Mr. DELANEY. Yes.

Representative TAYLOR. You have considered that, have you? Mr. DELANEY. Within the last few days I have gone over it and considered it from our standpoint. Now, the comments I have made before would cover it to a certain extent. But the plan of leaving conditions as they are now until districts are created by proclamation is one that will not appeal to this particular locality, this northwestern Colorado. For the reason, as I stated before, I think if a law is passed it ought to automatically take effect over the public domain. That is the only way that you can protect existing rights. That is one thing. As I take it, the theory of this law is to leave things in status quo until districts are created. Well, that will take considerable time.

Then, in the second provision, where it is stated that in the awarding of grazing privileges preference shall be given when practical to homesteaders who are present occupants of the range and own improved ranches; that if that" when practical" was out of there, why, I think the people of this country would feel much better satisfied with it, because in a way Congress would then determine the conditions under which a man is to receive these preference rights. Otherwise it seems to me that it is left absolutely to the discretion of the administering officer.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Unless you define the term "preference right" in detail, how can you get it so that it will not have to rest in the discretion of somebody?

Mr. DELANEY. A certain amount of discretion must be vested in the administering officer, I realize that, but not an absolute discretion. In other words, Senator, take this clause: "Provided that in the awarding of grazing privileges preference shall be given when practical." Well now, that leaves it absolutely open to the discretion of the officer, I would say.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, I think you will agree that it should be done when practical; and who should decide whether it is practical or not, the man who is trying to get it or the man who is giving it?

Mr. DELANEY. I feel this way, that the man who is now established in this country and using this range is a better judge of what is practical, if he can show that he has used that range for so many years and that he has the qualifications that might be prescribed by the act, then it is practical; his own experience demonstrates that it is practical.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well then, you would give it to him by law?

Mr. DELANEY. By law.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. And not through the administrative official who would have the administration of the law. You would state in the law that the man having resided 5 years or 10 years, or what do you state there?

Mr. DELANEY. It would satisfy me pretty well just as it is, if you put in there "provided that in the awarding of grazing privileges the preference shall be given to homesteaders or present occupants of the range grazing upon the public lands."

Representative TAYLOR. In other words, giving preference, you think that would be sufficient in itself?

Mr. DELANEY. I think, then, it would be mandatory upon the Secretary of the Interior or whoever administers this, and that to that extent he should not have discretion in the matter.

Representative TAYLOR. In other words, you want to shut out the possibility of these migratory herds?

Mr. DELANEY. Of course I think this act covers the other phase of it. A good many of the stockmen feel that there is quite an abuse of these stock-grazing driveways.

Mr. BOWDEN. Is this public domain being used in common now by these ranchers along these rivers?

Mr. DELANEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BOWDEN. It is not districted, no agreements made between different ranches?

Mr. DELANEY. Oh, there is a sort of custom that a man runs cattle on a particular range, but there are three or four or five individuals. that run on the same range.

Mr. BOWDEN. Does the forage vary on the lands in different years? Mr. DELANEY. Yes.

Mr. BOWDEN. Is it spotted?

Mr. DELANEY. It varies greatly. They have dry seasons, and they have seasons when the precipitation is more abundant.

Mr. BOWDEN. Do you presume that the range could be used advantageously by dividing it between individuals and changing the system from grazing that range in common?

Mr. DELANEY. Do you mean on an acreage basis, something of that way?

Mr. BOWDEN. Yes.

Mr. DELANEY. A man being given so many acres?

Mr. BOWDEN. Yes; may he not use it that way as advantageously as under the present system where he uses it in common?

Mr. DELANEY. I don't believe so. There are several reasons why I have come to that conclusion. One of them is that the character of the land varies so much within a given radius of a few miles. There may be rough, rocky areas, and then there may be some lands near by that were once blue-stem native grasses. The per head arrangement I think is more satisfactory, much more satisfactory, than the other.

Mr. BOWDEN. That, or you could have a community lease?

Mr. DELANEY. Well, probably a community lease would work all right. Of course I would call this to your attention in that connection. In that country over there in recent years there has been a great deal of conflict between sheep and cattle interests. Now, that is the only thing that should be borne in mind. So if all of the country is used for the purpose of grazing sheep there is not that conflict. There is not if there is cattle only; but if it is a mixed proposition, why, then, the only way that I see as a solution of that is to allot certain land to a certain individual. That is designating in his permit the territory over which he is to graze his stock. Mr. BOWDEN. Would it pay to fence it in small allotments? Mr. DELANEY. I don't think it would. It is pretty extensive. Mr. BOWDEN. If you were to fence it you would pretty nearly have to have a community allotment?

Mr. DELANEY. Well, under the existing circumstances-it would not do under the existing circumstances of the industry at the present time.

Representative TAYLOR. You would either have to have a community grazing district or else you would have to fence or herd, and neither one of those would do, would it?

Mr. DELANEY. I don't believe it would.

Mr. BOWDEN. Could you carve out of the remaining public domain an area that a stockman could make a living on if he had not the advantage of using the forest reserve or if he did not have a ranch upon which he could raise winter feed while his livestock were grazing elsewhere during the growing season?

Mr. DELANEY. No, sir; I do not believe it can be done in the territory with which I am familiar.

Mr. BOWDEN. Then that public domain there is dependent on the ranches and on the forest reserve, just as the ranches are dependent on the public domain and the forest reserve?

Mr. DELANEY. That would be my answer; yes.
Representative TAYLOR. Exactly.

Mr. DELANEY. Exactly

Senator CAMERON (presiding). We will take a short recess. (After a short recess the committee reconvened.)

Senator CAMERON (presiding). The committee will come to order. Senator Callen.

STATEMENT OF R. C. CALLEN, STOCK RAISER, SILT, COLO.

Senator CAMERON (presiding). Senator Callen, will you give your name and your address to the reporter?

Mr. CALLEN. R. C. Callen; Silt, Colo.

Senator CAMERON. You have a statement you wish to make to the committee?

Mr. CALLEN. Yes, sir.

Senator CAMERON. If you please, go ahead.

Mr. CALLEN. A hit-and-miss statement, in fact. I might say first that I am here as a user of both the public domain and the forest reserve.

Senator CAMERON. What forest reserve are you on?

Mr. CALLEN. Battlement Forest Reserve, lying right south of the Colorado River, and in this county and Mesa County, and I am also a member of the Western Slope Association, as well as the State Livestock Association. We have here a watershed that makes it an entirely different proposition of the livestock interests of the western slope, in which we have 13 associations merged into 1 association, taking our grievances up and then forming them and working with the State association. So that in the Western Slope Association are 13 small associations working together, taking up the different problems of the livestock industry and the public domain

and forest reserve.

In this Western Slope Association we favor the Phipps bill or one similar to that. Any reduction of the cost of running livestock On account of the depression in the livestock, the increase in the expense of running the cattle, the increase in freight rates, yardage, and all those things that I want to show here

on the forest reserve.

to-day; increase that has come to the stock raiser, both from a wage standpoint and from the standpoint of the upkeep of our camps, and all that.

We also favor a law passed by Congress whereby we would be working under a law and not under rulings.

We also favor the Department of the Interior taking over our national forests, because they have the public land.

The Department of Agriculture is entirely different; their work composes an entirely different line of work from what the Department of the Interior does. It is from a feed basis and a crop basis. So we think that it ought to be under the Department of the Interior.

First, I want to say that I have been a user some 18 years. I came into this country in 1885, left a short time, and then I came back, and I have been back this last time for 20 years, and in the livestock business, owning a ranch whereby I have to feed the cattle in the wintertime hay and provide for hay to feed them.

Now, we started out-and I have the permits here, with the different seasons of the year-we started out from 50 cents to a raise of 70 cents for grazing fees. The rental on pastures has been increased. Now, I have been up against pastures in Texas. I have bought cattle in Texas and pastured them. I know what the costs are on pastures there. I have also shipped to the Kansas pastures, and went from Manhattan, Kans., on to the Kansas City market. I have had pastures in Pueblo County. I was surprised to hear that at the meeting on yesterday at Pueblo they favored that the Forest Service be left where it is in the Department of Agriculture.

In 1907 I had a pasture in Midland, Tex., for 1,000 head of steers, and they were left there the year that I had the pasture at $1 a head per year. In other words, if a storm might come in the wintertime I should provide my own cake or feed that would carry these steers over, and if it was an open winter I could depend upon the feed in that pasture. I did find an open winter. These cattle were delivered to myself and my partner at Amarillo in the following May.

In 1910 I had a Manhattan (Kans.) pasture at $2.25. I was then in so close an area that I could call up Kansas City, and I might say at this time that now standing where we are here we are about 500 miles from the market, which is the Denver market. There I could call up Kansas City and get the market, and I could load these cattle on at 9 o'clock at night and get the cattle up there the next morning, and the cattle would be unloaded at 7 o'clock at the cost of $2.25 a head.

Great stress is laid on the Kansas pasture. I understand it runs from $4.50 to $5 a head, which I guess is true, but I have not been of late years in the Kansas pasture.

In 1914 the cost of moving these cattle from this district was $2.50 a head. In 1915, $3.10. Now, these are actual figures I have here, because I have brought the returns here with me for the sales of cattle. In 1917, $4.30. And the sales of cattle in 1919 was $6. In 1922, back to $5. There was a reduction in freight rate. In 1924, $5. You have to be very economical to make that delivery at that price per head.

Now, we only show that to show you a comparison between the eastern pasture and the western pasture. Mr. Rees has given you the losses that we have and the percentage of the calf crop in comparison with eastern pastures, comparing our open range with the eastern pastures, which is true. I have always considered the calf crop would probably yield about 60 per cent.

Senator CAMERON. That is in Colorado?

Mr. CALLEN. Yes, in Colorado; yes, sir; and in this district. We hope that you will take into consideration here our situation, that 80 per cent of our ground stands on end here, and it takes a large acreage to run a steer to finish him for the market. And I might say, too, at this time that under the ruling in the stockyards the first man down the alley and in the pens to look at the cattle or sheep is the packer. He has the first right under the stockyard rulings. Then after him is the speculator. After that the feeder, the buyer who takes these cattle on east or in the northern part of this StateFort Collins, Sterling, Fort Morgan, and those places. The cattle that come out of this district will not average over 20 to 22 per cent available and fit to go to the packer. The rest of them have to go to a feeder and have to go on east. So they are not a finished product when they leave this range. We do not finish our cattle. But there is a percentage of them that will be fit to go to the packer. You take the shorthorn cattle; they will put on more flesh, I will say, than the other cattle that are of a wilder nature. But as a general rule, as I said, the percentage of the cattle that are fit for the packer runs from 20 to 22 per cent.

The range that I am off of and where I run-I have the figures on it from the Forestry Department-has 5,800 head. That lies south and west of Glenwood Springs.

Now, as to the public domain, we might just as well be fair with both you and ourselves. The question with us is the question of the migratory livestock. Not entirely sheep, but migratory cattle which come in New Mexico, into the San Luis Valley district. The sheep come in here from Utah. They will come through from the far extreme, west and north, and drift through the summer, and go up here to Tennessee Pass, and back to the winter quarters. Yesterday there were two trainloads going back now to the winter quarters, which are the ewes, the mothers of the lambs, being shipped back now, and others are being drifted and driven back to their winter quarters.

In States adjoining this State the method of assessment and taxation is different. In this State it is the property that you have on hand on the 1st day of April. In Utah and New Mexico it is that which you have on hand on the 1st day of January. They come into this State with a receipt or an affidavit of the assessor that this herd has been assessed in our State. They present that to us, so we have no tax; we get nothing from them. Only the Forest Service, the Government, gets a tax from them in the district they run in. They go through the State in driveways, through cattle ranges, some of them widening out their driveways, some of them drift right on through, and others take their time.

We used to have wars and feuds, and we want to get away from that. So we have come here to ask you to put this under some control, and we think the right thing to do is to put it within the De