acres that ought to be handled in an intelligent way by this Government in conjunction with grazing on the national forests.

Now, stockmen do not want to buy this land. They are not in shape to buy any land. The stockmen are broke. They can go out and buy by tax sales plenty of these 640-acre filings, plenty of 160acre filings. But they do not want them. They can use them now without paying anything for them.

I am not in favor of any enlargement of the homestead. I think it would spell almost disaster to the livestock interests of the West, and would pretty near wreck the administration of the Forest Service, even if it was adjusted on an area basis.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. The proposal which you favor is very far-reaching: the idea of permanent permit. Is not the effect of that to virtually give to the individual the ownership of the property without the title?

Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, why is he not entitled to it? I think in effect it does give him some rights that might seem obnoxious to the rest of the country. But after viewing the matter dispassionately I think this grazing right or privilege can only be stabilized by such a method. Give it to the present users in connection with their lands or their rights on the forest.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Then instead of giving to the present homesteader a limited area of a few sections of land you would give him more, either within a national forest or outside! Is not that the effect?

Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, it is if he grazes that much livestock on the national forest or public domain, yes.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. I agree that running livestock on an uncertainty is too precarious. There should be stability. But how to bring about that stability with the Government having the title to the land and the individual having the use of it and no conflict of interest is the great problem.

Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, I am willing to leave it to the wisdom and judgment of this committee. I think this committee understands the thing. There may have to be ultimately a little give and take proposition, but something ought to be done and ought to be done

now.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. I do not believe that a man can engage in a stock-raising enterprise upon a mere leasing system, even though it be for a tenure of ten years. Because he is in just as bad condition the ninth year as though he only had a permit for one year. Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes, sir. That is the reason I suggest making it 25 years at least, if you can not make it an absolute right.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. And I do not see how any one who is familiar with the livestock industry can dispute the advisability of making the industry permanent if we can find some way in which to do it. But how to have the Government own the land and the permanent usufruct in somebody else looks to me a good deal like one trying to have the cake and eating it too.

Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, it might look a little curious compared with our present system. But it will certainly work out all right.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. The basis for compensation which you have discussed seems to me raises another difficulty: Consider the vast areas of timber within these forest reserves.

How

much of the expense of administration should be allocated to the preservation of the timber, and how much to the caring for the grazing industry?

Mr. TOMLINSON. Do you mean the cost of administration?

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Yes.

Mr. TOMLINSON. Oh, well, I think they make a proper segregation of it on their books. The cost of administration is supposed to be, to-day, about one-third of the receipts from the grazing. And of course the cost of administration of timber is very much less than receipts; probably much less than that.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, in some forest reserves they are not disposing of any timber. In other forest reserves they are disposing of vast quantities of timber. In such cases it seems to me it would be quite difficult to get some degree of uniformity of allocation as between the different forest reserves.

Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes, I realize it requires a little give and take to determine even a cost-of-administration basis. On some forests it is infinitely less than others. But I think it is determinable with a sufficient approximation to meet the practical purposes of the situation.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Another thing. If you lease this by area you state that that would obviate the necessity of a great many of these rules and expenses of administration?

Mr. TOMLINSON. I think so.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Is that not based upon the theory expressed by one of the witnesses here to-day that if the individual had the exclusive right to use a certain area, that he would use it to the best advantage?

Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes, that is right.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Now if that be so as to the land outside of the forest reserves and I mean outside of those areas within forest reserves where it is necessary to preserve the timber for timber purposes and the watershed, so far as the economic condition is concerned would it not be just as well to provide for getting the actual ownership of the land into the individuals instead of retaining it in the Government?

Mr. TOMLINSON. No. Dealing with the existing conditions-and that is what I know this committee wants to do-you want to help the livestock industry of the West-the livestock industry is not able to buy this land, they are not able to pay taxes on it.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, if the livestock industry is not able to buy it, nobody would buy it, because nobody can use it except for livestock purposes?

Mr. TOMLINSON. I understand that. And, Senator, if you pass the land over to private ownership, by even giving it away, I do not believe the stockmen could afford to pay the taxes. It would wreck all your reclamation projects, and, as I have already intimated, it would seriously disrupt the administration of the grazing on the national forests.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, now, how would it wreck the reclamation projects when they are not getting anything out of

it now?

Mr. TOMLINSON. Getting anything out of the reclamation?

Senator JONES of New Mexico. When they are not getting any return from these public lands for reclamation purposes

Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, it is going to wreck any future work of the Reclamation Service on this public land.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, your plan does not propose any money return for reclamation purposes?

Mr. TOMLINSON. Oh, no; none at all.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, then, how would it wreck them?

Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, it would wreck them because it would take away the utter possibility of any further development by the Government of this so-called public domain. I don't know that that is an unmixed evil, either. I mention it as a reason, though. I think the greatest evil that would flow from either passing the land over to the States or putting it into private ownership by any methods, whether large homestead or sale, would be the grazing on the national forests by an entire readjustment of conditions there.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, you propose to readjust conditions. You are not satisfied with existing conditions. You say that there should be a different kind of a leasing system.

Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, yes; but that does not mean a physical changing in condition.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. I think it is highly revolutionary when you compare it with the present business.

Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, now, I don't think it is revolutionary. If the stockmen down in New Mexico can go to work and lease the public land on which they are now running their cattle, the conduct of their operations would go on just about the same as to-day, the only difference is that they would pay a nominal fee for the use of that land, and they could fence it and handle their business to better advantage.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, that is assuming that those stockmen have definite areas in which they are grazing their livestock now.

Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, they are not perhaps grazing it with absolute definiteness, but so far as the fences they now have up, they are within reasonable lines of definiteness. I think from what I know of the situation down there they are pretty well parceled out and being used.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, but the witnesses here today rather indicated, so far as I have observed, that in great measure they get a mere permit to graze so many cattle on a forest reserve, and that they range indiscriminately.

Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes. Well, that is on the permit system on the national forest.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Yes. Well, that is what I had reference to.

Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, now, the suggestion of the Salt Lake conference, in which I concur, is that instead of a permit system that be on an area basis.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Yes. Well then, would not that be revolutionary? Would it not change the whole system?

Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, the Forest Service is in a good many sections rather adopting that plan. Yes; it will be revolutionary in a sense, but the compensating advantages I think are tremendous.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, understand me, I am not expressing any preference one way or the other. I am just bringing out the different features, that is all.

Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. I am not undertaking to indicate any conclusions in the matter.

Mr. TOMLINSON. I understand.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. On the other hand, if I would undertake to indicate any feeling now it would be in the direction of bringing on any condition which would stabilize the industry. Mr. TOMLINSON. Now, in a word that is what the livestock industry wants.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. That is what the industry wants, and it is a question of how to bring it about.

Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. And to propose something which will meet with the approval of the Congress.

Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Now I can see the difficulties in the way of trying to advocate in the Congress giving to the stockmen what amounts to almost an ownership, but yet retaining the title in the United States. And it is that thing which I would like to have discussed. I have listened with intense interest to what you have said to-day, and I appreciate it fully. It is highly informing. And expressed in a way that is very, very forcible. But I hope that you will not cease the study of the difficulties that we have got to confront. And let us consider this thing in its various angles, because you know the difficulties you have experienced back there in Washington, and you must appreciate the arguments which could and doubtless would be advanced by the so-called opposition, people who are not particularly interested in the western conditions.

Mr. TOMLINSON. I certainly will be glad to help you and this committee all I can, Senator Jones.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. I know you will. Mr. TOMLINSON. I will be very glad to. and I want to help you.

It is a big question,

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Yes, it is. And as far as I am personally concerned I am seeking earnestly light on the subject, and want to do what is best for the industry of the country and the permanent solution of these troublesome problems.

Senator CAMERON. Anything further, Mr. Bowden?

Mr. BOWDEN. To what extent have the National Forests been divided into individual allotments at this time?

Mr. TOMLINSON. I can not answer that question, Mr. Bowden. Mr. BOWDEN. Do you know whether practically all the range in National Forests used by sheep has been divided up into individual allotments?

Mr. TOMLINSON. I have heard that it is more general than it is among cattle, but as to the exact extent I can not tell, Mr. Bowden. Senator CAMERON. We thank you very much, Mr. Tomlinson. Mr. C. W. Beach.

STATEMENT OF C. W. BEACH, SHEEP RAISER AND IRRIGATION, PUEBLO, COLO.

Senator CAMERON (presiding). Mr. Beach, will you give your full name, your address, and your occupation?

Mr. BEACH. C. W. Beach, Pueblo. Engaged in the irrigation business. I have some sheep interests.

Senator CAMERON. Mr. Beach, have you a permit on the forest

reserve?

Mr. BEACH. No, sir.

Senator CAMERON. You are in the sheep business?

Mr. BEACH. In the sheep business.

Senator CAMERON. You are not utilizing any forest reserve?
Mr. BEACH. No.

Senator CAMERON. Are you running your sheep on the public domain or private land?

Mr. BEACH. I have no sheep on the public domain now. I have had. I, formerly, lived down about 80 miles east of here, in the plains country, and in what we call the short grass country. We, formerly, had open range in there. That has practically all been taken up under the 640-acre homestead law. And there may be a few isolated tracts of Government land left there which would be in the breaks, the rough country.

Senator CAMERON. What success, if any, have they had with the 640-acre homestead law?

Mr. BEACH. Well, the country started settling up there about 10 or 12 years ago, and it is practically all taken up. We, formerly, had about 200,000 head of sheep in that county, and to-day I don't think we have got 15,000. And it was the taking up of the open range, you know, that has destroyed the range for the sheepmen. They have had to own most of their land. There are some few localities there where the settlers are still staying, but most of them have left. I should say 75 per cent of them have gone.

Senator CAMERON. That is, the 640-acre homestead entries? Mr. BEACH. Yes. The rainfall in that country is about 12 inches. It is buffalo-grass range on the plains, and in a few favorable localities in the sandy soil on the north slopes they are able to raise forage crops and some corn. Some years they get pretty good crops, and some years it is rather short. Some of those fellows are still staying. But a great deal of the country has been patented, you know, and become taxable, and you can now lease that ground for paying the taxes on it, and get control of it that way. The people are willing to let you have the use of it, and the taxes amount to about 7 cents

an acre.

Senator CAMERON. The taxes amount to about 7 cents an acre? Mr. BEACH. Yes; which is about the rate that the State charges for their State lands. That has been about the history of the homestead law down in that country.

Senator CAMERON. It has been about the same in that country as it has elsewhere throughout the Western States.

Mr. BEACH. Well, I imagine the West, yes.

Senator CAMERON. Does it seem to have panned out very well? Mr. BEACH. Not very successfully. A great many of those settlers came in there and undertook to do something. Well, some of