Senator CAMERON. Probably if you had plenty of rains, and conditions like they used to be, they would come back.

Mr. MONROE. Plenty of range and conservative stocking.

I do not wish to take any undue amount of time of the committee, because the technical side of this question, I am sure, can be covered better by the stockmen themselves. I just wanted to indicate the way in which I happened to be interested in this problem, and I consider it one of the most vital problems to a large part of the State of New Mexico; that is, to the livestock industry in those parts, especially the southern part.

Senator CAMERON. We are very glad to have your statement, and we thank you very much. Mr. A. B. McMillen.

STATEMENT OF ALONZO B. McMILLEN, LAWYER, LIVESTOCK RAISER, ALBUQUERQUE, N. MEX,

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

Mr. McMILLEN. My name is Alonzo B. McMillen; my main business, lawyer; residence, Albuquerque.

Senator CAMERON. Now, Mr. McMillen, if you will favor us with your statement, we would be glad to listen to you.

I

Mr. MCMILLEN. I am also engaged in the livestock business. think I will devote what I have to say to the livestock business with relation to the public domain.

It seems to me that the proper control of the public domain is a question of the very greatest importance not only to the Government in its question of administration for the greatest benefit of the people generally but to the public in stabilizing one of the basic industries, and making its production not only profitable but more uniform than it has been, and to make for the individual a business that is stable and prosperous rather than one of the most hazardous.

It is my opinion that the livestock business, as it is conducted in the arid States, is almost as hazardous as gambling. The reasons for this are very apparent. The Western States, and especially the Southwestern States, are an arid country. I mean by arid country not only a country that is sparsely grassed but a country in which large portions every year, and sometimes nearly the entire portion some years on account of extreme drought, is unproductive.

The livestock business is such that it can not be changed to meet the varying conditions of the grazing, because in a case of drought stock cattle are worthless. They can not be moved to market at a price that will more than pay for their transportation. It is as cheap to let them die upon the range.

And the great trouble with the livestock industry is that at times when there is plenty of grass every man that can get into the livestock business is crazy to do it, and makes a statement that the calves grow while you sleep at night, but the result of that is an overstocking of the range, and when that overstocking comes the cattle are thrown upon the market. The result is that prices are reduced to a point that the business is unprofitable, and there is an enforced liquidation, as there has been in the past seven or eight years,

not

withstanding the amount of livestock is reduced lower than it ever has been, probably, as compared to the population.

The result of this is twofold. The first is that the range is overcrowded. Looking into the livestock business in a practical way over a period of years it is obvious that the range will support not what might be ranged in a good year, but only the number of cattle that can be ranged in a bad year. Consequently it is necessary to have reserved pasture, and the theory that people can pasture all the grass in a good year and then reduce their herds so as to get along in a bad year is obviously fallacious. It can not be done. The number of livestock that a range will support is perhaps an average in this, that any good stockman who understands the business will always keep a reserve for his cattle in times of stress, or sheep, as it may be, and in order to do this he must have a great deal more range than is necessary for a good year. This can not be done upon the public range for the reason that it can not be fenced and that it can not be protected. No man can afford to improve it for the benefit of his neighbors. If a portion of the range is protected for the purpose of his livestock in times of stress, or for lambing purposes, if he happens to be a sheepman, there is nothing to prevent somebody moving in upon him who has not a dollar invested, and eating up all of his reserve pasture. The consequence is that the inducement to every stockman is to hog the range and make the most of it that he can for the time being, without regard to the protection of the range.

Water is one of the most important features of the livestock industry. If you would depend upon a scarcity of water or a scarcity of feed you could do better upon a scarcity of feed than upon a scarcity of water. It is to the advantage of every stockman to have water at frequent intervals so that his livestock may not have far to travel.

There are two reasons for that. Plenty of water even for sheep is an essential to keep them fat and in good condition. They can not walk all day and keep their fat.

But another very important condition is that long traveling over the range tramps out as much feed as they use.

For the reasons I have just stated no man can afford to develop water for the benefit of those who do not stand that expense. A man who is unwilling to improve the public range is the one who gets the benefit of those things in raising livestock without expense.

The same reasoning applies to the fencing. The modern business of livestock raising is very different from the old haphazard way of raising livestock. It is necessary to have not only fenced pastures but a number of fenced pastures so that the feed can be preserved for the time of need; so that the bulls can be kept away from the cows; so that the calves may be weaned; so that young heifers may be kept from being bred until they are at an age sufficient to do that; and so that a better class of livestock can be raised. None of these things can be done with our haphazard system of grazing upon the public range in which any protection of it is forbidden.

It has been my observation from comparing fenced pastures with those of the public range that the public range would be very much benefited by a system of leasing so that it can not only be developed

but may be protected. The fenced pastures show continual improvement, while the unfenced pastures show continual depreciation.

My observation has been that upon the public range where there are good watering places the livestock congregates to such an extent that there are thousands of acres that are tramped out and entirely denuded of pasture, and the theory that those are going to come back in time of rain is not correct, because they will not do it. There have got to be grass roots or seed in order to come back, and when the grass roots are once tramped out they can never come back again. There is no seed to reseed it. It will grow up with rushes, thistles, probably. But a great deal of it becomes washed down to a hardpan upon which nothing would grow. That is, the soil is tramped up, washed away, and that is the last of your grazing area.

From an ecomonic standpoint, from the point of the Government in preserving its own property, and from an economic standpoint of the public in supporting a basic industry and having a uniform supply of meat products, and from the individual standpoint, it seems to me that some control of the public lands is absolutely necessary. I believe that is the extent of my statement.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Mr. McMillen, tell us as much in detail as you can as to the plan which you would advocate for bettering this condition?

Mr. McMILLEN. I have not attempted to work out in my own mind the machinery with which it is to be done. But briefly I would say that some recognition of the legitimate livestock business is necessary. First, because the man who goes into the business because he has heard somebody say that it is an easy way to make money, and has had no experience in it, is necessarily a failure, as hundreds have proved, and they destroy the opportunity of the legitimate livestock raiser to furnish food products. It is therefore necessary, in my opinion, that the legitimate livestock raiser should be recognized. If he is to form a stable industry he must have a range upon which to do it. And I favor a leasing system by which the lessee should pay some reasonable compensation and be given a definite tenure, with the privilege of renewal from time to time so that his business may become a permanent one.

The public is not interested in the question whether A, B, or C is in the livestock business. It is interested in the subject that it be made a permanent industry. Unless it is a profitable industry it will not be a permanent industry, and it can not be a profitable industry under the present system of haphazard grazing.

The question of improvements upon the public range, of course, is one that should always have consideration, and that is another reason for recognizing the legitimate livestock industry. It is necessary for the man who is in the business, who has made it his life work more or less, and who is capable of handling it properly, to have something of that kind in order to finance such a business, and to have the opportunity that farmers and others in that class of business have of taking care of their needs.

I don't know whether I have answered your question.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, you have in a general way. Different plans have been suggested, and I think it would be advisable for us to consider some of them. One which has had many advocates, and still has, is the turning over of the remaining public lands

outside of present governmental reservations to the States in which the lands are located, and let the States handle the situation as it may exist in the various States. What do you have to say about that, if you like to say anything?

Mr. McMILLEN. The great trouble with the public lands question is that there has been great diversity of sentiment, and to this time there has been nothing done. I am in favor of proper legislation by the Government of the United States to administer the lands, and that as speedily as possible. It seems to me a mistake to bring into this question any other proposition until that is settled. When that is once settled, if those who are in favor of State ownership wish to go further, it would not interfere in any way with their doing so. But to inject that now into the question would simply delay the settlement, in my opinion.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Another suggestion has been made that we increase the area of the stock-raising homestead law with modifications of its present provisions so as to make them strictly grazing homesteads, and large enough in area to enable a man to graze livestock in sufficient number to support a family. What comment do you care to make on that?

Mr. MCMILLEN. I don't believe that anyone familiar with conditions in the West would, make such a suggestion. In the first place, you could not have a homestead that is big enough to raise livestock on unless you meant to make it a homestead of a township or half a township, something like that. The character of the climate here is such that often for a strip of a mile or two miles or even five or ten miles it may be devoid of pasture for a whole year. It is impossible to conduct the livestock business on a small area in this arid country.

Another objection is that homesteaders are not livestock men as a rule. The mere fact that a man has a homestead does not qualify him to go into the livestock business. It requires experience, more experience than most people usually suppose.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, we have a number of people in this State who own less than 100 head of cattle and derive their chief income from those cattle, have we not?

Mr. McMILLEN. I don't think so. It may be in some of the sections where they can farm and raise feed, but not in the typical arid sections. I have never seen anybody make money off of 100 cattle, except on farms. It is not possible, in my opinion.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. We have put in the record a statement of homestead entries in New Mexico for the last five years, which shows that in 1920 there were 3.983 patents issued; in 1921, 3,985; in 1922, 4,027; in 1923, 2,903; in 1924, 2,310, or a total for the five years of 17,208.

We also have the statement of the number of entries for the last four years under the stock-raising homestead law. In 1921 there were 4.645, comprising an area of 1,977,738 acres; 1922, 3,500, comprising an area of 1.612,167 acres; 1923, 2,177, comprising an area of 947,404 acres: 1924, 1,340 entries allowed, comprising an area of 567,434 acres.

Now, that would seem to indicate, whether for ill or for good, that people are taking up these lands under the homestead laws, and that patents are being issued and those lands are going into

individual ownership and subject to taxation. Would you repeal the stock-raising homestead law?

Mr. McMILLEN. No; I don't think I would, but the fact that there have been many such entries does not mean that they proved profitable. Take, for instance, between here and the mountains, many thousands of acres upon the mesa have been entered in the way of homesteads, and there was absolutely no grass upon them to support anything.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, I think you said that for a man to go out on the public domain which remains, to run livestock, it would be necessary for him to have an area perhaps as large as a half a township. That would be how many acres?

Mr. McMILLEN. That would be about 11,000; between 11,000 and 12.000 acres.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. There is left in the State, including all of the rough country and most arid sections of it, about 16,000,000 acres of unrented lands. If you were to divide them up among the stockmen equally, how many stockmen would it support? Mr. McMILLEN. Well, I don't know. That is a matter of figuring it out.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. It is a matter of mathematics. Mr. MCMILLEN. Yes. I wish to say that the estimate of stockmen usually is that it takes 40 acres of this arid land to the cow, and my experience would say that that is not overestimated at all. Take it on a section of land, as a homestead, 640 acres, and it would support 16 cows. Nobody could support himself in raising 16 stock cattle. At the prices which we have been getting in this State for the past 6 or 7 years those 16 stock cattle would be worth from $160 to $320, if they could be sold.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Is there a good deal of this land left where 40 acres will not support an animal?

Mr. McMILLEN. On some of it a thousand acres would not support an animal.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. And that is a much larger problem in some portions of Arizona and Nevada and California and Utah than it is in New Mexico, so I understand?

Mr. MCMILLEN. I don't know, I am sure; I could not answer that. Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, if this homestead law is to be continued in effect, after leasing the public domain, do you think the settler would feel quite comfortable in going into one of these pastures and establishing a homestead?

Mr. McMILLEN. I don't know whether he would feel comfortable or not. But I want to tell you, which I think you already know, what happens to the legitimate livestock man. He invests in cattle; we will say he invested in good bulls; he invests in watering places, and he thinks he is going to be in the business for himself. There is a certain class of people that send their cows, in charge of some one to whom they make, possibly, a lease, to settle in the neighborhood to have the advantage of those watering places, to have the advantage of the bulls, and they are at no expense at all. Now, that is what happens. And nobody is going to take up a homestead in this arid section for the raising of cattle unless he can take it up where somebody else is in the legitimate business and he can get the benefit of their water and their bulls.