that I have had and the conditions that I have come in contact with pertain more to conditions on the public domain.

At different times I can recollect that there was an agitation for the leasing of the public domain, so far as the grazing privileges were concerned, or bringing it under Federal control in some shape, manner, or form. Until about the year 1922 the stockmen who ranged their livestock upon the public domain were practically without exception opposed to any such Federal control. Since the year 1922 this sentiment has entirely changed, and so far as I can determine at this time those people who are interested in grazing livestock upon the public domain are almost unanimously in favor of some kind of Federal control.

I will explain to you what I believe to be the basis of this change in sentiment. I will illustrate it particularly by Rio Blanco County. There is a county which extends along the White River. In a general way the dividing line that is between Garfield County on the south and Moffat County and Routt County on the north would be the watersheds. In the one instance the watershed between the Colorado and the White Rivers and in the other the watershed between the White River and the Bear River. I say this in a general way, and it is not absolutely accurate.

Now, that county is more than 125 miles in length, and on the west it adjoins the State of Utah. It has always been a cattle country. And in this connection I wish to say that I am not bringing in any controversies here, but I do appear to try to present the facts in behalf of the community as a whole.

Within recent years this county has been threatened-and this condition is true of other counties-with migratory livestock; that is, livestock coming in from adjoining States. Within very recent years, as some of you gentlemen are probably familiar with it, there was a movement to open a trail, a driveway from these adjoining States traversing this entire county, a distance of at least 125 miles to the Flat Tops

Now, along that valley are ranch properties, properties that have been settled back as early as 1884, some of them earlier. Some settlers were in there from the time that the Ute Indians relinquished their rights to the Government. And of course the financial condition in the livestock business has been a tough one with those people. They have been compelled to convert all their marketable stuff into cash to meet their debts and to satisfy their creditors, and the business is not flourishing as it once was.

Well, on top of this condition then came this threatened invasion of migratory stock. Now these people and I speak of these communities who have ranch property and who pay the taxes here and support the Government, the local government and contribute toward the expenses of the State government-feel that while the Federal Government never recognized the right of a man to use the public domain, yet by reason of prior occupancy, by reason of improvement of these lands, that they have a claim that is at least an equitable claim to a prior consideration. And they feel that the only way that what they fully believe are just and equitable rights could be protected is by the Federal Government assuming control of this situation. The manner of control, of course, is one that I presume none

of us are exactly competent to suggest, but various measures have been considered in these various stock-growers' meetings. I attended the annual meeting of the Western Stock Growers' Association, which was held at Eagle this year.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, then, your statement virtually amounts to this: That you want Federal control, provided it is the kind of Federal control that will satisfy your people?

Mr. DELANEY. Absolutely.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, now, then, the question as to that kind of Federal control is the very thing that we are interested in.

Mr. DELANEY. Well, I am going into that, Senator.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, all right.

Mr. DELANEY. There was a meeting of the association at Eagle. And as I go along I may at times give my individual opinions and also the views of what I believe to be the views of the people in this country. In some instances we may differ. But among these resolutions that were adopted there was one which favored the adoption of a bill which was introduced in the Senate by Senator Phipps; that is, Senate bill 2325. Now, that is not the one referring to the fees to be charged for grazing privileges on the national forest reserves. Senate bill No. 2325; I suppose it has been before your committee for consideration at other times, has it not?

Senator JONES of New Mexico. And it is one of the bills before us for consideration now.

Mr. DELANEY. Is that so; I did not know that.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Or rather, I assume will be when the bills will all be reintroduced when Congress reconvenes in December.

Representative TAYLOR. Senator Phipps had two bills. One had three things in it. The first item was to cut down the grazing fee 25 per cent. The second was to raise the amount from 35 to 50 per cent to turn over to the State. And the last was for a grazing board of appeal. And then he had another one for the leasing of the public domain.

Mr. DELANEY. I have the bill here as it was sent to me by Senator Phipps, as originally introduced, I understand, with probably some changes made.

Now this association went on record as favoring the adoption of that bill. The stock growers in this section feel that Congress should amend that law to such an extent that the right, what they deem to be their right, should be legalized. By that I mean that Congress should outline, in a general way at least, the conditions under which a man is entitled to obtain preference rights. Not leave it entirely to regulation and arbitrary judgment of some official. Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, have you considered the resolution adopted in Salt Lake City by the conference which was held there in August?

Mr. DELANEY. I do not know as I have, Senator.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. We have that in the record here, and that was a thing that was discussed to some extent over in Pueblo yesterday. I expect you might just as well go ahead in your own way until you complete your statement, Mr. Delaney.

Mr. DELANEY. I suggested certain principles that might be incorporated in this bill, No. 2325, which would meet with the approval of the men who are interested in this industry in this country.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Are you going to state that for the record?

Mr. DELANEY. Yes; I am. I wonder if I should put the bill in the record so that we might know which bill I refer to? Senator CAMERON. Is that the bill as amended?

Mr. DELANEY. No; it is the orgininal bill as introduced. Senator CAMERON. You might just as well put it in the record. (S. 2325 is here printed in the record in full, as follows:)

[S. 2325, Sixty-eighth Congress, First Session.]

February 1, 1924, Mr. Phipps introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys.

A BILL To authorize and regulate the grazing of livestock on the unreserved public domain, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to regulate and control grazing of livestock upon the vacant unreserved public lands of the United States in order to prevent over-grazing and promote the development of the livestock industry.

SEC. 2. That in furtherance of the purpose of this act the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to issue rules and regulations which will prohibit the grazing of such vacant unreserved public lands of the United States, except under permit first had and obtained, which permit shall state the conditions under which the grazing may be conducted and the areas which may be so occupied and used by the permittees. Reasonable fees for the privilege may be fixed by regulation and in the permits, and the proceeds thereof deposited in the Treasury of the United States, 66% per cent thereof to be credited as receipts from public lands, and the remaining 33% per cent to be paid by the Secretary of the Treasury, after the expiration of each fiscal year, to the State within the boundaries of which the lands are located, said moneys to be used by such State for the construction and maintenance of schools and of public roads.

SEC. 3. That such permits may be given for a period not exceeding 10 years, with preferential right to bona fide residents or associations of residents of the vicinity or to those now engaged in the livestock business upon such area or areas: Provided, That permitted areas may be reduced or readjusted from time to time, after due notice to the permittee, to afford new settlers or residents opportunity to secure reasonable grazing privileges.

SEC. 4. That all of the public-land laws of the United States now applicable to such lands or areas shall continue in full force and effect, notwithstanding the provisions of this act or of any permits issued hereunder.

SEC. 5. That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to perform any and all acts and to make such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper for the purpose of carrying the provisions of this act into full force and effect.

Mr. DELANEY. I suggested after conference with some of the local stockmen that the first section of the act might contain another provision which would clarify, at least, conditions in some of this territory. The act reads: "That the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to regulate and control grazing of livestock upon the vacant unreserved public lands of the United States." In order that there might be no question I would suggest, unless it is otherwise covered by law, and I may not be competent to judge of that subject, this clause:

Including lands withdrawn as naval oil reserves and the surface of lands covered by prospecting permits or leases under the provisions of the act of February 25, 1920.

I don't know-possibly without that provision those lands would be covered. Over this territory, you know, within the last two years there has been some discovery of oil and gas, and I think practically all of the public domain outside of the forest reserves, or at least a great portion of it is at this time covered by applications for prospectors' permits, and by, in some instances, leases. The operation of the lands for the production of oil and gas? Well, as I conceive it, the man who has his permit or his lease would not in any way interfere with the use of the surface of the land for grazing purposes, so that is a subject I think the law should cover; the law should cover the surface of those lands.

Then, down here in this country, Rio Blanco County, there is a naval reserve of some 60,000 acres of public lands. That is oil shale And a number of the stockmen interested there would like to feel that their rights would be protected. They have always run livestock in that country, and wish to continue to do so.

Then, of course, it is human nature, I suppose, for us to object to a certain extent to a provision of the law that leaves it to the officers administering the law to determine absolutely the amount of fees or the compensation which is to be charged for the exercise of these grazing privileges. We felt that a charge which would take care of the cost of administration and, if necessary, a reasonable amount in addition to that, 10 or 20 per cent, whatever it might be, would lend stability to the industry. A man would know more what he had to look to in the future.

I drafted an amendment of section 2 of this act of Senator Phipps with that in view, and it is just by way of suggestion, you understand. I do not feel that I am competent to draft an act to cover this whole situation, but just to illustrate our point of view, and that was to amend it to read as follows:

SEC. 2. That in furtherance of the purpose of this act the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to issue rules and regulations which will prohibit the grazing of such vacant, unreserved public lands of the United States, except under permit first had and obtained, which permit shall state the conditions under which the grazing may be conducted and the areas which may be so occupied and used by the permittees. Only such fees as may be necessary to defray the actual cost of administration of this act shall be charged permittees for the privileges of grazing as herein provided. The proceeds paid by permittees for permits shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States, to be credited as receipts from public lands.

I had in view there that any provision of the law which made it a commercial proposition and was designed in part to produce revenue for the United States or for the State was to a certain extent unjust against the stock grower.

Now, for instance, the bill originally provided that a certain amount, 25 per cent, should be paid over to the State and be apportioned among the counties for the support of the schools and the building of roads, etc.

Well, the stockman ordinarily is a ranch owner of property only, and he contributes as much as any other individual or taxpayer of the State of Colorado to the support of the schools and to the maintenance of the roads, and I felt that to require him to pay so much

that is to be put back into that fund is requiring him to contribute twice.

Then section 3, in my opinion, was the most important one, and that amended it to read as follows:

SEC. 3. That permits may be given for a fixed period not exceeding 10 years, under regulations which shall award preferential rights in the following order: 1. To bona fide residents or associations of residents, who own and control real estate in reasonable proximity, upon which forage crops are grown in sufficient quantity to provide winter feed for animals grazed on the public land during the grazing season under the provisions of such permits.

2. To residents or associations of residents who buy or acquire, by contract, winter feed grown on real property in reasonable proximity to the public lands covered by permits in sufficient quantities to feed the stock grazed on public lands covered by permits.

3. All other persons not within the classes above enumerated.

Provided further, That as between persons and associations of persons of the same classes mentioned above who make application for grazing permits. preference right shall be given those who have heretofore used said lands for the longest period of time, and provided further that permitted areas may be reduced or readjusted from time to time, after due notice to the permittee, to afford new settlers or residents oportunity to secure reasonable grazing privileges.

In connection with that last provision, after further consideration. I deemed it quite essential that there might be a further limitation there that possibly these permits should not be reduced more than, say, 10 or 20 per cent for the time they were to run. I believe that that is ample, because so far as the homesteaders are concerned in this country, if the homestead law remains in operation, and if the homesteader has a right to come in there and make a home for himself if he can, if he is given the same rights as the other individual that is, aside possibly from the right to graze his domestic animals on free range-if he is required to produce his forage crop, produce feed for the animals that he runs on the public domain, then he is in the exact situation that the pioneer is. And as far as I can see they have an even break in that respect, and it would not be very material whether the homestead law regained in force or was repealed.

I know that the majority of the stockmen in this country favor the repeal of the 640-acre homestead, because they take the view that it has served its purpose, and that the land now left which might be homesteaded is not of the character contemplated by that act, and if the law remains in force it will be used for speculative purposes and not for the purpose of acquiring homes in good faith.

My own individual view is that if some sort of a provision could be worked through whereby a man who owns property and produces his feed has the first call on the range, assuming that he has used and occupied the range, that it does not make much difference whether the homestead law is repealed or not. There may be instances where homesteaders could come in and take up homesteads and make a home and bring it under taxes.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Are any of them coming in now? Mr. DELANEY. They are getting out, Senator, and have been for a number of years in this particular country.

Senator CAMERON. Has the 640-acre homestead been a success? Mr. DELANEY. Well, my opinion is that it has not been a success, unless you take the view that bringing the title of this land under