Mr. SLOSS. The county assessor.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. And he is elected by the people of the county?

Mr. SLOSS. Yes, sir.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. And under the law he has to assess it at its actual value?

Mr. SLOSS. At its actual cash value.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, he thinks it has that value of $3 an acre?

Mr. SLOSS. Well, it did have at one time; during the war when we were making money in the cattle business it had that value, but at this time it looks like a fictitious value, and we have never been able to get that property reduced. I have always been in favor of reducing even our agricultural lands and the pasturage lands as well. I think they are all too high. It keeps us broke paying taxes. The production cost in the cattle business to-day is so much different from what it was several years back. Everything we buy is at the high cost, and what we sell has been low, comparatively.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. And you think, do you not, that these people ought to retain that right to the area surrounding that private holding?

Mr. SLOSS. Yes, sir; it would be nice if they could do it.

Representative TAYLOR. Could that not be worked out by having a community lease a district on a creek, for instance, with all these little families having the right to turn out just as they have at the present time?

Mr. SLOSS. I think it could. Of course, it would take a good deal of study and forethought. And another thing I would like to say is, in regard to this public land and forest-reserve grazing, if that should be taken over by the Government I think it ought all to be under one head somewhere. I would not want to say just how.

Representative TAYLOR. You would not want a cow grazing under the Interior Department in the forenoon and under the Agricultural Department in the afternoon?

Mr. SLOSS. No, sir.

Senator CAMERON. Have you any preference?

Mr. SLOSS. I would not say that I have. We are getting a very square deal at the present time from the Forest Service, and I don't know what it would be under the Interior Department.

Representative TAYLOR. We are not complaining here of the administration of the Forest Service, are we?

Mr. SLOSS. No, sir.

Representative TAYLOR. We complain of an increase of fees, which the business in its present condition can not stand.

Mr. SLOSS. Yes.

Representative TAYLOR. It is a kind of a straw that breaks the camel's back?

Mr. SLOSS. Yes. It looks like it would have the effect of putting us all out of business.

Representative TAYLOR. They feel that Uncle Sam has not got the right to charge these stockmen four times as much as it costs to administer the Forest Service, especially under their present condition?

Mr. SLOSS. That is the point exactly.

Representative TAYLOR. And that they ought to be given a leeway in order to be able to get out of this slump that they are now in before there is any talk about any raise in the grazing rate?

Mr. SLOSS. Of course they do not propose to put this new grazing charge into effect, I think, until 1927. We have got to have some time to get back on our feet or we are gone, that is all there is to it. We came into this country, you know, and settled it before there were any roads, and there was nothing but trails. There were no cattle, scarcely, to speak of. We had probably 10 head of cattle maybe when we started, and worked up, and we looked on these hillsas a kind of an asset; that if we ever did get a few head of cattle we would have a place to graze them. Well, the forest reserve was created, as you all know, and they didn't ask any fees to start with, and then they started in and charged us 20 cents a head. Well, we didn't have any objection to a fee of that kind. Now it has kept on raising gradually until it is up to 70 cents a head. And this new proposition, I believe, will put it up, so that instead of paying as we are paying to-day, 70 cents a head, we will be paying $1.50 a head, as I figure. And we don't know where they are going to stop. If they charge us 70 cents or $1.50 they may be charging us $5 pretty soon.

Senator CAMERON. That is on the principle they are working it? Mr. SLOSS. Yes. It is not a law, it is a regulation. And I think Congress should regulate that. I don't think the foresters are trying to do this themselves. They tell me it is not them. That it is these Eastern Congressmen and Senators that think that we are getting this grazing out here for nothing.

Senator CAMERON. It might be a good idea if the forestry fees were remitted for about three years, to help you out a little bit, might it not?

Mr. SLOSS. Yes, certainly; it might would be a good help.

Senator CAMERON. I think you ought to have it, myself. That is the way I feel about it.

Mr. SLOSS. Thank you. We feel largely that way ourselves.
Senator CAMERON. Anything else?

Mr. BOWDEN. How long have you been a permittee on the Holy Cross Forest?

Mr. SLOSS. Ever since it started.

Representative TAYLOR. Ever since the forest was created?
Mr. SLOSS. Yes.

Mr. BOWDEN. When was that forest created?

Mr. SLOSS. 1906, I think.

Mr. BOWDEN. Have you been increased or decreased in the amount of the preference that you had in 1906?

Mr. SLOSS. No; we are not running as many cattle. We have been gradually decreasing our cattle. We have not been decreased by the Forest Service. We always have been allowed to run all the cattle we had.

Mr. BOWDEN. Have you got a 10-year permit?

Mr. SLOSS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BOWDEN. Do you believe that the relation between the Forest Service and the permittee should be contractual?

Mr. SLOSS. Well, I don't know as I quite understand that question.

Mr. BOWDEN. By that I mean this: The Forest Service should enter into a contract with the permittee whereby the Forest Service would agree to allow him to run a certain number of head of cattle for a period of years, and he would agree to run a certain number of head of cattle for a certain period of years and pay a fixed fee for it?

Mr. SLOSS. Well, that would be all right in some ways, and in some ways it might not be, for the reason that a man might not be able to run that many cattle. He might not be able to fulfill his contract. And on the other hand, the forest reserve may be overgrazed to such an extent that they would want to cut a certain number of head, or that they would want to cut a certain per cent in order to give a few of these new users a chance to come in, which they claim the right to do.

Mr. BOWDEN. Would you rather have a sort of tenant-at-will relation?

Mr. SLOSS. Well, it about has to be that way. I would say.

Mr. BOWDEN. Do you have an individual allotment?

Mr. SLOSS. No, sir.

Mr. BOWDEN. You graze in common?

Mr. SLOSS. Well, part of our cattle graze by themselves. We have some registered stuff. They graze by themselves. We have allotments in that respect. But our common range cattle run in the community pasture.

Representative TAYLOR. You are raising a registered herd of Hereford cattle, are you not?

Mr. SLOSS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BOWDEN. Would you be in favor of adopting a policy whereby the Forest Service would lease certain areas to individual stockmen or to certain communities of stockmen?

Mr. SLOSS. That might be a very good plan I would say. It would give a man a chance to run his stuff absolutely to himself, and run a better grade of stuff possibly than he can run on the open range. Mr. BOWDEN. Has the Forest Service done any fencing?

Mr. SLOSS. They have assisted by furnishing the wire, and in a few cases they have given us outside help besides.

Mr. BOWDEN. Are the exterior boundaries of the forest reserve fenced?

Mr. SLOSS. No, sir.

Mr. BOWDEN. Do you have any trespass problems?

Mr. SLOSS. No, sir.

Mr. BOWDEN. Do you think that there should be a board or an agency set up to which permittees could appeal from decisions of Forest Service officers that they felt were not just?

Mr. SLOSS. Yes, sir; I think that would be a good thing.

Mr. BOWDEN. In the event that you adopt an area basis who should control the grazing on that area, the Forest Service or the permittee or lessee?

Mr. SLOSS. Well, the Forest Service would naturally have a supervision left there. But the permittee, of course, would have the main say, I would say.

Mr. BOWDEN. Well, should he determine what time he should go on the range?

Mr. SLOSS. Well, I don't suppose that the Forest Department would allow the permittee all the say on that, looking to the preservation

of the grasses.

Mr. BOWDEN. Well, do you think that they ought to allow the permittee to determine that?

Mr. SLOSS. Well, in some cases yes; and in other cases no, because there are people that use mighty bad judgment on that thing, a lot

of them.

Mr. BOWDEN. Who do you think should determine where salt should be placed?

Mr. SLOSS. I think the stockman ought to know as much about that as anybody.

Mr. BOWDEN. You think he should do that instead of the Forest Service?

Mr. SLOSS. I do.

Mr. BOWDEN. Who do you think should determine the time he should come off the range?

Mr. SLOSS. Well, in our particular case the snowstorms tell us when we have to go.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. The cattle determine it?

Mr. SLOSS. The cattle determine it. When they bunch up and get down against a drift fence and get to calling you know they have to come off whether you want them to come off or not.

Mr. BOWDEN. It is pretty hard to fix a season?

Mr. SLOSS. Yes; we sometimes pay for a month that we do not get the grazing at all.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. It depends on the season?
Mr. SLOSS. Yes: absolutely.

Mr. BOWDEN. Who should determine the carrying capacity?

Mr. SLOSS. Well, I suppose the foresters should have a right to do that, all right. All right enough. He looks the grass over in the fall when the cattle come off, and he should say whether it can take a certain amount.

Mr. BOWDEN. Should the stockman have a say?

Mr. SLOSS. Well, if we could not agree on that we should have a board to carry that sort of controversy to.

Mr. BOWDEN. In other words, you think there ought to be a board to which such problems should be referred in the event of a disagreement?

Mr. SLOSS. Yes. At the present time we have no say. When they tell us what to do that is what we have to do, and we haven't any appeal at all.

Mr. BOWDEN. In the event that your grazing season will run to the 1st of November and your cattle come down, say, the 15th of October, do you have to pay for the 15 days?

Mr. SLOSS. Our permit runs to the 30th of November, and we can stay that long; and if it happens to be a real open season they give us two weeks more, which we never have used, I don't think, more than about once.

Mr. BOWDEN. Do you have to pay for any part of the season that you do not use?

Mr. SLOSS. Yes; we pay when we get our permits.

Representative TAYLOR. They never get any credit for anything of that kind. The stock is down now, and it is the 7th of the month, and the large part of the stock is down.

Mr. SLOSS. It is not with us. The drift fences hold our stuff up. They get down to the drift fences, and if the weather clears up they stay.

Representative TAYLOR. Let me ask you a question about this board of appeals. Senator Phipps's bill that the Senate passed and which came over to the House just before we adjourned this last spring contains the provision for a board of appeals to be provided with quarters and furniture and a clerical force and everything by the Secretary of Agriculture. There is no provision as to where that board of appeals should sit. Now, should not that bill contain a provision that that board of appeals should hear the grievances of the various States, at least in the capital of the State where they are, rather than compel the stockmen to come to them at Washingon in order to present their grievances?

Mr. SLoss. The ordinary stockman could not afford to go to Washington. He would have to take his medicine.

Representative TAYLOR. And there is no provision that designates where the board should meet.

Mr. SLOSS. I think it would be better even than that, in case there was a case near Glenwood Springs, to have the board come as close as possible to Glenwood Springs, rather than to have to go to Denver. Representative TAYLOR. Well, there is only provision for one board to cover 11 grazing States, and they probably would not be able to get all around in the various districts; but they ought to meet at least in the State capitals, instead of being in Washington and sitting in comfortable quarters there. They ought to come out into this country.

Mr. SLOSS. I think so.

Representative TAYLOR. That is all.

Senator CAMERON. Have you anything further you wish to state to the committee, Mr. Sloss?

Mr. SLOSS. No; that is all I have.

Senator CAMERON. The committee will now recess until 1.30. (Thereupon, at 12.30 o'clock p. m., Wednesday, October 7, 1925, a recess was taken until 1.30 o'clock of the same day.)

AFTER RECESS

The committee reconvened at 1.30 o'clock p. m., Wednesday, October 7, 1925, pursuant to the taking of recess.

Senator CAMERON (presiding). The committee will come to order. Mr. Simpson, will you take the stand?

STATEMENT OF CLAUDE D. SIMPSON, RANCHER, POWDERHORN, COLO.

Senator CAMERON (presiding). Give your full name, your residence, and your occupation.

Mr. SIMPSON. Claude D. Simpson, Powderhorn, Colo. Rancher. Senator CAMERON. Mr. Simpson, have you a statement you wish to make to the committee?