set aside for the control of grazing only, reserves which contain no merchantable timber. Do you believe that the conditions surrounding a forest reserve of that kind can be different from the conditions surrounding a reserve in this State, for instance?

Mr. MORTON. Yes; I believe they can, because in our localities surrounding part of these parks, in this area that is contemplated being taken into Sequoia, it has more or less developed into park purposes now without control. Every year large parties go up there, and there is no control over those parties other than the suggestions and advice given by the guides and trucks and pack-train

men.

Senator ODDIE. I mention this to show that a great deal of testimony has been presented to our committee in the hearings in the various Western States to the effect that there are large areas of partially desert land included in the forest reserves on which there is no merchantable timber, and on which grazing is the only use to which it can be put, and which contains no scenic attractions. The problems that relate to that character of country are different, of course, from those in the scenic country like the area in question in California. But certain rights have accrued to stockmen, who own ranches in that territory. Now the question is, whether similar rights to stockmen exist in this area in question, and if they do exist whether they should be taken away from these people without recompense by the Government.

Mr. MORTON. Might I ask if that question has been raised concerning this area that has been more or less discussed in detail here, just east of Sequoia?

Senator ODDIE. I do not know that that has been discussed in regard to this particular area. Certain features of it have been.

Mr. EVANS. Would you allow me to make an observation? The statute of limitations does not run against the Government. I can not conceive, and I have often wondered in riding over some of our forest areas, that I as a cattleman or you as a cattleman have any right to that land or to the grazing on that land just because the Government has allowed me to use it for all these years.

Now if you are going to take the position that they have procured a right there, which I do not understand that they have, or that they can, you are giving to a limited number of people through one branch of the Government a gratuity that no other department of the Government recognizes, and which they do not hesitate to take away from the citizens, and properly so, whenever civilization makes it necessary for the Government to step out and get a greater revenue.

Now if you take that position, and it is necessary in those areas surrounding cattle ranches, would it not be far better to sell that land outright and let the State or the county get some taxable value out of it, which would go to the benefit of the county expenses which other citizens have to pay for, rather than to say that a few limited people have acquired a right from the Government to land on which nobody pays any taxes, which has no scenic value for park purposes, which has absolutely no forestation possibility, and which they get practically for nothing? They do not acquire a right because they have run their cattle on it. I can take you to sections in the

Coachella Valley in Riverside County, in the Cleveland Forest, say, in which the stockmen have run their cattle. Nobody objects, bit they do not own it. They do not have any inalienable right to it. and the Government is under no obligations to allow them to continue to use it. If somebody wants to come in and offer $50,000 for some of that land, and the Government takes that offer, and it is put into a real forest land, or to reclamation purposes, and it is put to use, and also where it is of value for taxation purposes, it is far better for the country and far better for the community in which it is situated.

Senator ODDIE. There are numbers of ranch properties throughout the various Western States which are dependent for their existence to a very large extent on the use of these forest-reserve areas for grazing. Those ranches as they exist to-day compose part of the taxable property of the counties and of the States. Now if these grazing areas that they have been using for many years are taken away from them, it will depreciate the value of those ranches and affect the tax rolls of the counties and States.

Mr. EVANS. Yes, but they are of very insignificant size in proportion to the average county property. It is like a comity right, you know, that the Government argues on some things that pertain to Canada or to Mexico, and I think one of the Attorney Generals has defined that along some water rights, that there may be a comity right which the Government would like to exercise, but there is no legal obligation, no legal ownership. Now, if the Government wants to exercise a comity right there I do not think that any reasonable citizen would object to giving these ranchers something, or buying their ranch, or sticking it into the forest reserve, or something of that kind. But you can not recognize any inherent right there in these people to these grazing lands.

Senator ODDIE. I would not call ranching an insignificant industry, because these ranchers have been the pioneers of much of this western country. Certain rich irrigable areas of the West, such as California contains to such a large extent, are fortunate, but there are certain areas in the various Western public-land States which are not as fortunate. They are largely dependent on the use of the range that they have enjoyed for many years, and without this range these ranches that I am describing will be of very little value. because they are too remote from transportation to allow the profitable shipping of their crops of hay and grain. They are compelled under the economic conditions that surround them to market their hay and grain by feeding it to the livestock that range on the forest reserves and on the public domain in their neighborhood.

Mr. EVANS. I would think that the Government could afford to be very liberal with that group of people, and the different prior conditions should be considered on their merits.

Mr. MORTON. I should think that in handling a situation like that it would be possible through leases, etc., to take care of such areas where such conditions prevail until say you had conditions similar to what we have in southern California, because I think that the point that you referred to there has been true of much of the western country that has been developed. Gradually the ranches disappeared. Take Riverside, for instance. One time it was simply a

large ranch. Most all of southern California was looking that way. And those areas could be taken care of by the Government. I can not feel that the Government should buy from the ranchers, or recompense them for any right they have, because I do not know of any distributive right which an individual can obtain against a municipality, or a county, or a State, or the Nation.

Senator ODDIE. I am speaking of the right of long usage which the Government has allowed the users of that forest area, which it has recognized to the extent of granting for them permits for fees since the Forest Reserve has been in existence, and in most instances to those who have used it since before the forest reserve existed. A great deal of testimony that has come before our committee has dealt with the question of Federal legislation which would legalize the rights of these grazers to certain areas on the forest reserve that they have been using for years. The question has been discussed as to whether those areas should be granted on an area basis or on a per capita stock basis. The law creating the forest reserves stated that they were created for the purpose of controlling the watersheds and conserving the timber. Nothing was said in the law about grazing. Much of the testimony that has come before us has been in the nature of requests or suggestions for legislation which will legalize the grazing privileges.

Mr. EVANS. That in a sense would be like saying that under a State law you could not do certain things because it was not in the title of the bill. But the title of the bill can not incorporate all that is in the bill itself. It must have a limitation. I take it that the establishment of the forest reserve was indicative of the main objects, but you can not get away from all the objects-that the Government still owns that property. It is the Government's property, and it is not my property because I have a ranch near it from which I run cattle. It belongs to the Government. They have been lenient with me, but I do not own it. They can take it from me at any time. They take other things from me at any time they want, and they certainly can do that.

Senator ODDIE (presiding). Aside from the question of the original owners of ranch property adjacent to or in the neighborhood of the forest reserve, under the rulings of the Forest Service, certain ranchers have been compelled to buy commensurate ranch property, as it is called. They have gone to that expense believing that they would have the indefinite use of that forest reserve area that they have been using. If that should be taken away from them, you can understand that it would work a hardship and loss on them, and it does not seem that the action of the Government in doing that would be in good faith.

Mr. EVANS. I do not think that anybody would advocate the Government being anything but lenient to these people, but when you say that they bought these commensurate areas with the idea that they would have this privilege indefinitely, where did they get that idea? The Government never told them that they might do that.

Senator ODDIE (presiding). They believed that they would have it indefinitely. They have been granted permits from year to year.

43213-25-PT 14- -16

The Forest Service is extending these in certain cases to 10-year permits. The testimony which has been brought before our committee has been very largely that which would advocate the legalizing and definitely determining these grazing area permits in the forest reserve.

Mr. MORTON. Would that simply be a grant, Senator, to the cattlemen of so much land?

Senator ODDIE (presiding). The grant of the use of so much land. Mr. MORTON. For how long a period?

Senator ODDIE (presiding). The forest reserve is granting 10year permits.

Mr. MORTON. Are the cattlemen satisfied with that?

Senator ODDIE (presiding). It is hard to say. Some are satisfied with 10-year permits, but the conditions surrounding the cattlemen in the various States are different, as you can understand.

Mr. EVANS. Just to come back to my proposition of the extension of the Sequoia, Mr. Chairman, I would like to call attention to the fact that under the presidential proclamation eliminating that area from its present uses, that under the Forest Service no sheep are allowed up in that section at all this year. And it has been so stated by the Forest Service. As far as sheep are concerned, there has been no area up there where this condition that you refer to would apply. For instance, there was one bunch of sheep that might have been sent a hundred miles one way or the other. It was started from Bakersfield. They were given ceratin permits up on a branch of the Kings River. They were assigned this particular area. That bunch of sheep started from Bakersfield, made its way up to the place it was assigned, the area it was assigned by a very tortuous route, getting tangled up in the way, and finally straightened out; and when they got to the area assigned they remained there exactly two weeks, and after they had eaten up a little meadow they started back over the same course and got back to Bakersfield, and the whole time taken in this trip was eight months from the time they had started to reach these meadows and the time they returned. And of that eight months just two weeks was occupied in actually feeding in the area to which they had been assigned. Incidentally, they did a great deal of damage to the trails going and coming.

Do you realize, for instance, the change in burden that has been put upon the agriculturalist? We bought up these ditches. We took our water out. Now comes along the State, for instance, the same as the Nation is coming on other things, and says, “Civilization has come. Here are 5,000 people down below you. Now, you can not maintain that earth ditch any more. You have got to concrete it. You have got to pipe it. We will give you five years in

which to do it."

The State is imposing upon its citizens in all walks of life burdens that I as an agriculturalist do not make, but that civilization. and the growth of population has made, and they impose those burdens on us who own alfalfa and potato and cauliflower and celery land; and I have some cattle, and they say to me I must do these things, and they impose it on me. Why? Not because I am doing the Government any injury, but because civilization's needs are paramount, and I have got to conform to those needs.

Now, the cattleman is in the same boat as I am-the bigger cattleman. I am only a very small one. He is in the same boat that I am in relation to the Government that I am in relation to the State, and the State has imposed innumerable laws of that kind upon the agriculturist in California in the last 10 years, and we have had to comply, and we ought to, and I think it is entirely reasonable.

Senator ODDIE (presiding). You understand that in stating some of the problems that have been brought before our committee in the last few weeks and in recounting in a brief way some of the testimony that has been brought before us I am personally not arguing against the march of civilization at all; I am simply trying to bring out these questions in this discussion.

Mr. EVANS. What you have said is worth my trip down here.

Senator ODDIE (presiding). I appreciate what you have said is of great help to us. Now, here is the point. There are certain areas. less fortunate than the areas around this section of California, areas in which grain and hay are raised, and which lack a market, except what market the feeding of livestock gives them. There are areas where hay and grain are raised to a considerable extent in certain reclamation areas which are dependent very largely on the livestock industry for furnishing a market for their products. For instance, there are certain sections of Nevada where alfalfa and grain are raised. Many thousands of cattle are shipped from the State of California to those particular sections, and which furnish a market for the alfalfa, and the cattle are fattened on it for the market.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN T. MATHER, DIRECTOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, WASHINGTON, D. C.-Resumed

Mr. MATHER. I might say on the reverse of that that down in Sacramento Valley, around Sacramento, they send over and buy the alfalfa hay that comes from the Newlands project in your own State, because they find that that particular alfalfa hay is better feed than the alfalfa hay they can get in the Sacramento Valley. Showing how the States correlate in various ways.

The same thing came up in connection with the Arizona situation. The great drought of last year resulted in many of these forest reserves being inadequate entirely for grazing purposes; the drought burned them up. Many of the cattle died. During the past spring the range in California was something remarkable. Tulare County had in this foot-hill country there the most marvelous wheat they had had for years. Thousands of cattle were bought and shipped from Arizona and came up to that feed on those ranges there in the spring, with the splendid spring feed, and were marketed at good prices, where if they had been left down in Arizona they would have succumbed. I mention that to show the interrelation that exists between the States. Arizona was helped by California. And in this other instance, buying hay in Nevada and being carried into Sacramento Valley, they were getting a quality of hay of exceptional value for cattle feeding.

Senator ODDIE. On the other hand, there are certain limitations to shipments of alfalfa hay because of the alfalfa weevil which