President may, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture, add lands now within the limits of national forests chiefly valuable for grazing to the grazing districts authorized under this act, and lands so added shall be subject to this act and to regulations approved hereunder.

The CHAIRMAN. We will take up this morning the provisions applying to the public domain, and will hear representatives of the Interior Department-Secretary Work and others. Title II of S. 2584 refers to the public domain.

Now, if it is the pleasure of the committee, we would like to hear from Secretary Work at this time.

STATEMENT OF HON. HUBERT WORK, SECRETARY OF THE

INTERIOR

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, we have your letter before us of February 1 (see p. 15), and we would like to discuss the bill along the lines indicated in your letter. It was in the nature of an unfavorable recommendation so far as the bill in its present form is concerned. First, we would like a statement from you as to the necessity and desirability of enacting legislation providing for the regulation of grazing on the public domain.

Secretary WORK. I think the necessity is very great and very urgent. A year ago this winter we had a bill submitted to cover these grazing privileges on the public domain. (See p. 27.) That bill was introduced with amendments in the Senate. I do not think we approved of those amendments, even in the Phipps bill. (See p. 13.) Our report on the bill before us (S. 2584) is very long and is very exhaustive and I am disposed to stand on this report, (see p. 15), with the exception that I think there should be incorporated in it authority for the Secretary to reduce or defer or remit grazing charges in case of a summer's drought or a series of them such as we have just gone through with.

I have seen the Agricultural Department bill touching on the privileges of grazing in the national forests. That, of course, is a bill from another department, and so far as I can see it is unobjectionable, unless perhaps it would be the provision that contemplates the formation of a local committee. But I do not care to discuss that feature of it particularly.

S. 2584 A CUMBERSOME BILL

The principal objection to this bill (S. 2584) as submitted, is that it seems to me that it is a cumbersome bill, and that it divided authority between this local committee formed or to be formed of stockmen, and the department; and that it would embarrass the Commissioner of the General Land Office tremendously to undertake to administer a grazing bill with joint authority between the Federal Government and this local committee. He is practically deprived of his appellate authority under this bill, and thus the Commissioner of the General Land Office is in a sort of subservient position to this committee. In other words, the public domain has many features that the Commissioner of the General Land Office must administer grazing, homesteading, mining, and the stonetimber act and all those things enter into it. I think the bill as

91165-26- 4

proposed creating a committee outside of the Federal Government would give this committee more authority than the Commissioner of the General Land Office would have. I think such a committee ought to exist, and no doubt has been formed-I refer to the committee of stockmen, men to pass on these things locally, and to formulate opinions and suggestions to the Commissioner of the General Land Office as to the administration of it. But I do not think that they should have final authority and that the Commissioner of the General Land Office should become, in effect, their actuary or their clerk. I think that is going too far.

The expenses of these local committees will be considerable, and I think as the rules of practice are in the department now and the power that anyone has to appeal a decision from one step to another up through the department and finally to the Secretary, I think the rights of the stockmen as organized would be fully protected before the thing was finally disposed of.

It appears to me the bill as proposed is too cumbersome and expensive, and that it would interfere with the administration of the General Land Office. I think it ought to be very much simplified; that the procedure should be simplified and more direct. That could be accomplished by representatives of these local organizations through their officers passing on matters locally and through them. coming first to the local land office. That would be a home matter, and could be accomplished without much loss of time, or without much expense. And if his decision is unfavorable it would then. come to the Commissioner of the General Land Office for a hearing; he would rehear it—that is, this is under the common method of procedure. And then it would come to the First Assistant Secretary for another hearing on appeal, if either party to the matter wished to appeal it. Not satisfied with his ruling, then they could come to the Secretary of the Interior. And it seems to me through these successive steps and hearings an opportunity is given for preparation and hearings, that the interests and rights of the stockmen would be very thoroughly protected. I do not think the Commissioner of the General Land Office should surrender as much authority as is contemplated in this bill. I do not think the officer of the Federal Government should be controlled by local people or people who are interested primarily and solely, for example, in the one industry, in the livestock business, as it might develop conflict between their interests and those of the miners and homesteaders,. or the public in general.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, in what way does the Secretary of the Interior surrender any authority under this bill other than its provision for local option in creating grazing districts? And as to those, the Secretary has no power at this time to organize grazing districts. I am unable to find where the Secretary's power is limited in the organization of grazing districts, because now he has no power to create them. Then as to the boards, all the questions that come before this board are questions that come before the Secretary, and the authority of the Secretary, in the first instance, on the contract that is made by him with the permittee or occupant is still there, and then it passes to the board under a contest or disagreement, but after that it comes back to the Secretary for his decision.

Secretary WORK. He has no authority now as to grazing, that is very true. That is what we seek for, is authority. At the same time, his authority in these other matters referred to, homesteading, mining, and so forth, is not interfered with. He has option, and what I fear is that some enactment might be made that would interfere with or embarrass him in the administration of these other activities.

To go back to your previous question, I think perhaps the best evidence we have that some legislation is needed to control grazing on the public domain is indicated by what I would please to term illegal fencing. Much of the public domain is already fenced, contrary to law, for grazing. Much of that fencing was necessary, so that the stockmen could be protected in their 10-year privileges. Those fences are up and are allowed to remain up because they seemed to be a necessity. If this proposed legislation is enacted those boundaries are already fixed. Those range areas would probably be fixed by these fences. And what is now allowed under an apparent necessity would probably be legalized, so far as the necessity is concerned. But I would regret to see legislation passed that would interfere with the duties and rights of the Commissioner of the General Land Office in these other respects; and legislation, if enacted at all, ought to be made very simple, then it will be less cumbersome and less expensive of operation.

And I believe that legislation that would simply allow the Commissioner of the General Land Office to lease areas to stockmen for a certain tenure of years, we will say 10 years for the sake of designating a time--that would permit him to do that and perhaps not at a fixed fee, but at a fee which would comfortably cover the cost of administration and development; by development I mean protection of water holes that already exist, or the development of others.

The

I think that the State should have a per cent that you would agree upon to revert to the States-State treasuries. It could not then become or be construed to mean that the. Federal Government was undertaking a new activity for the sake of revenue. primary purpose of it should be the protection of the livestock industry, principally because livestock is food products, and anything that will protect food production is good legislation, I think. The CHAIRMAN. You do not think, in any instance, that the grazing fee should be so made as to yield a revenue to the Federal Government to the detriment of the State or the users of the land? Secretary WORK. I think the fee should be made to cover the cost of administration, with a certain per cent turned over to the State, as is customary in some of our other leasing.

The CHAIRMAN. But not as a source of profit to the Federal Government?

Secretary WORK. No; I do not see any reason for using the grazing privileges as a source of revenue to be covered into the General Treasury.

The CHAIRMAN. In your letter you refer to the optional provisions in Senate bill 2584 as being objectionable. The hearings conducted by the Public Lands Committee throughout the past summer seemed to clearly indicate that further attempt to control

or regulate grazing on the public domain would be strongly opposed, unless optional provisions as to the creation of grazing districts are provided in the legislation. In your opinion, is it better to have no legislation than to have legislation providing for local option?

Secretary WORK. I do not quite understand what you mean by "optional." "Optional" between what?

The CHAIRMAN. It is left optional with the users of the range whether a certain area shall be organized into a grazing district and come under control and regulation. Your letter seems to indicate that that should be left solely with the department to create grazing districts within its own discretion.

Secretary WORK. Well, I presume that would apply, for example, if an application was made for land for grazing purposes that was not grazing land. I do not quite get the point, to be perfectly frank.

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. I do not quite get it either, Senator. Do you mean, Senator, the bill should be so amended as to provide for grazing in grazing districts, but if in a certain locality people do not want it, that it should not apply?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that is it, Judge Finney.

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. That is, put it up to the local option of the people whether it shall apply, or to the bureau, or

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Whatever area should be included in an area or district, whether it should be a grazing district, and should come under the rules and regulations of the department.

Secretary WORK. I do not think as a general proposition that the Federal Government should dictate to the State in that matter. I think the decision should be left to the community organization, but no doubt there would be some authority within a State that could pass on that.

Senator KENDRICK. Mr. Secretary, would you recommend that when these districts are established and the lands leased, that there should be in connection with the same a suspension of the right to file a homestead?

Secretary WORK. No; we do not want to have that interfered with-homesteading and mining and those privileges that we have now, and privileges that are claimed by others; I do not think those should be interfered with.

Senator KENDRICK. Then it would be your idea when an acreage had been leased, that any part of it filed upon by homesteaders should be relinquished by the lessee, and he should be relieved from paying charges on that portion that was filed upon?

Secretary WORK. I do not think that would really come up to be a practical question. If a big area was fenced to stock raisingstockmen, homesteaders would not want to come in there. They have trouble enough remaining on the public domain now because of the stock raising. Where a large area now is controlled by stock growers the homesteader, if he happens to be there, is very much embarrassed. I think if a big area is leased in that way that there ought to be some privileges granted to the homesteader who happens to be there, so that he would not be squeezed out by the big stock

owner.

Senator KENDRICK. Exactly; but in that event the lessee, according to your opinion, should be relieved of the payment of fees on that proportionate acreage?

Secretary WORK. Oh, I suppose so. That is such a small matter it does not amount to anything anyway.

This section 7 in our bill seems to cover our position on that.
Senator CAMERON. Which bill do you refer to?

Secretary WORK. The Phipps bill (see p. 13).

The CHAIRMAN. S. 752?
Secretary WORK. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is attached to the other bill there, Senator. Senator CAMERON. Section 7?

Secretary WORK. Yes. I will read it if you do not mind [reading]: SEC. 7. That the Secretary is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to examine and classify, within grazing districts, any lands which are irrigable from any known source of water supply or are valuable or suitable for the production of crops other than native grasses and forage plants, and to open such lands to homestead entry in tracts not exceeding 320 acres in area; but such lands shall remain parts of the grazing district until patents are issued.

In other words, until ownership should change. When the patent is once issued, that would become privately owned property, and no fee could be exacted then from the stock grower.

The CHAIRMAN. In your letter of February 1 (see p. 16), you say [reading]:

Under Title II, section 202(a), the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to establish grazing districts, but "only after a petition is filed as provided in section 203." Therefore the Secretary is without power to establish a grazing district unless he is petitioned to do so, and under section 203 (a), only livestock raisers who have used lands in the proposed district for grazing purposes may qualify to sign such petition, and it must be signed by a majority of the persons so qualified.

Then you go on to say:

It is hardly necessary to suggest that a provision whereby the Secretary of the Interior may be prevented by a small minority from taking an action necessary to make effective the primary purpose of the bill and render its benefits available to the public, is self-condemned.

I take it from that in your letter that you would be opposed to the enactment of any law that provided for the districts to be established on petition of residents of the district. We found in our hearings a violent opposition almost everywhere to any provision for regulation of the range, unless it was left to the residents and the users within the area involved as to whether it should become a grazing district. And the question I would like to ask you is, Would it be better to have no legislation than it would to enact a law providing for such rights on the part of the residents of the districts?

Secretary WORK. I do not think the Federal Government should surrender its rights to final decision in the matter, as a general proposition.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, under the act they do not, as a final proposition; that is, excepting that they may not create a grazing district. Of course, now there is no control over grazing, so there would not be any limitation of power.

Secretary WORK. From an administrative standpoint the Governmen would be better off without any legislation, that is, to leave