Mr. MORLEY. No; there is no renewal provision in the lease, but I think that might be a good thing. I think maybe a 10-year lease would be better.

Mr. BOWDEN. Is any preference given to anyone in making the lease?

Mr. MORLEY. There has been always in the question of improving ranch property contiguous to that. Possibly you know the history of these New Mexico State lands. The bulk of this land came into the possession of the State of New Mexico in 1912, when New Mexico came in as a State. And for the first few years nobody wanted it. The cattle and sheep men both had been accustomed to grazing their public domain without charge. And neither of them welcomed_the idea of paying for something which they had always had free. Just more or less human nature.

In December of 1916 Congress passed the 640-acre homestead law. In April of 1917 we entered the World War. And almost immediately after that Congress passed a law permitting the time that soldiers were in the Army to apply on their homesteads. That resulted in an immediate influx of homesteaders into New Mexico from Texas, because Texas had no public domain, never had, and all of the Texas boys who were drafted into the Army, being American citizens, had a homestead right and no way of exercising it within their own State. The New Mexico ranges were largely stocked up with Texas cattlemen who had come here in the early days, and many of them saw the opportunity immediately and sent right back across the line into Texas and brought over great bunches of soldier boys who had just been drafted into the Army. And these chaps filed on 640acre homesteads in a day and left a power of attorney. And many times it would be 20, 30, 40, 50 of those fellows who filed on contiguous sections, you see. That jeopardized and endangered the range rights of the established cattlemen and sheepmen who were using the public domain. In a night they would see a whole township of their range lost to them. So within a week practically all the stockmen in New Mexico were in Santa Fe trying to lease State land, and it all went in a hurry. I mean, there was a sudden demand for it.

The land commissioner at that time was Bob Erwin. This demand developed very rapidly, after several years of nobody wanting the land; and suddenly everybody wanting all they could get. He adopted the policy of compelling them to buy one section for each eight they leased, and the next week or so one section for each four sections that they leased; and then later one section for each two that they leased, and then finally made you buy one section for each other section that you leased, in order to force the sale of as much land as was leased, and all of the land was virtually taken up that way in a very short time.

Now, that is the history of the way the 11,000,000 acres of the New Mexico State land finally came under lease. A great many men bought much more of that land than they could afford to pay for. In this wild scramble to protect their ranges, in this scramble to try to protect their investment that they had in water holes, windmills, and small holdings, in that wild effort to do that and under the land commissioner's efforts to sell all that he could, many, many acres of land were sold which the men were unable to pay for, never have

43213-25-PT 13———6

been able to pay for, and have since reverted back to the State and are now being leased by different users.

That probably would not occur as it is now, because since then the rest of this public domain has been opened to homestead entries. After the war, when the men were discharged from the Army, many of them serving two years, many came over here-the great bulk of them coming from Oklahoma and Texas-taking up 640-acre homesteads which they have been able to prove up on without an actual residence of seven months, which constitutes a year. Many of those homesteads have been proved up on in seven months, and then the men have abandoned them and gone on. In my own particular section of the country I think four-fifths-I guess nine-tenths-of the homesteaders that came in there have gone and have left their places. A great many of them never proved up, and those who did prove up just have gone off and left them. What will be the final result no one can tell as yet. Whether they will be sold for taxes eventually or whether they will be leased by stockmen and used no one can tell.

Mr. BOWDEN. What is your idea on future homesteads?

Mr. MORLEY. I believe that practically all the available homestead land in New Mexico on which a family can make a living has been taken up.

Mr. BOWDEN. Would you be in favor of enlarging the entry to several sections?

Mr. MORLEY. I believe he would starve just as dead on three or four sections as he will on one.

Mr. BOWDEN. Well, a township, say?

Mr. MORLEY. Well, if you are going to give him a range you might give him enough land to run a herd of cattle on or a herd of sheep and keep him alive.

Mr. BOWDEN. But you could not take care of a great many people that way. Of course, that would break up the present use of the range?

Mr. MORLEY. That would break up the present use of the range; yes, sir; destroy it.

Mr. BOWDEN. In the event that the land is not turned over to the States would you favor putting the public domain under control? Mr. MORLEY. If they would lease it on an acreage basis; yes, sir. Mr. BOWDEN. I mean on an acreage basis.

Mr. MORLEY. Yes, sir; but not under a permit system. It would be infinitely better to leave it just like it is, just leave it a cat and dog proposition for all time to come than it would be to put it under the permit system where you had to have your business regulated and handled and controlled and managed by somebody else.

Mr. BOWDEN. How long have you been in the livestock business in the State, Mr. Morley?

Mr. MORLEY. All my life.

Mr. BOWDEN. Have you been engaged in any business besides the livestock business?

Mr. MORLEY. Yes, sir; I was engaged in the banking business, and I am a charter member and the president of the fraternal order of busted bankers. I think mine was the first bank to go broke in the State.

Senator CAMERON. Well, you were not alone.

Mr. MORLEY. No; I have got lots of company since then, sir. But I was alone for a while.

Senator CAMERON. And not only in New Mexico, but elsewhere over the Western States.

Mr. MORLEY. Well, that may be true.

Senator CAMERON. Now, have you anything further to offer this committee on either the public domain or anything else, Mr. Morley? Mr. MORLEY. On the question of fences, I think it is vitally important to the welfare of the State of New Mexico that some system be devised where the fences may be maintained. I don't think that that is vital to the welfare or interest of the sheep industry. But I think it is absolutely vital to the cattlemen. If the cowman can not control his cattle under a fence or have them under a fence, he hasn't got anything. I was here in the early time before there were any fences at all, and I think all the cattlemen finally went broke, and I think the principal factor in causing them to go broke at that time was the tremendous losses due to the cattle straying away, getting clear beyond their reach and out of their control. And as soon as a cow gets 30 or 40 miles away from home, why she belongs to most anybody, the first fellow that can get to her. And there are always lots of fellows going about here. And we have got to have fences if you are going to keep in the cow business in New Mexico. You have got to control your cattle.

From the sheepman's point of view-I have sheep-I don't think fences are essential. I think as a matter of fact to confine a sheepman to one specific definite range may be detrimental to his welfare. Because the ranges in this country are as a rule spotted. Some sections of the country will be good and others will be bad. And as it has been heretofore, sheepmen could pick much of the good part of the country when it was public domain and go there. His neighbors would probably do the same thing, and they probably would all have their herds and their flocks. But if you confine a sheepman to a certain township, and it doesn't rain on that township all year, why he is either going to ship out of the State or else lose his sheep. So, from the sheepman's point of view I don't think the fences are so essential, so necessary. But the sheepman has so many other advantages over the cattle business that he can overcome that. He has got his stuff under control every minute.

Mr. BOWDEN. You could beat that situation by community leases. Mr. MORLEY. Yes. You could lease range some place else. You could go. But you can not move your cattle. Your cattle are not under control, your cattle are not under herd. You are not where you can handle them. And it often takes you three weeks to a month before you can round them up.

Senator CAMERON. And I have even known lots of times when you could not round them up.

Mr. MORLEY. Yes; and it is rough and mountainous in many of our ranges, and some of our cattle we don't see but once or twice a year. But being there in this rough and mountainous range, if you had to move those cattle in the face of a drought, the expense of gathering and moving those cattle would eat them up, and would be more than you could stand.

Senator CAMERON. Is there anything else you would like to say, Mr. Morley?

Mr. MORLEY. No, sir.

Senator CAMERON. We thank you very much for your statement and the information you have given this committee.

Will you take the stand again, Mr. Lee. I think there was something you omitted to say.

FURTHER STATEMENT OF MR. LAURENCE F. LEE

Mr. LEE. There were two little matters that were suggested by Mr. Morley. Mr. Morley's statement relative to the Forest Service prompted me to put into the record here that as the chairman of the committee for the Sheep and Wool Growers' Association I have talked to different prospective witnesses about appearing before this committee and in some cases where men are large users of the forest they have expressed themselves among each other and to me as forcibly as Mr. Morley has to this committee relative to some of the practices of the Forest Service, but they refused to appear before this committee on the ground that on previous occasions they have shown opposition to the Forest Service and have been penalized by having their allotments, or rather their permits cut down, and they are unwilling to jeopardize their interests by appearing here because of fear of being further penalized.

I wish to say also in substantiating Mr. Morley's testimony relative to the increased carrying capacity of the forest. To my own knowledge on our own ranges we carry a greater number of both sheep and cattle than would be permitted on the forest and with the results that I have previously stated. And I believe that without exception over the State of New Mexico where the range is under private control and is similar to the forest or is entirely surrounded by the forest the number of livestock carried on those ranges is far in excess of what would be permitted under forest regulations. That is all I wish to say.

Senator CAMERON. Mr. J. A. Lusk.

STATEMENT OF JOHN A. LUSK, CATTLEMAN, CARLSBAD, N. MEX.

Senator CAMERON (presiding). Will you give your name and your residence and occupation to the reporter, please?

Mr. LUSK. John A. Lusk, Carlsbad, N. Mex. Occupation, cattle

man.

Senator CAMERON. Mr. Lusk, do you have a statement that you wish to make to the committee?

Mr. LUSK. Well, yes; sir.

Senator CAMERON. Go ahead and make it in your own way and just say what you feel like saying.

Mr. LUSK. The statement I wish to make is in reference to the public domain and the fences thereon. I am not familiar with the forest reserve. I have never been on that. I have been associated with the range-cattle business all my life in southeastern New Mexico. And I wish to state that according to my view, under the orders that are out now or have been by the Interior Department to remove the fences from the public domain that if that order is carried into effect that it will eliminate 90 per cent of the stockmen in my section of the country. They will have to get out of business.

And for that reason and for various others I personally favor some supervision of the public grazing lands.

And I might state from experience why I favor that. I have seen it before it was fenced and I have seen it since. And the grazing lands, from my experience, wherever they have been fenced and used by private individuals or communities are in a better state of preservation than they were under the old, wasteful use of everybody using them and the stock drifting from place to place.

And I wish to also state that there might be a few men in our country that might be able to care for and look after their stock, but the average owner who has, I will say, from 300 to 1,000 head would be unable to give them proper care if they drifted over an area of, say, 50 or 75 miles. The cost of production is so great that he could not stand the overhead expense in caring for and looking after his livestock.

Our country in southeastern New Mexico is so situated that I guess we are in about the worst condition of anybody that I know of in regard to drift cattle. All of our bad storms come from the northeast. The country slopes to the southwest, and the Texas line comes in, as you know, in this way [indicating on the map]. Texas owned all of her land, and it is privately owned, and it is all fenced. It comes in here, and it makes a corner, and the Pecos River runs very nearly a south course; it varies a little, and it makes a corner down here, and I have seen in times past, I venture to say, 100,000 cattle in that small area of that country when it was open, and they could all drift from farther north. Well, those cattle had to be moved; they had to be gotten out of there, or they would have perished from the want of feed and the want of water, too, for that matter. And since that time, in the last few years, the Government has a reclamation project there that is immediately on the west side of the river. Well, before the drift fences were put up the livestock would drift into those farms, and it did great damage to the farmer; besides, the cattle would suffer for want of feed and for want of protection.

And, as I say, if the fences were taken down, I believe in our country, if we can not get some relief, some regulation or some relief, that it will eliminate 90 per cent of the owners who are there now. And there are not very many left. And I think it will cause a great reduction in taxable property and men that are occupying the range also.

Senator CAMERON. Would it work a great hardship on the cattlemen to have those fences taken down?

Mr. LUSK. Yes.

Senator CAMERON. I might state that the Secretary of the Interior has asked this committee to investigate this matter and has held the matter in status quo until such time as we make our report. Mr. LUSK. Yes; I have understood that.

Senator CAMERON. So that I feel that the committee and as far as I am concerned, personally I feel that we will try our best to maintain and keep these fences intact, because I think that is generally the consensus of opinion among the people that we have seen in States where they have drift fences that they should be kept intact. Mr. Lusk. Yes, sir.

Senator CAMERON. And I want to assure you that we will do everything that we can to remedy this matter, if possible.