sort of method of remuneration for something which has happened in the past. As a matter of fact, it is ours, and has been for a long time. Idaho should take its own and govern its own by people who know conditions and know all the circumstances, and I think the Idaho people should ask for what they want and get the State lands in their own hands.

Mr. BROWN. I agree that nobody can manage our public domain as well as the people in Idaho. I have been on the public range 25 years, and, as far as I can make out, all the grievances are not in the forest reserve, but most of the grievances came because the people from Washington are unsatisfactory to home people. I don't know as the present laws governing land here would be satisfactory if all the public land in the State were taken over by the State, but laws can be made whereby they will be satisfactory. I am thoroughly convinced that the people of Idaho, if they have the opportunity, should take this land themselves.

Mr. TAYLOR. There is absolutely no chance to get the lands turned back to the State. The people of the East regard it as a valuable asset and always will. We talked of putting a reservoir in the corner of Yellowstone Park, and

you know what a furore it caused. The minute you ask for these lands you are in trouble. What you must do is to consider the best service you can get and then go after that. It is also a matter of what you can get and not altogether just what you want.

Mr. GUEST. What domain we have in the State should be added to the State, but, as the gentleman says, we may never be able to get that, and I would like to see this meeting go on record asking Congress to repeal all these regulations the stockmen are dealing under through the Forest Service, and let Congress pass laws regulating the handling of livestock in the public domain and the forest reserve. As far as creating a new judiciary is concerned, we have courts already established, and it seems to me we should have a right if we are being damaged to hire an attorney and get before the courts as other people do. There is no necessity for creating another bureau or a board of appeals.

I move that the livestock interests of Idaho ask their Representatives in Congress to try to put through a law repealing the rules and regulations of this Forest Service and pass a law regulating the livestock interests on the forest reserve and public domain, and that we have the right of appeal to the courts, and don't need a new judiciary.

(Motion failed for lack of a second.)

Mr. BICKNELL. I move the adoption of the resolutions as read by Mr. McLean. Mr. GUEST. I would favor the resolution with the exception of the board of appeals.

Mr. BACON. As I understand it, the board of appeals is composed of representative livestock men directly interested so we would have more chance with such a board than we would have in court. The court probably wouldn't understand our troubles nearly as well as they would. I agree with Mr. Little that the public domain in our country is now being taken largely by speculators who hope to sell their homesteads to the stockmen. It is that way all through the country. It is getting so you can't cross from one Government section to another without crossing a man's land, and we can't do that without paying for it. We have a trail; we buy a part of it. On the other side part of the land is homesteaded.

When it comes to who shall control this land I don't see how we can get along without a board of appeals.

Mr. GUEST. I have watched the cost of production in the sheep business mount from 90 cents to about $9, about the present cost now. Most of you

who talked agreed that we had too many bureaus and too many people to deal with. If we create a board of appeals, somebody will have to pay for it. Naturally that will be the people who are being benefited. We already have established institutions to protect our rights, and I think if our troubles are properly put to them and if we have been injured or are suffering an injustice that they will give us all that is fair and equitable and that resolution suits me all right if we can incorporate something that will eliminate the board of appeals. I see no necessity for it. I think the board of appeals might be inclined to give men something they aren't entitled to. I believe a man impartial to both sides is going to give stockmen a fair deal and the other interests just as well. I am opposed to that board of appeals.

Mr. BACON. I second the motion to adopt the resolutions as they have been read.

(Motion carried and resolutions adopted.)

At this time the chairman called to the attention of the meeting the fact that the work in connection with this matter was taking considerable money and urged that all the men in the association pay their dues and use every effort to secure additional membership. He also urged that all members join the national association and keep their dues paid.

Mr. BICKNELL. I believe if the proposition is properly presented the stockmen Over the State will give the matter their support. (Whereupon the meeting adjourned.)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE MEETING HELD AT MOUNTAIN HOME, IDAHO, JUNE 23, 1925

Meeting in charge of F. S. Gedney, chairman, who introduced Mr. Donald McLean. Mr. McLean explained briefly what had taken place at the other meetings and asked for discussion from those present.