be given to the scale of charges proposed in the report or to any increases in charges for forest grazing unless or until a fair appraisal has been made upon a proper economic basis. The President's agricultural conference recently gave consideration to the matter of grazing livestock upon Government lands and recommended the employment of a committee to investigate and report upon the problem in all of its phases. The conference recognized that this problem concerns a complete resource, the various interdependent parts of which are under a diversity of jurisdictions: The Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, State, and ownership by settlers and other agencies. The conference recognized the futility of attempting to lay down fundamental principles or policies of administration for application to any one particular part of the grazing lands without due consideration from the standpoint of the settler of the full requirements now secured in various ways and under divers jurisdictions, but which from the economic picture as presented to the settler are but parts of his necessary equipment. In view of the foregoing we suggest that the Department of Agriculture should recognize the opportunity now offered for a clear and final determimination and observance of the principles and policies that should be observed and applied for the purpose of placing the range livestock industry upon a sound, economic basis for future service in the Western States and to the Nation as a whole. We hope the department will avoid the prejudicing of the interests of the stockmen in the study to be made by the special committee that is to report upon this matter. The approval or recognition of the scale of charges proposed in the present report would, we feel, have the effect of limiting the scope of the committee's work and would restrict their freedom in the making of recommendations for adjustments and innovations which they shall find to be desirable. We also recommend that in the meantime the Forest Service should continue its study of this question along the lines which the author of the report was precluded from following by the limitations placed upon the time for his work. F. R. MARSHALL, Salt Lake City. Mr. CHALMERS. In connection with the resolutions which I read, I should like to enlarge further and stress the fact of a legal right, or the rights of the permittees on the forest reserve being legalized, for the use of the grazing privileges or the forage, which is now permitted only by, one might say, sufferance on the part of the Forest Service. It is useless for me to go into the facts before this committee that under the most advantageous circumstances stock raising is rather a hazardous game, owing to the fact that there are so many factors over which human agency has no control, or over which the stockman himself has no control, such as climatic conditions which affect the type and character of the forage of the forest reserve upon which he is running and storms in winter and storms in summer and other factors over which the operator can not possibly have any control; and any factor which can be controlled with judgment by human hands that would help stabilize this business would be of inestimable value to the stockman, because of the fact that he would have something definite upon which to base the operation of his business. Practically all of the stockmen in the higher localities of this State, and particularly the central part of the State, are dependent upon the national forest for their grazing. Under the present conditions, if these privileges should be taken away from them— this is speaking hypothetically; we are led to believe that they will not be taken away from them, but taking a hypothetical case if they should be taken away from the stockmen, it would be not only doing a tremendous injury to the stockmen but would be putting the stockmen in the higher localities of the State entirely out of business, because they depend on the forest for one unit of their operation, namely, the summer grazing. The majority of those above-mentioned sheepmen and cattlemen have property which is dependent upon the forest and the grazing thereon to complete the economic cycle in the production of livestock as practiced under range conditions. Business and its methods of operation of to-day are changing so rapidly, and the economic structure of the business world, that is, when practically applied to the stock industry, has changed so much in the last five years, that whereas 10 or 15 years ago a stockman with some assurance could at least say, "My income and expense will be so for this coming year," whereas to-day you are dealing in a hypothetical, intangible, and theoretical income and expense, and it is practically becoming more and more of a gamble as time goes on, owing to the fact that you have no stable basis of operation. And I would like to express and bring out particularly in this connection that in all of this discussion I am not referring particularly to the speculator in the business, or to the man who is in the business one year and out the next, but to the stockman who has practiced the game year in and year out, who has taken his loss with this gain, and figures on continuing to engage in the livestock busi ness. Any factor that could be practically applied to help stabilize the cycle in the range production of livestock will be of inestimable value to the industry. By giving the industry recognition upon the national forest on an area basis, a great step will have been taken to stabilize range production. With this recognition defined as to its extent, and transferable, without penalty, the stockman can go ahead and plan for the future with a definite assurance that his grazing rights will be protected. He can go to his banker-incidentally this is a point well worth while considering the mere fact that a man had a definite grazing right upon the forest gives h`m the power to go to his banker with a definite statement of fact. You can go to your banker and say: "I have a privilege to graze 5,000 head upon the forest, and I know that this privilege is going to be granted me not only this year but will be granted me next year." And stating the conditions and the facts. Senator CAMERON. Suppose you set it for 10 years, would that not add to his credit? Mr. CHALMERS. Ten years or longer. It would not only add to his ability to carry on his operations, but would materially increase his credit, and would materially increase the strength of the banks backing the stockmen, because they are not backing then an intangible business which may in one year be on a certain basis or allotment of a number of head, and unfortunately next year, owing to curtailment of these grazing rights, be cut down. But then the bank will know that when it backs a man for say 5,000 head of sheep, that he is going to have the right to the ground upon which to graze 5,000 head of sheep, not only for this year, but for years to come. Representative TAYLOR. That is tremendously. important, is it not? Mr. CHALMERS. That is one of the most important things, I consider, in the operation of the livestock industry. Representative TAYLOR. That is something they do not seem to take into consideration in this Rachford report either? Mr. CHALMERS. No; that is not taken into consideration in the Rachford report. And speaking solely and only from personal experience and conditions, I know to a certainty that if I could to my bank and say that I can graze 5,000 head of livestock, I would have a great deal easier time in getting credit upon which to restock or to put in new livestock on my property. Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, would not any limitation upon that preference right depreciate the value of the right itself! For instance, if you have a preference right or a right for 10 years. After the first year it is only for nine years, and after five years it is no more valuable than a five-year permit, and it is growing less valuable all the time, is it not? Mr. CHALMERS. Absolutely, sir. Senator JONES of New Mexico. And is it not for that reason that you advocate no limitation? Mr. CHALMERS. No limitation, sir, or to this effect: That a limitation stated, say, in a contract between the Forest Service and the permittee of 10 or 20 years, with preference of renewal at that figure at the expiration of that time. It is, in other words, merely no limitation, unless a man is going out of business or changing his line of operation. And at that, why you are practically placing no limitation; at the end of one year a man has nine years ahead of him, but with the preference of renewal at that time at the same figure, why he can continue to take it up. Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, then, why not have that renewal right an annual one? Mr. CHALMERS. An annual renewal right? Senator JONES of New Mexico. Yes. Mr. CHALMERS. Because from a business standpoint it puts it on a more stable business to have a definite statement of fact that this is for either 10 or 20 or 30 years, rather than have it just for 1 year. Senator JONES of New Mexico. Yes; but the time soon comes when it is no more valuable than an annual right or a right for five years. Mr. CHALMERS. Granted, sir; but if a man goes out here and leases private property for five years with the preference of leasing it for five years, that same thing would apply. Business is done to-day on that basis. Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, but if you have an absolute right for annual renewal, is that not just as valuable as a right for a 10-year period with a renewal right? Mr. CHALMERS. Yes; it is just as valuable as a 10-year permit if you have an absolute right to an annual renewal with no strings on it, so that you will not be cut down at the end of one year for protection or other conditions which the administrator may see fit to do. Senator JONES of New Mexico. The point I have in mind is that if you are going to stabilize the industry in the way which you suggest I do not see why there should be a limitation upon this renewal right. Mr. CHALMERS. To be entirely consistent with it, Senator, there ought not to be a limitation on that. I think probably the idea of putting a limitation on that arose more from the fact that it would appear better, particularly to some of the eastern and middle western constituents or users of grazing lands, users of privately owned lands for grazing. It would appear better if some limitation was placed on the stockmen. Senator JONES of New Mexico. Then it was put in for psychological effect? Mr. CHALMERS. It was put in for psychological effect; you are absolutely correct, sir. I made a statement that a man would be able to go to a banker with a definite statement of fact as to what he would be able or would not be able to do. And, furthermore, under this principle a man would be able to sell his property, and in being able to sell his property he would know, or a purchaser of that property would know, that he would be entitled to the grazing privileges of the forest as held by the previous owner; and in like manner, when a man sells his property he can put a fair valuation on that property, because he knows when he sells that property to a prospective purchaser that he can transfer his right to graze on the forest along with his right to graze on the patented or deeded land. Senator JONES of New Mexico. Would you have the permit basis fixed in the beginning for the entire life of the preference? Mr. CHALMERS. As to a charge basis, do you mean? Senator JONES of New Mexico. Yes. Mr. CHALMERS. Yes; the same as any lease. Say you pay so much for the use of this. It is up to you in your discretion whether or not you use it as a whole. Say you have a preference for 5,000 head; whether you have 1,000 or 5,000 head on there, you pay the rental value or the lease value of that allotment. Senator JONES of New Mexico. You would not provide for any change in the rental basis? Mr. CHALMERS. Do you mean on the fixing of the charges as the Forest Service now have them? Senator JONES of New Mexico. Yes. Mr. CHALMERS. I will come to that later, sir; if I may. Mr. CHALMERS. I notice a statement in the October 3 issue of the Literary Digest to the effect that "should the stockman be given definition and protection of rights to use the forest on an area basis instead of upon the per capita basis now in use it would result in the destruction of the ranges and a revival of the conditions which confronted the Nation when the Forest Service took over these resources during Roosevelt's régime." I am giving that statement not for the sake of refutation only, but to try to bring out to show that the stockman in asking or demanding that he be given consideration for a legalized right to use this resource upon which his industry is built is not asking for anything which will be a detriment to the rest of the Nation or which is going to jeopardize the other interests or the resources of the forest-which will place him entirely free so that he can wreak destruction upon that great resource as we are led to believe he is not asking for that. He is merely asking for the legal right to use this resource of the forest reserve upon which his business is based. The stockman of to-day has changed a good deal from the stockman of 30 or 40 years ago, and he is becoming a specialist in his line. The business world and the economic structure of the business world to-day demand that a man in order to make a success of the stock business has to be a specialist in his line. And whereas 20 or 30 years ago, even long before the time when I took an active interest in the stock business, it was the practice to turn stock out on the range and they would let them take care of themselves, and returns were perhaps correspondingly small on the amount of stock turned out; but on account of the quantity they were able to handle being so large a fair return could be made on the investment. But to-day the range conditions are being curtailed. The country is getting settled up and more and more range conditions are being curtailed throughout the country. So that any factor that could be brought into play which would stabilize these range conditions and guarantee to not only the stockmen that are in business to-day but to the men that hope to come into the stock business—will guarantee to them that they have a legal right to use the grazing not necessarily only of the national forest but on the public domain or the unappropriated area as well is going to be a decidedly stabilizing factor in the stock business and it is going to have its effect in the economic structure of the stock business because then men are not gambling from year to year, but they are gambling in the future. Then, also, should a man engaged in this legitimate business have any cause to willfully misuse the national forest and the grazing thereon? We are led to believe that if a man can go in and say, "Well, I can get a 10-year right or a 20-year right or an annual right, or whatever you chose to call it; I wil luse it to the limit and then get out." But I do not think that that is the case or would be the case with a large majority or practically all of the stockmen. Because under this recommendation the stockman would be held responsible not only for his grazing resources, for the grass, for the watershed, for the recreational, but he would be held responsible for the entire forest as he now is, with perhaps more leniency shown him as to when he should enter or come off, as long as he did not hurt the resources, and as to how many animals he should put on. And then it would be up to him to use his discretion as to how many head should be put on there, on an area basis, as long as he did not injure the resources of the forest. However, should any man injure that resource, injure the grazing on the forest, he could be held accountable by the administrative officers of that department. For instance, if I had a 2,000-head allotment, and I decided to put on 7,000 head, why the Forest Service officer could file an injunction against me, and I could be brought before a court of law and be tried on that charge. Meanwhile I would not be injuring that national resource with an injunction against me. And it is human nature that none of us are so good that we follow the straight and narrow path without perhaps a club being held over us, but the |