2. Making illegal the grazing of livestock on government land by any except holders of rights.

3. Such rights to be transferable in the usual commercial way.

4. These rights to be, as nearly as practicable, for the same areas of land as are now used by those whose rights are to be recognized.

5. Provision for the recognition, where necessary, of rights to grazing use of land now used by a group or association of stockmen. Such provision is for the purpose of enabling a number of stockmen to secure rights to a sufficient area of land to provide for that grazing in seasons of varying snowfall and feed conditions. Its purpose is to secure rights to a sufficient area of land to provide grazing under any probable condition, such as is now necessary and customary.

6. The rights to be to grazing use only.

7. The Government to be recognized as retaining all other rights and interests, including those of protection of timber, water supplies, and perhaps recreational use.

8. Provision to be made for collection by the Government of penalties in case the holder of the grazing right damages or abuses the timber, the water supply, or the grazing itself.

9. The imposing of penalties to be made only upon the institution by the government of proceedings in the Federal Court and the presentation of witnesses to prove their case.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. You make very little distinction between your proposal and that of the witness which just preceded you, as I understand it?

I

Mr. HALEY. In which particular?

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Is there any essential difference between your proposal and that of the witness who preceded you? Mr. HALEY. On the area basis, do you mean?

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Yes, sir.

Mr. HALEY, No, sir.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Would you want to repeal any of the present homestead laws?

Mr. HALEY. Yes, sir; I think so.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. And provide against the enact

ment of others?

Mr. HALEY. Yes, sir.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Or, in other words, you would like to divide the use of the remaining public domain, including

been using those lands?

Mr. HALEY. Yes, sir.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. If that were done do you not think it would be advisable, or perhaps more advisable, just to give complete title to those lands, reserving the right in the United States to grow and cut timber and make those lands subject to taxation by the local authorities?

Mr. HALEY. Do I understand that you mean- -see if I get your point. Do I understand that you mean to put the public domain under control of the Forest Service?

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Oh, I think what you in effect ask for is that so far as the beneficial use of the land is concerned, it should be divided up among the present stockmen?

Mr. HALEY. Yes, sir.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. And they be given complete control over it both now and for the future?

Mr. HALEY. Yes, sir.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. And if you are going to do that, would it not be better for the Government to simply withdraw all control, except as to the timber and things which you people do not want? And give the local authorities the right to tax it as other property?

Mr. HALEY. And the Government not have any control over it at all, do you mean?

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Except under that general restriction which you want to put in there, that you give the Government the right to collect the penalty?

Mr. HALEY. And legalize grazing.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Yes?

Mr. HALEY. Yes, sir; I think that would be all right.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. That is all.

Senator CAMERON. All right, sir; if there is nothing more you wish to say, that will be all, and we thank you very much. Mr. Major.

STATEMENT OF R. F. MAJOR, MERCHANT AND CATTLEMAN, RIFLE, COLO.

Senator CAMERON (presiding). Mr. Major, will you give your name, your residence, and your occupation to the reporter?

Mr. MAJOR. R. F. Major; merchant and cattleman; Rifle, Colo. Sentator CAMERON. Mr. Major, have you a statement you wish to make to the committee?

Mr. MAJOR. Well, I just came here as a spectator, and was asked to state my opinions.

Senator CAMERON. Well, sir, we will be glad to hear you.

Mr. MAJOR. I am a member of the Piceance and Roan Creek Stockgrowers Association. And we have no resolutions to file with this committee, but stand most heartily behind the resolutions presented at the hearing at Salt Lake. The president of our association, Mr. Wilcoxon, was a member of that committee from Colorado. And that is just about the extent of my declaration.

Representative TAYLOR. Do you reflect the setiment, do you think, of the Piceance and Roan Creek, Garfield County and Rio Blanco County?

Mr. MAJOR. Yes, sir.

Mr. BOWDEN. Are you a permittee on the forest?

Mr. MAJOR. No, sir.

miles.

We are out west of the forest reserve 7

Mr. BOWDEN. Do you use the public domain?

Mr. MAJOR. Yes, sir, altogether.

Mr. BOWDEN. Are you in favor of establishing Federal control of the public domain for grazing purposes?

Mr. MAJOR. Yes, sir.

Mr. BOWDEN. Is there any homesteading going on in your part of the country?

Mr. MAJOR. There has been.

Mr. BOWDEN. When?

Mr. MAJOR. Oh, in the last four years, five years.

Mr. BOWDEN. Any going on now?

Mr. MAJOR. I think not.

Mr. BOWDEN. Homesteads under the 640-acre stock-raising act? Mr. MAJOR. Yes.

Mr. BOWDEN. Have the homesteaders in your neighborhood been able to make a living on their homesteads?

Mr. MAJOR. No, sir; with very few exceptions.

Mr. BOWDEN. Are many living on their homesteads now?

Mr. MAJOR. No; most all of them have left them and abandoned them.

Mr. BOWDEN. Well, what use is being made of that land now?

Mr. MAJOR. Well, they didn't fence it very well, and the cattle are running over those lands. Of course some of the cattlemen took up some of those homesteads and they are using them for pastures. As a rule they are dry, though, and they can not use them for grazing except in the winter months when there is snow on the ground or in the spring.

Mr. BOWDEN. Very few of the homesteaders then are living on their homesteads?

Mr. MAJOR. Very few.

Senator CAMERON. Have a good many of the homesteads been sold for taxes?

Mr. MAJOR. I expect there have been. I could not say for sure on that score, but I know that a lot of them have been abandoned. They were not able to make a living, but as to whether they have been sold, I have not noticed the tax sales.

Mr. BOWDEN. Would you be in favor of increasing the size of the homestead entry?

Mr. MAJOR. Yes; I think I would.

Mr. BOWDEN. How large an increase would you suggest as would make a sufficient area in your country to enable a man to make a living upon?

Mr. MAJOR. Well, sir, that would take a whole lot.

Senator CAMERON. It would take several townships?
Mr. MAJOR. Yes; it would.

Mr. BOWDEN. Would you favor giving him that size homestead?
Mr. MAJOR. Well, if he was willing to pay the taxes on it, I think

so: yes.

Mr. BOWDEN. What is that homestead land being assessed; do you know?

Mr. MAJOR. I think it is being assessed at from $4 to $5 an acre. Mr. BOWDEN. And what rate of taxes are you paying in your neighborhod?

Mr. MAJOR. About 311⁄2 per cent.

Mr. BOWDEN. You own lands?

Mr. MAJOR. Yes, sir.

Mr. BOWDEN. Is the use of your privately owned lands dependent on your use of the public domain during certain seasons of the year? Mr. MAJOR. Altogether; yes, sir. It is so far from the railroad, and there are so few crops that can be raised of commercial value, of sufficient commercial value to pay the transportation charges, that it would be out of the question.

Mr. BOWDEN. Is the value of the use that you get of the public domain reflected in the valuation placed upon your privately owned lands for tax purposes?

Mr. MAJOR. Yes, sir.

Representative TAYLOR. Haven't you got a statement on taxes there in your pocket?

Mr. MAJOR. Yes, sir.

Representative TAYLOR. It seems to me it would be well for you to put that in the record.

Mr. MAJOR. Yes; I will do that, with your permission.
Senator CAMERON. Go ahead.

Mr. MAJOR (reading):

If public-domain land became deeded land, it would be assessed at about $5 per acre, as 640-acre patented grazing homesteads are assessed at that value at this time in this county.

The tax levy for all purposes in this county is more than 32 per cent of the assessed value; at this rate, allowing 5 per cent interest on the money invested, an owner of this section of land would have to earn $256 per year in order to pay the taxes and allow him a return of 5 per cent on the assessed value; this would require a return of 40 cents per acre.

The assessed valuation of $5 per acre would be about $100 per section, or about 15 cents per acre.

Representative TAYLOR. As a matter of fact, the land of that character in this county will not stand that tax?

Mr. MAJOR. No; it will not.

Representative TAYLOR. And for that reason they can not really afford to own them?

Mr. MAJOR. Could not afford to own them at all. It would not be practical.

Representative TAYLOR. Now you said a moment ago I do not know whether you meant to say it or not-that you favored an increase of the homestead. Now if the 640-acre homestead will not support a man and his wife and family, why if you could make it 1,280 acres or 2,000 acres it would be simply aggravating the thing, would it not? It would make it that much worse?

Mr. MAJOR. Well, I wish to withdraw that statement, because I am not in favor of increasing the homestead.

Representative TAYLOR. And if you increased it it would simply create speculation and interfere with the business?

Mr. MAJOR. It would interfere with business and hurt you worse than in this other case. It would cost those people lots of money. Representative TAYLOR. I notice by the papers that up in Wyoming they favor an increased homestead. I do not think there is any sentiment of that kind in western Colorado here, that we would favor a 640-acre or a 2,000-acre homestead, or anything of that kind. Mr. MAJOR. No. I merely made that statement from the tax viewpoint. If they wanted to pay taxes on that, all right.

Representative TAYLOR. Now there is another feature. The land that you pay taxes on in this county is not the kind of land that is public at all now, is it?

Mr. MAJOR. No, sir; it has water rights.

Representative TAYLOR. It is land that produces something and will pay the taxes, and a reasonable amount of it will support a family. And in conjunction with this public domain, even though it is very sparsely covered with grass, you might say, why a man can make a living, but the land itself, that does not have any value by itself, excepting in conjunction with land that will produce something and furnish greater feed for the stock.

Mr. MAJOR. That is it.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Why do they assess these abandoned homesteads at such a price?

Mr. MAJOR. Well, sir, they make a flat rate on all grazing. I think they enter them as grazing lands, and they have a flat rate in each county for the valuation of these grazing lands.

Representative TAYLOR. What it is going to do is to force the land into tax title, is it not?

Mr. MAJOR. Yes.

Representative TAYLOR. And somebody is going to get tax title for it, because there is a lot on which the taxes can not be paid. It ought not to be over 20 cents an acre, or something like that, instead of $5, the rate. It is a rate that is too high.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. When you said that the people could not afford to own this land and pay taxes on it you made that statement upon the assumption that the present rate of taxes would continue, did you not?

Mr. MAJOR. Yes, sir; that the present rate would continue, because it takes from 40 to 50 acres there to maintain a steer or a cow.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. I agree with Congressman Taylor that those lands are assessed entirely too high. But if individuals owned this land, they could afford to pay some taxes on it, could they not?

Mr. MAJOR. On some portions of it; but there would be an unlimited area there that it would not pay to build a fence. It is almost barren. There would be a piece of brush here and there, and it would be absolutely worthless. No one would pay taxes on the majority of that land.

Representative TAYLOR. I think it is a matter of record that 30 per cent of all this 6,000,000 acres of land does not grow anything over here: it is rock.

Mr. MAJOR. Rock and shale.

Representative TAYLOR. Has no value, no capacity.

Mr. MAJOR. The soil is very shallow. Right at the bottom of the gulches there is some feed, but on the side hills the ridges are barren and shale.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, of course, if the land is absolutely worthless, it ought not to be assessed any price.

Mr. MAJOR. Well, it had not ought to be. It should be segregated and classified.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Would have you any difficulty in dividing the range between the present users on an area basis?

Mr. MAJOR. Well, we might not at the present time with the present owners of the ranches adjacent to this range, but I would be more in favor of running the stock on there on the per capita basis. Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, then, if you did that you could not carry out the resolution or the plan proposed by the Salt Lake conference, could you? As I understand the resolution or action taken by the Salt Lake conference, it provided that these lands should be allotted according to areas.

Mr. MAJOR. Yes, sir.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. And in this mountain country would you not have considerable difficulty in allotting that land according to area to the individual?