By and by the time came that the early pioneers had enjoyed their full period of the free use of the adjacent public domain and had had to give it up to the later homeseeker who had come in and filed upon it under existing land laws.

But the pioneer had been fully and liberally recompensed for the loss of the open range, by the increased value the settlement and improvements had brought to his lands and the favorable prices he had received for the lands he no longer found it necessary to farm.

He had had his pie and had eaten it." He was no longer dependent upon the use of the public lands. His lands were so fertile, and the demand for his products so strong, that he had gradually turned his efforts to the tilling and improving of his own land, in preference to using the open public range. The very nature of things made it not only possible but highly profitable to do this.

He had never been compelled to pay to a bureaucratic government hundreds of thousands of dollars for the privilege of letting his cows and pigs eat the grass and acorns from the public lands that would have otherwise been entirely wasted.

He had never been confronted with the proposition of the Government commercializing the grazing on the public areas for the purpose of fattening the National Treasury at the expense of the frontier settler.

He had never been handed the "sop" of having part of the fees for such commercialized grazing returned to their districts in lieu of allowing such grazing land to find its way through natural channels into regular and taxable ownership.

Those pioneers of the East were fortunate in that they were permitted to enjoy the world accustomed and nation-wide privilege of the free and unrestricted use of the public lands before our bureaucratic Government got into the habit of profiteering from them.

Those same early pioneers-God bless their memory, for in their day they were the very backbone of our country-were fortunate in another way, in that they were never afflicted with the cure and iniquity of double taxation, caused by, after first paying their full and equitable share of all taxes, then being compelled to create a fund in the National Treasury by paying a fee for grazing the unoccupied public lands, 25 per cent of which would be returned and applied locally in such manner as to apply on and reduce the taxes of all the local people.

And as the front moved on toward the West and left them behind, those early settlers of the East were ever satisfied. They had had their day of the open range. Blessed with fertile soil, abundant rain, favorable climate, and convenient markets, they no longer needed the open range, and they knew and appreciated that the later settlers farther to the West would need, and would have to have, the same range privileges that they of the East had enjoyed, in order to build up their country.

It is not those of the blood of the sturdy pioneer who first settled the East that are asking for the commercializing of our mountain peaks, our snow-drift ridges, our "Rocky Mountains," our sagebrush hills, and our desert plains of the West. Far be it from us to accuse the noble sons of the grand old New England States or those of the Middle West of any such chicanery! This movement originated and is being fostered in the minds of the autocratic branch of the bureaucratic Department of Forestry, accentuated spasmodically by an occasional misguided politician, who invariably knows very little or nothing of the actual conditions of the West.

And now we respectfully invite your earnest consideration to another age, to another generation of pioneers, to the early settlers of the Rocky Mountains, to what is known to-day as the 11 public-land States, made up largely from that district officially listed for so many years as "America's worthless desert." To the men who first settled and reclaimed these narrow valleys adjacent to these mountain ranges that now constitute the forest reserves; to the men who built roads and trails and bridges, and put out timber fires on these areas, many long years before the Bureau of Forestry was created; to the latest and greatest of God's creation, the Rocky Mountain American pioLeer!

These pioneer settlers of the West have not had the large areas of fertile and tillable lands, the long growing seasons, the warm rains, and favorable climates as did the early settlers of the East.

Ours was from the beginning a very difficult agricultural problem. Situated a mie or more above sea level, with the attendant extreme climates, short

growing seasons, unfertile lands, and consisting largely of sagebrush hills and sandy, dry deserts.

No class of pioneers ever needed the free use of the adjacent public ranges as much as do the settlers of these western preserve infested" 11 public-land States.

There is no reason, no custom, no established precedent, and no law justifying or authorizing the commercialization of the grazing privileges on any of the unoccupied public domain, and it should not be done.

There should be no discrimination against the pioneer settler of the West as compared to the pioneer settler of the East.

If it is found that the cost of administration of the reserved public lands of the West is higher than it was of the unreserved public lands of the East, the difference should form the basis for present grazing fees, with due consideration of the many advantages that unrestricted lands afford over restricted reserved lands.

Cost of administration of the national forests should not include construction of roads and highways for other use than grazing.

The timber business should bear the cost of roads, etc., constructed for its use and convenience.

The summer home industry, which has no practical or useful place upon the grazing areas of the public domain, should at least be required to stand the cost of roads and bridges leading to and from its summer vacation centers.

In view of the foregoing facts and numerous others that could be stated, many of which have been submitted to your committee recently by other users of the public lands, we are unalterably opposed to the so-called Rachford plan, purporting, as it does, to fix grazing charges for livestock upon the national forests upon the basis of what is being paid for the use of privately owned lands more or less adjacent to the forests, for the reason that longer and more unrestricted use of the private lands is afforded and that in the main such private lands control watering places and considerable unoccupied unreserved public lands, and for the further reason that the Rachford plan purposely proposes to profiteeringly commercialize the grazing upon the public lands.

We are also opposed to any plan of Federal control of the unreserved public grazing lands, for the reason that, due to the climatic and range conditions, it would be utterly impossible for any bureau or agency to successfully handle such an intricate range problem.

There is unlimited argument bearing out this statement, but we do not con sider it necessary to go into further detail at this time, only to state that the handling of the grazing on the national forests would be as boys' play in comparison.

These unreserved public lands should be classified. The portions that offer reasonable opportunity for practical irrigation should be left for such deveopment.

The districts having sufficient rainfall, suitable climatic and soil conditions for dry farming, should be left for such development, and the lands that are only suitable for grazing should be appraised and sold to the livestock men on 40 years' time, at a low price, and at a rate of interest in line with its low value.

That constitutes the statement of our association.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Noblitt, is the value of the holdings which you have in private ownership in any way dependent upon the right to graze within the forest reserve?

Mr. NOBLITT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Would an increase in the grazing fees affect the value of your private holdings in any way?

Mr. NOBLITT. Very materially.

The CHAIRMAN. If the increase in grazing fees were made to the extent of the full rental value of the lands grazed within the forest reserve, what effect would that have upon the value of your dependent properties?

Mr. NOBLITT. In the first place, Senator, it is hard to determine in my mind the full rental value of the forest-reserve ranges by comparison with the so-called private holdings. There is very much to be said in favor of private lands, for the reason that they are

available at all times, and unrestrictedly, and as stated in this statement that I have just read, they invariably have been selected because of their range advantage or because they control water holes or because they have some other desirable features. In the rougher parts of the country those selections have been made because they were not so rough, because they were available, because they were more thickly set with grazing forage. So that there is really no way to determine the value of two or three months' grazing upon the higher altitudes under restrictions, often accompanied by long narrow trails, as compared with that country or that range district that you may use at your pleasure.

The CHAIRMAN. Are these privately owned areas used in connection with the forest reserve?

Mr. NOBLITT. Yes, sir; they form a part of the necessary holdings for the handling of the outfits.

The CHAIRMAN. Would an increase in the grazing charge tend to affect the rental value of private holdings?

Mr. NOBLITT. It would reduce their commercial value generally. The CHAIRMAN. Are they, as a matter of fact, but a connecting link between the use of the public domain and the national forest? Mr. NOBLITT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know of any controversies ever having occurred between the administrators of the forest reserve and the users thereof?

Mr. NOBLITT. Yes; I think I probably know of my full share of those-minor and otherwise.

The CHAIRMAN. How are such controversies usually settled? By whom are they usually settled? I mean by whose decision.

Mr. NOBLITT. Well, I do not know of anyone that has any authority to write a decision, other than the officials of the forest reserve.

The CHAIRMAN. This is a controversy that we are referring to that may arise between the Forest Service and the user?

Mr. NOBLITT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you believe that there should be some disinterested trial agency, a court or tribunal, to which either party to the controversy might appeal for a disinterested decision?

Mr. NOBLITT. Yes, sir; I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you make any suggestion as to what kind of tribunal or agency or other arrangement should be provided for the settlement of irreconcilable controversies that may arise between the Forest Service and the users of the forest?

the

Mr. NOBLITT. I should think that should be left to a court decision,

same as any of the legal controversies that may come up.

The CHAIRMAN. That would be after some preliminary hearing before a commissioner or some one acting with judicial power in a preliminary hearing?

Mr. NOBLITT. I would think so. I would think it would be very proper to use the court only as a last resort. My thought is that many of the lesser grievances could be settled without having to go to court, and that we should have some sort of appeal where we could 20 for final adjudication.

The CHAIRMAN. Are the fees that are being charged now for grazing in the forest with which you are familiar in excess of the cost of administration?

43213-25-PT 11- -2

Mr. NOBLITT. I understand so.

The CHAIRMAN. And a percentage of that goes to the State or the county in which the forest is located?

Mr. NOBLITT. Twenty-five per cent of it is returned.

The CHAIRMAN. What fee, if any, do you think should be charged for the right to graze in the forest reserve?

Mr. NOBLITT. I think that, in the first place, the fees have been paid by the users of the national forest in this country the same as they were paid by the early settlers-to help to build up the country, to improve the property that was made taxable, and thereby bear the necessary expense of that part of the Government. I do not think that the early pioneer of the East paid as much in the long run as is being demanded of the pioneer user of the public lands at this time. Their advantages were greater. They were in a country that afforded opportunities that this country does not afford. They had possibilities of successful agriculture, and the rich, fertile soils naturally brought a rapidly increasing settlement and high values for their property. Let me illustrate that point from my own personal experience:

As a boy about six years old, my father moved into a district that was practically surrounded by unoccupied Government lands. Government lands were available at that date under the homestead law160 acres. There were four boys in our family. We set in first to clear the trees, to make room to build a house. We went on and cleared a summer garden and some additional acreage, turned our stock upon the open range, and hewed a living out of that thickly timbered district; and right from the beginning, of course, everything you would put into the ground would produce a profitable

crop.

I mention that to show the vast difference between those opportunities and that experience of mine is no exception taking it throughout the entire East-and the possibilities of this country. No such thing could be done to-day where we live. The reclaiming of our lands in this country requires capital and irrigation systems. Crops are very uncertain, and markets are far away. We have heavy freight rates that have to be considered in our selling price that the East did not have to contend with. The markets came to them; and so, while I contend that the pioneer paid his way, he was also recompensed when the time came for the later settlers to take away the remaining portion of the unoccupied land that he had used in building up his own property and that of the community.

The CHAIRMAN. To what extent are you dependent upon the use of the unreserved public domain? By that I mean the users of the forest reserve who belong to your association? Are they all dependent upon the public domain for a portion of the year.

Mr. NOBLITT. Yes, sir. Yes, I do not know of a stockman or farmer in the country that is not more or less, directly or indirectly, dependent upon not only the reserved public lands but the unreserved.

The CHAIRMAN. The two are used in conjunction?

Mr. NOBLITT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you familiar with the proposed general leasing law relating to the public domain, a bill that was proposed by the Interior Department in the last session of Congress?

Mr. NOBLITT. Can you give me the title and number of the bill, Senator?

The CHAIRMAN. No; it was the only bill on the subject that came from the Interior Department. It was known as the Interior Department and the Department of Agriculture general leasing law. Mr. NOBLITT. Introduced in the last session of Congress?

The CHAIRMAN. It was not introduced; it was presented to the Public Lands Committee.

Mr. NOBLITT. I may have read the bill, but I do not know that I ever had an opportunity to study it.

The CHAIRMAN. It appears in the first part of the hearings of this committee on the public land question. It was a bill providing for the leasing of all of the public domain for the purpose of grazing; first resolving the public domain into grazing districts, and then providing for the leasing of the area within the districts. Would you favor that or any other general leasing law, providing for the leasing of the unreserved public domain?

Mr. NOBLITT. I do not think such a law could be made practical in this intermountain country, in the so-called public lands_States, Senator. For instance, many of the livestock men that I know move their sheep from 80 to 150 miles back and forth across the country, getting them from winter to spring range, from spring to summer, from summer to fall, and back again to winter range. I can not imagine any system of leasing that could be worked out that would fit those conditions.

If the climate and other conditions were such that livestock could be handled within a comparatively compact area throughout even the larger part of the season such a scheme might be worked out, but under conditions as they exist, taking into consideration the numerous private land claims that would be encountered, my contention is and it is the opinion of all the men I have talked to as far back as this question has been agitated--that it would be utterly impossible to work out any satisfactory scheme. There is no comparison between this and any other country where such a plan has been worked out satisfactorily.

The CHAIRMAN. What change, if any, would you recommend as to the present administration of unreserved public domain?

Mr. NOBLITT. I am of the opinion, Senator, that if that question is let alone it will take care of itself. People will work it out as they have done in the past. I doubt very much if any improvement could be made in the present condition in that particular connection-I mean in connection with the unreserved, unoccupied public

range.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any overgrazing of the unreserved public

domain?

Mr. NOBLITT. I think there probably is in districts and under certain local and temporary conditions, but my observation, after having lived in this intermountain country for considerably over 30 years, is that the range is about as good to-day as it was when I came here, and in some instances better.

The CHAIRMAN. You have not noticed any depreciation?

Mr. NOBLITT. No. I think very little depreciation has existed; due to some crowding, local and temporary, benefits have accrued due to the interest that the grazers would take in that part of the