difficult matter for the Congress of the United States to enact any general law, relative to control of range rights, which will be satisfactory to all of the States which are now confronted with problems in connection with the use of the range. The suggestion which was made would therefore relieve Congress of a vast amount of detail work, endeavoring to decide in what form a law could best be enacted, adaptable to the varying conditions in the different States interested. If the law merely delegates the right to control the range to the respective States, the problem of how that control shall be exercised can and will be much more satisfactorily resolved by any particular State, acting through its own legislature, for the benefit of its own residents.

The Forest Service may throw up its hands in horror and call such a proposal revolutionary. So is their contemplated battle with the mistletoe for that måtter. But I feel certain that the best interests of the State and the Nation will be as zealously guarded by the State legislatures as they now are by the Forest Service at Washington. This is particularly true in Nevada, where the livestock industry is such an important factor in the welfare of the State, where only 10 per cent of the vast area of the State is in private ownership as against 90 per cent still held by the Federal Government, and the value of the land held in private ownership is in almost every instance dependent on the livestock industry. In this State, owing to lack of adequate transportation facilities, the principal crops on farm units must be those which can be consumed by livestock and packed off on the hoof when the livestock is marketed. Without the livestock industry the small farms throughout the State, which we are grateful to learn from recent reports are increasing in numbers, could not be operated successfully. Continued operation of these small farms means much to the mining industry of the State. If farms can be profitably operated in the vicinity of mining camps, there are numerous ways in which they will lighten the burdens of the mine manager. The livestock industry also means a great deal to the railroads. In Lincoln and Clark Counties we are very fortunate in having the Union Pacific Railroad to pay a large proportion of the county taxes. Due in a large measure to the present deplorable condition of the livestock industry in Lincoln County, the Union Pacific Railroad has been obliged to pay a steadily increasing amount of taxes. Since 1919 when the county-tax rate was $1, there has been an increase of 85 per cent in the tax rate, to $1.85 for county purposes in 1925. The taxes which the railroad pays have to be reflected in their rates and service. It is, therefore, apparent that conditions of the livestock industry are almost immediately reflected in every other branch of industry existing in the State, so that anything that we can do to help the livestock industry is going to benefit all the industries. And no greater incentive can be offered to the livestock industry than some assurance that in connection with present land holdings they will have the right to use a certain amount of the public range.

As an attorney it is only natural to look at both sides of any question. Doing so, we realize that the sheepmen are entitled to protection as well as the cattlemen. But we know also that within the State there are certain sections adapted to cattle raising and there

are other sections which are better suited for sheep. So we may rest assured that the citizens of the State will be able to work out designations satisfactory to both the cattlemen and the sheepmen, and that, if such designations are made and the owners know that they will have the right to the use of some particular range year after year they will take a much greater interest in that range, and it will be cared for and made productive for future years. Whereas, now, in many instances it is destroyed forever, because persons using it one year do not know who may get it the next. The result of the designations will be a stabilization of the livestock industry and restocking of the ranges; there will be increased assessment rolls in the entire State.

Yet there should be no increase to the ultimate consumer of livestock products, because they will continue to be controlled by the law of supply and demand. With improved range conditions a smaller percentage of cattle will be forced on the market as canners and feeders and a much larger proportion will be sold as beef. A greater number of cattle can be put upon the range, and with a smaller cost per pound of producing the beef there should be a lecrease in cost to the ultimate consumer. And farms, the owners f which have testified here to-day were operated successfully up to the time when the transient sheep began their encroachments in Lincoln County and up to the time that it was realized that something must be done regarding range conditions throughout the State, can and will be again operated profitably.

We anticipate that it will be no easy task for western Senators to secure any such legislation as we now request. It is sometimes a difficult matter to persuade the Congress of the United States that we in the West have any rights at all. The East receives vast amounts in subsidies for their particular industries; anything they want for their rivers and harbors, they get. When they want a Federal building they get it. They get all kinds of appropriations, and they are so busy getting them that they don't realize that other sections also have peculiar needs, and they overlook how much we have given them in proportion to what we get from them. Yet I believe that from the great amount of information which has been gathered at meetings of your committee throughout the West much good will result, and that you and the other members of the committee will be in a position to show the Congress the critical conditions with which we are confronted, and to persuade them that we are entitled to assistance in accordance with your recommendations.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. What is your idea, Senator Scott, as to the rights that have been acquired in areas of the public ranges over a long period of years by the owners of adjoining ranches, who have used these ranges?

Senator Scorr. I know from personal experience that the owners of the ranches throughout our county and the other counties of the State have become convinced that they have a vested right to the range; but I also know that when you consider the legal phase of the matter, there is no way under the existing law by which any such vested right can be established. And even if we now secure legislation delegating to the State's control of the use of the range,

we will be confronted with more or less difficulty in establishing vested rights on the basis of priority of use. But that is a matter which will have to be determined by the State legislatures, and if some of the cattlemen don't get quite as large an allotment under the State legislation as they think they deserve, it may be partly their own fault. Because if, after the enactment of the State water law in 1903, they had taken the precaution to immediately definitely establish their vested water rights and file applications for the va rious water holes on their ranges as they could then have done, there would not now be as many conflicting rights to the use of the range. Unfortunately many of them slept on their rights and permitted outsiders to file applications for the use of such water, and many of the old settlers may now find themselves in a position where they must yield some of their range rights to newcomers who have been diligent in making water applications.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. What is your idea as to the relationship between farm units and the cattle industry?

Senator SCOTT. They are very intimately related; anything that affects the cattle industry will immediately be noticed in practically every other industry in the country. I know that to be a fact from actual experience.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. And are you familiar with other parts of the State where hay and grain are raised in sections where the farmers have but little livestock of their own, and where the only market for hay and grain in these particular communities is for feeding livestock brought in from other sections of the State. Senator ScOTT. Yes.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. You spoke also of conditions existing in other parts of the State, namely, in the western part, where the Nevada livestock can and does graze on the national forests in California during portions of the year under legal permits from the Forest Service and for which they pay the legal fees. But in your county, if I understand you correctly, the cattle must be grazed on the home range which the residents have been using over a period of many years, whereas the transient sheep have been coming in only within the past few years.

Senator SCOTT. Within the past 10 years I would sav.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. And is it not a fact that the transient sheep in these sections have come in at the expense of the former users of the range?

Senator SCOTT. That is a fact.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Whereas, in the other parts of the State there has not been so much interference with what might be considered vested rights?

Senator SCOTT. That appears to be one of the essential differences between conditions in the western and eastern parts of the State. It the western part of the State, while definite right to the use of a certain amount of range in the vicinity of the home ranch woul undoubtedly go far toward stabilizing land and livestock values, the principal difficulty at the present time appears to be in connec tion with the operation of the national forest reserves. In our eastert. section, on the other hand, it appears evident that unless some relief can be secured by the resident livestock owners in the way of securing definite right to the use of range, which in all fairness should

by this time have ripened into a vested right, the resident ranchers will be forced out of business by the transient sheep. In this connection it should also be noted that the sheep which are herded into Lincoln County for winter range in most instances find their summer range in the national forest reserves of Utah, in which the Lincoln County cattlemen can secure no privileges as the grazing rights there have been entirely taken up by resident livestock

owners.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Do you believe that, if present grazing conditions continue unchanged, the ranges will become even poorer than they are now?

Senator SCOTT. They are bound to become poorer, because the cattlemen who have hertofore made an honest effort to preserve the range for the future will be driven out completely, and the transient sheepmen with no respect whatsoever for a range which they may not reach in subsequent years will not hesitate to graze it off entirely while they are on it. And that calls to mind another phase of the question that should be brought out at this hearing. All recent statutes attempting to provide for the collection of a grazing tax in the State of Nevada have been declared unconstitutional, and in an effort to find some law under which a license tax could be legally collected the county officials have gone back to a statute passed in 1901.

But even that law is, in my opinion, unconstitutional, and if I am consulted regarding the matter I am compelled to state that I do not believe payment can be enforced. Under the circumstances it is only natural for the owners of transient sheep to evade the county officials and pay no license unless the sheriff and assessor are fortunate enough to catch a band of transient sheep within their own county lines. When the total area of Lincoln County-more than 10,000 square miles-is taken into consideration, it is easily seen that the expense of collecting such a grazing tax from owners trying to evade the law is almost invariably greater than the amount of the tax collected. And even if, after considerable expense, the county officials locate a herd within their jurisdiction, the owner may then decide, provided the herd is a large one, that it will be cheaper to secure the services of an attorney to fight the imposition of the tax than it would be to pay it.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Then under present conditions the sheepmen can use up and destroy Federal property without paying anything to either the Federal or the State Government in return for it?

Senator SCOTT. That is the situation. They have no interest in the land except as they may use the range, but those who have established homes on adjoining land and imagine that they should have full right to the use of the range year after year and therefore have some incentive to protect it are the ones who must suffer.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. The owners from the other States are in most instances not paying any taxes in Nevada?

Senator Scorr. No, sir; and due to that fact a high or a low tax rate in Nevada has no effect on them; they are not interested in maintaining land or livestock values in any other State except the one in which they are assessed.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Under the conditions which you have stated, do you think that the Federal Government has a moral obligation to protect the resident ranchers?

Senator SCOTT. There is no doubt in my mind but that the Government is under such an obligation. In many instances these residents endured all kinds of hardships in their efforts to establish a home in the wilderness, and they would have had no incentive to do so if they did not believe that they would thereby establish a right to the use of the range adjoining their homesteads.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Do you know of any instances where the Federal Government has taken any part of the proceeds of stock grazing on this land?

Senator SCOTT. There have been numerous instances where grazing fees have been collected without any protest whatever from the Federal Government.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. True, but I am thinking of the income tax collected from livestock producers who have used the range; in such instances didn't the Government accept the money and recognize the right of the livestock producer to the use of the range?

Senator SCOTT. Yes, sir; that is one of the reasons why I feel that there is now a moral obligation on the part of the Federal Government to aid the livestock producers.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Can you see where the Federal Government will be injured if these ranges are not protected, and if they are injured or destroyed?

Senator Scorr. The Federal Government is, naturally, injured by a depression in any important industry of any State. Whatever may injure any State will injure the United States, for the several States are to the Union as links are to a chain, and the chain can only be as strong as its weakest link.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. I believe that covers everything, and I thank you, on behalf of the committee, for your very able and valuable statement, and for the time you have given us this afternoon. Who is the next witness?

Mr. HOLLINGER. Mr. Griffith of I as Vegas will appear next.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Mr. Griffith, will you give your name to the reporter?

STATEMENT OF R. B. GRIFFITH, POSTMASTER, LAS VEGAS, NEV.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Do you reside in Las Vegas?

Mr. GRIFFITH. I do.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. What is your official position?
Mr. GRIFFITH. I am postmaster in Las Vegas.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Are you familiar with the public lands and grazing conditions in this section of the State?

Mr. GRIFFITH. I am familiar with the forest reserves-not particularly with grazing.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. What national forest reservation are you familiar with?

Mr. GRIFFITH. The one comprising the territory including the Charleston Mountain.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Is there any grazing of livestock on that national forest reservation?