approximately 17,000,000 acres of public domain in this State will be entered and thus come into private ownership?

Mr. WILSON. I think the entries will continue, Congressman Winter, and are continuing. And much of it will eventually come into private ownership without a liberalization of the law, and a possible increase in acreage after it has been determined that there will be no more entered under the 640-acre homestead act.

Representative WINTER. Do you think it may be entered under more liberal laws to be passed in the future, but probably not under the present law?

Mr. WILSON. No, I think there will be considerably more of it entered under the present law. In my experience in the Southwest, where I worked for a cattle company for three years, I found that this settlement rather ran in cycles. We would have a period of good years and then a period of intense settlement. In a period of bad years, why, the settlers disappear. And another good year. why, a new crop came to take the place of those who had disappeared. Bearing in mind always, though, that there was a certain portion of those that stayed through the drought and eventually made a success. And I think there will be more taken under the 640-acre homesteads, but I am not prepared to say how much. Of course, bear in mind that if I were considering only my own selfish interests and my own personal inclinations, why I would not care whether the 640-acre homestead act was repealed tomorrow or not. But I am trying to look at it in a little broader way.

Representative WINTER. If a regulation bill were passed you would favor a regulation in the bill continuing the right to enter?

Mr. WII SON. I am not prepared to say what I would do in case a specific bill was before Congress, Congressman Winter, until I would know the terms of that bill. It would make a considerable difference in the answer that I might make to that question. If such a bill is considered, for example, in your branch we would then be prepared to answer that question. But until a definite bill is before us I do not think I could answer it.

When the 640-acre homestead bill was passed we were told by the authorities in Washington that all of the land would be inspected and classified before any entries would be allowed. I think Senator Kendrick will probably remember that. A good many of the livestock associations were bothering him a good deal about that time. Yet instead of classifying these lands, the department designated them upon the petition of the most interested party, the intending entryman. Had these lands been intelligently classified, the percentage of failures under the act would have been greatly reduced.

The name of the act in itself is a misnomer. Instead of requiring the expenditure for improvements, some of which may not be valuable for the purpose of production of livestock, it would have been better if the entryman had been allowed credit-this is not an original suggestion-for the number of stock he grazed upon the land, changing that credit as his stock increased. That will be discussed more fully by some of the other witnesses.

I want at this time to call the committee's attention to a situation regarding trails or stock driveway withdrawals. We have had pending one or two applications for trails in Fremont Country which have been pending for something over two years. It was my under

standing at the time the 640-acre homestead bill passed Congress that the Secretary of the Interior could and would upon application for lands to be embraced in trails for stock driveway purposes withdraw these lands from entry until such time as the final report could be had from the land office or the field service. We have taken up this matter of trails with the Secretary of the Interior and Commissioner of the General Land Office, and asked that the original intention be carried out. That the area embraced in these trails be withdrawn until a definite report could be made and the trails either be allowed or rejected. The local field division in Cheyenne has been trying to get these reports made for some time, but are handicapped on account of the press of other work and the lack of men, but in the meantime some one may come in and take up a part of those lands, which will ruin the trail. It seems to me that the Secretary of the Interior should be made to understand that he should live up to the original intention of withdrawing those lands from all forms of entry until they reach a final decision in regard to the trails.

I notice the committee in some of the hearings asked some questions relative to the isolated tracts. In eastern Wyoming, where practically all of the land has either been entered or passed to patent-most of it is passed to patent-there are a few places where there are small isolated tracts running up to probably 640 or even 500 acres, and it seems to me that Congress should liberalize the existing isolated tract law to provide that those isolated tracts should be sold to the present user, or whoever may apply therefor, at a price less than the present minimum of $1.25 per acre. It would tend to round out the holdings of some of the 640-acre homesteads; they would probably benefit more than the livestock interests would in that part of the State. But it is a subject to which this committee should give some consideration.

In attending the hearing at Rock Springs on Wednesday of this week I was interested in the testimony of the cattleman from the Big Piney district. It seemed to establish the fact-the testimony of the cattleman-that the cattlemen and the Forest Service entered into a conspiracy to control and regulate a part of the public domain, and keep livestock from grazing thereon. It appears that the Forest Service have told the cattlemen that there is a 3-mile strip adjoining the forest on which they do not desire the grazing of cattle until comparatively late in the spring season, and they have told the cattlemen to keep their cattle off of that 3-mile strip, and I believe have entered into an agreement with the cattlemen that they should be kept off of that strip. Of course, if I were to enter into an agreement with some one of that kind to regulate the public domain I would be writing my friends from the Federal penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kans., and it is a question in my mind. whether the Forest Service should not be called sharply to account for matters of that kind. I realize that by their rules and regulations and some decisions, as I understand it, they have been permitted to be prosecutor, judge, and jury. And they have been getting away with it. But when they arrogate unto themselves the powers of the Supreme Court of the United States to set aside a statute of the United States it seems to me time to call a halt. And

I think that matter should not only go into the record, but should be very carefully gone into by this committee.

I think that is all the formal statement I care to make. If there are any questions the committee desires to ask I will be glad to attempt to answer them.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wilson, referring to the 640-acre homestead law, have your observations led you to believe that it is practical for entrymen to comply with a homestead law as to residence thereon?

Mr. WILSON. It would depend, of course, Senator, on the entryman's means. If he was a poor man, probably not. That the residence requirement should be liberalized. I think a good many of them have lived up to that requirement, but most of them have to work away from their homes a considerable portion of the time to get sufficient money with which to make the improvements and live on their homesteads the balance of the time.

Senator KENDRICK. Has your observation, Mr. Wilson, convinced you that the question of acreage included in one of these homestead acts should be a flexible one, dependent upon the character of the country where the homesteads are located and be fixed by classification?

Mr. WILSON. I think probably that would be true, Senator, although I am not prepared to admit yet that all of the lands that can be taken under the 640-acre homestead act will be taken. I. think that when that time comes that then the homestead laws should be liberalized to the extent of an increased acreage. How much, I would not like to even suggest.

Senator KENDRICK. It would seem only reasonable to believe that the law would apply better with an increased acreage after such time. as all settlement had been made that would occur under the present limitations.

Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir.

Senator KENDRICK. It would be your opinion that in the territory, we will say, included in what is known as the breaks of Powder River that the forage grown on a section of land there would not be equal in amount to what would be grown in more favored sections on 640 acres?

Mr. WILSON. With the little acquaintance that I have with breaks of Powder River I should say yes, sir.

Senator KENDRICK. And some such comparison would probably apply to the tracts in the Red Desert?

Mr. WILSON. Unquestionably.

Senator KENDRICK. And other large areas that are as yet untouched by settlers?

Mr. WILSON. Unquestionably; yes, sir.

Representative WINTER. Mr. Wilson, have you any observation to make on the fundamental proposition of a royalty for grazing, either on the public domain or on the forest reserve, as to the right of the Government to make any charge whatsoever, even administration charges?

Mr. WILSON. It has always been the opinion of stockmen-that is a question, I might say, Judge Winter, to which I have given very little consideration-but it has always been the opinion of the stockmen that there should not be any such charge; that there are no grounds for such a charge.

Representative WINTER. Your position would be that until the public domain is taken up under the entry laws it should be taken up entirely free, and that even the care of the forests for conservation purposes should be borne by the United States Government rather than charged against the forest users.

Mr. WILSON. I would hardly like to go that far. That has been the contention of a good many stockmen, but I would hardly care to go that far. I would prefer to stand on the proposition in the platform adopted at Salt Lake City of basing the grazing fees on the cost of administration, so that there would not be any actual loss to the Federal Treasury.

Representative WINTER. By that you mean the actual cost of the administration of the grazing, not the entire cost of forest adminis

tration?

Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir.

Representative WINTER. You have expressed yourself rather fully and in detail on the 640-acre homestead proposition. Would not the fact that about 2,500,000 acres have been entered under that law and most of the entrymen have failed to prove up, and the entries have been canceled and the lands restored to the public domain in this State, indicate that the limit of entry had been reached under the present law in view of the size of the entry, 640 acres, the residence requirement, and the amount of expenditure required?

Mr. WILSON. Well, taking all those things into consideration, leaving out the amount of expenditure, not necessarily. I went through a period in the West, as I explained to the committee a moment ago, when exactly this same thing happened. Some of the entries were canceled by the Land Office, some of them went away and abandoned their claims, and others had to contest. That went on with the 160-acre homesteads, and the same thing occurred in the country in which I range with the 320-acre homesteads. A number of the entries had to be canceled and were later taken up by another group. I assume that the same thing would apply equally to the 640-acre homesteads, even though the requirements are left as they are.

Representative WINTER. You understand it to be the fact, I believe, announced by the register of the land office at Cheyenne, that somewhere between 2,000,000 and 2,500,000 acres were restored to the public domain for failure of final proof?

Mr. WILSON. I imagine that represents only a portion of those that will be canceled. And I further want to make the statement right here that I firmly believe that a part of that land on which the entries were canceled-as a matter of fact, I have means of knowing that a part of it will be taken up by other entrymen. Whether they in turn will fail to comply with the requirements and allow the entries to be canceled I can not say.

Senator KENDRICK. Do you not know of many settlers that have been compelled during the drought and that sort of thing to leave. their homesteads temporarily and who have afterwards returned to them and made settlement good and permanent?

Mr. WILSON. That has been true in our particular section of the Country: yes, sir. Of course all of them do not come back, Senator. I do not believe they ever do in any new country, but a proportion of them do.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wilson, is it your opinion that Congress should amend the forest withdrawal act, with a provision legalizing the grazing of livestock within the boundaries of the national forests?

Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir; that is my opinion.

I wish to say further that I subscribe to everything in the Salt Lake platform regarding the national forest situation.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Thomas Cooper.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS COOPER, CASPER, WYO., CHAIRMAN OF PUBLIC LANDS COMMITTEE, WYOMING WOOL GROWERS' ASSOCIATION, VICE PRESIDENT NATRONA COUNTY LIVESTOCK ASSOCIATION

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cooper, have you a statement that you desire to make to this committee?

Mr. COOPER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you just proceed in your own way;

Mr. COOPER. In reference to the national forests, I am not a user of the forest and I do not intend to make any references to it, only in connection with a matter that I have been asked to present to this committee on behalf of the Teton County Wool Growers' Association, of Jackson, Wyo. Before presenting this statement, I will, however, in a general way, make a few observations upon the national forests from the time of their creation as it seems to me.

In the first place, I contend that it clearly never was the intent of the framers of that act that grazing would ever be regulated or charged for or they would have so stated in the act. The fact is that from the time the national forests were created, in 1891, until the 1st of January, 1906, no fees were charged and no regulations were enforced. However, the national forests are established. and upon broad general principles upon which they are established the livestock men, both sheep and cattle, of the western United States, are in complete accord-that is, the conservation of timber. But I contend that the use of the national forests should be legalized in conformity with the regulations adopted at the conference at Salt Lake City. I believe that the grazing on the national forests should be conducted in accordance with laws enacted by Congress. This is a democracy, a representative democracy. We are supposed to be governed by laws that have been enacted by men in whose election we participated. But the administration of the Forest Service in the past and I think that condition will be corrected-has been un-American, because it violates that fundamental principle we are guaranteed in the Constitution.

I have a letter here, addressed to Senator John B. Kendrick. that I will read and later leave with the reporter to be placed in your record.

In connection with this I wish to state that this is one of the many instances in which the pioneers, the men who came here long before the forest reserves were created, before even the thought had been conceived, and settled on these lands. After they had settled there, many years after the forest reserves had been created in such a way as to come right down around their holdings and surround them,