ment. Where there is a man who qualifies, that is the man that we intended to protect.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, now, if I remember your Salt Lake conference report, which I am glad to know the author of

Mr. LEE. Do not misunderstand me. I meant that particular clause, when Mr. Marshall and some other gentlemen and myself were there drawing that, that question came up, and when it came to who is going to get this land, why it was generally agreed that the present users should. I can assure you that that recommendation was not the work of any one man or any ten men.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, should there be any limitation in the law as to the extent of the preference right? Mr. LEE. You say should there be?

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Yes.

Mr. LEE. I don't think so.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. So you could not legalize something unless it were defined?

Mr. LEE. My personal opinion is that a considerable scope of discretion is bound to be left in the department administering that land. It might be fixed by a board or somebody, of the initial allotments, but I believe it would be impractical to fix any bill that would limit it one way or the other absolutely. There must be, within certain confines, discretion left in the department.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, if you leave discretion in the department, then it would practically nullify any legalizing of a definite area to individuals by law, would it not?

Mr. LEE. I don't think so. No, I have more confidence in the department than that. And anything--even that would be better than the present conditions, which are intolerable. I think this, Senator, that we can not hope to get a perfect law when we start. Of course a patched-up work is not wholly to be desired, but this thing is an innovation and we must make the best attempt that we can at first, because we must have immediate relief, and if that demonstrates the necessity of some change, why we can get it. But the trouble has been heretofore that everybody is afraid of it, and they are afraid to put themselves in the hands of the Government. But we found at Salt Lake, and I am informed that this committee, as it has traveled around, has found that the recent difficulties probably and the work that has been going by these associations for a number of years have crystallized that thought so that it is necessary that this control be had. I know that that is true in New Mexico where I am familiar with conditions.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. I think that that is true, Mr. Lee, that the people are in favor of the general principle of controlling the public domain and making it available for use by stockmen. But there seems to be considerable difficulty when you begin to get right down to language as to what should be done.

Mr. LEE. Yes; we have found that out.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. And when you come to legislate on the subject you have got to use definite language.

Mr. LEE. Yes, sir. The only answer that I can make to your question as to the maximum limitation to be placed on that is that it is provided that the Government retain jurisdiction to prevent that

range from being destroyed. Now they must give a man an area, and he is bound not to destroy the sod in that area. His area, as I interpret the provision, would be determined by the amount of land that he has been using, which can be, to a certain extent at least, determined either on an area basis, if he happened to be in there alone, but if he has been using it with the community, as to the number of head that he has been running, and the average number of acres that are necessary to carry cattle or sheep on that range. I believe that it can be worked out within reasonable limitations along that line. That is, we know in certain areas that the range will carry on the average 7 acres to a sheep. And probably 40 to 50 acres, depending on the range, to a cow. To a breeding cow. Well, now, if a man has been in an area from 5 to 40 years, as many of them have on the public domain, and has run a bunch of, say 500 cattle-now out of that he ought to be entitled to an area sufficient to maintain that number of cattle.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Although he has not any cattle now?

Mr. LEE. Well, that is a problem that is going to be, like lots of the rest of the reconstruction problems, a hard one to meet. But I believe that if he comes in there, and he can establish his right that he has been there, and the only reason he has not any cattle this minute is because he was caught in the forced liquidation, he should not be forced out of the industry entirely. If he can not come in there and put in his cattle, most of the people that are out of the business entirely will not be able to obtain money to rehabilitate themselves. Some people that have been able to hold on next door to them can encroach upon that range from different angles and get it. That is what it will amount to in the practical operation.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. As I understand the proposal, the way it is stated now, it is to give to the present occupant of the land a legalized right which shall be transferable to a definite area of country?

Mr. LEE. That is the intention; yes, sir.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. And the Salt Lake conference did not put any limitation of time upon that right, I believe?

Mr. LEE. No, sir. We could not agree on it, because some of us thought that it was unwise, as was stated here by the witnesses ahead of me, to attempt to get more than 10 years, and the rest of them wanted 20 years. Now, for that reason we left it out and left it to he discretion of this committee, who, we hoped, would try to get it through Congress.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, if you people can not agree among yourselves, how can you expect us to agree?

Mr. LEE. We want all we can get. That is all. The longest period that you can get through. We are all agreed on that, Senator Jones, that the longer that lease term the better it will suit us. There are limitations in that, as I said, and which I am stating now, that are only there as a question of politics; that is all-diplomacy, if you want to put it that way.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Now, some of the people who appeared before us in Colorado, and I have no doubt other places, wanted an unlimited right attached to their present land holdings

which might be transferred or transferable with their land holdings; really have this right appurtenant to their lands.

Mr. LEE. Well, of course, that would be very nice if we could get a lot for nothing, but I don't think we have any right to ask for that, and I don't think Congress would give it, so there is no use of jeopardizing our chances on the rest of it. That is my personal view.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, then, does it not come back to the proposition to which you referred awhile ago, that very large discretion must be put somewhere to determine the amount of land which the individuals ought to have a right to occupy?

Mr. LEE. Do you mean in the initial leasing?

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Yes.

Mr. LEE. Yes; I think that is true. Because somebody is going to have to determine that. The lessee can not determine it for himself, because his neighbors will not agree to that. So that authority will have to come from some place.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, then, would you be satisfied with a law which provided for this leasing, giving to the controlling governmental authority-if in a forest reserve, to the Forestry Bureau--the discretion in the first instance to fix the areas that should be granted to individuals, and take into consideration the financial condition of the individual, his prior occupation, and any other factors which might bear upon the justice or injustice of the action? Mr. LEE. Well, as I said before, that discretion will have to be vested some place, and it will necessarily have to be vested in the department that administers the lands. Before I would want the Forest Service to do that I would want them to revise their ideas about putting in a whole lot of little ones, and going rustling them up from some place where they can not make a living, as against the big ones.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. You, of course, appreciate the uncertainty of being able to revise the opinions, do you not, of people?

Mr. LEE. Yes; I appreciate that, and I think all sheepmen do; and that is why we wish to revise some of the rules of the forest. The uncertainties of it are just exactly why we are here. We want to stabilize.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, is that certainty of suffi cient importance to control the question as to whether we will have this leasing system at all or not?

Mr. LEE. I don't believe I follow you, Senator.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, I understand that you agreed that there must be discretion somewhere?

Mr. LEE. Yes, sir.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. And you are not willing to leave that discretion to the present forest officials?

Mr. LEE. It must necessarily be left to the department that is going to administer it. I merely expressed the hope that they would revise some of their ideals that I think have socialistic tendencies. But we can not control that by law, Senator.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. You think, then, that you would be willing to leave the allocation of these lands to the officials in charge

of the leased area to allocate them according to the right and justice of the situation?

Mr. LEE. Yes; I think that must necessarily be true. At least, I certainly can not offer a better suggestion.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. What, in your opinion, should be the smallest area included within a grazing district which should be under the supervision of some Federal official?

Mr. LEE. Oh, do you mean in dividing the grazing countries into

Senator JONES of New Mexico. No; I mean what is the smallest area of public land which you think should go into a grazing district in order to justify the organization of such districts? How small an area do you think ought to be contemplated in the leasing act?

Mr. LEE. Well, as I understand your question, Senator, you mean as to how small an area there should be what you might call a grazing office over?

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Yes.

Mr. LEE. That is, the same as our State land officers supervise all of New Mexico, or how big a Federal area should be?

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, what I mean is this: I suppose where there is an isolated section or tract of land you would not want to organize that into a district, would you?

Mr. LEE. Well, now, let me ask another question. Do you mean to an individual lessee, or do you mean the total area of many lessees under the supervision of an office of some kind?

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, as I understand it, it is proposed that the leasing system shall be applied only to areas where stockmen want to get a considerable area of land?

Mr. LEE. Oh, on the local-option theory?

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Yes.

Mr. LEE. Yes, sir.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, now, what should be the maximum of contiguous public land in order to warrant the leasing of that land, or would you undertake to lease now every portion of the public domain which is left?

Mr. LEE. I would undertake to lease every portion of it that could not be sold. Out in your part of the country, around the Bell ranch and that district, there are probably some very small areas of public domain that have been left in there. Well, now, I should think if some way could be found to sell those to somebody who wants them they should be sold. Otherwise, you people who are interested up there should be allowed to lease them.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. You would suggest enlarging the present isolated tract law?

Mr. LEE. Yes, sir.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. And to what extent?

Mr. LEE. Well, personally I think that if there is some way that any amounts of land that are left now in the public domain can be gotten into private ownership now that would be a good thing, but at the present time that is impractical. So I don't think that any limitation should be put on the amount that they can sell. In other words, Senator, right now, as everyone knows, there isn't anyone who is in the livestock business or is interested in these lands who

is in a position to make a cash outlay to purchase the lands, but they can lease them for a reasonable rental. The probabilities are that when the business is rehabilitated, as we hope it will be some day, they would be in a position to purchase them. Now, we can not provide for that at this time, we anticipate. So what we are trying to do is the best we can under the circumstances.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, if we are to provide for a 10-year lease that would dispose of them for 10 years.

this

you can pass your

Mr. LEE. Yes; and it would undoubtedly be 10 years before anybody gets back to the basis of buying them. But you might put it that way, lease law without in any way preventing some legislation at a later date allowing them to be sold. That is, there is no reason why it is necessary to dispose of that question at this time.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, if you were to grant the lease, however, for 10 years, that would dispose of that land for 10 years? Mr. LEE. Yes, sir. But it would not prevent a law being passed in 20 years from now allowing it to be sold.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. I think that is all.

S nator CAMERON. I think that is all, Mr. Lee. We thank you very much. Now, Mr. Morley.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. MORLEY, CATTLE RAISER, DATIL, N. MEX.

Senator CAMERON. Mr. Morley, will you give your name and your address to the reporter?

Mr. MORLEY. William R. Morley, Datil, N. Mex.

Senator CAMERON. Mr. Morley, have you a statement that you wish to make to the committee? We would like to have you do so in your own way, if you will.

Mr. MORLEY. As I understand, the questions under consideration are grouped under three heads: The forest reserves, the public domain

Senator CAMERON. Or anything pertaining to the public lands. Mr. MORLEY. Does the ch cker-board land come under public domain?

Senator CAMERON. Well, every alternate section does.

Mr. MORLEY. Yes, sir. Well, taking them up in order, my idea on the forest reserves, based on some 20 years' use of the forest as part of my range is that the present system is bureaucratic and despotic and tends to injurious and wrong practice. It is un-American. It places the authority-speaking from a stockman's point of view-it places the authority over your business entirely in the hands of an inexperienced, young, and inefficient ranger. The financial responsibility remains in the owner. Mistakes of judgment on the part of the ranger, which are usually supported by his superiors, as is the case in all bureaus, I believe, give no relif to the owner in the event of loss. There is no redress, there is no appeal that an owner may resort to. If a ranger makes a mistake the man who owns the stock suffers the consequences. And the entire suffering, the entire loss falls on the owner without any redress, without any possible chance of recompense. That case occurs frequently.