the range open as it is now, than such regulation as is proposed in this bill. That is, with the division of authority that goes with it. Senator ODDIE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of the Secretary?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly, Senator.

Senator ODDIE. What, in your opinion, is the wisest thing to do in meeting this situation? In the State of Nevada, for instance, there is a large area in the eastern and southern part of the State in which the Government owns vast areas of public lands. That area contains numbers of ranches which have existed for several generations. Their founders were among the early pioneers. They have been practically ruined in the last few years by alien sheep from and adjoining that have surged into those two counties by the hundreds of thousands. They have practically ruined those people and starved them out, and have taken the ranges that these people have always used. And that has happened in the last 10 years.

Secretary WORK. Do you not think, Senator, this would protect these people? These stockmen would then be supposed to confine themselves to these areas, and that would relieve the farmers from their stock.

Senator KENDRICK. A preference would be given to the local rancher.

Secretary WORK. Yes; to the man that is already in there. Our bill, as I recall it, provides that preference be given to the man already in there, the rancher, and the area would be protected to the man in there, that they would control it. And it seems to me that this bill was originally drafted as much in the interest of those men that you describe as the large stockmen. In other words, that each could lease their land and control it and be practically a settlement of the sheep and cattle wars for all time.

Senator ODDIE. This condition is a very novel one.
Secretary WORK. It is a ruinous one.

Senator ODDIE. It is a ruinous one. It has ruined dozens of families and more.

The CHAIRMAN. It seems to me the difference between Senate bill 572 and Senate bill 2584 is that S. 2584 provides for the setting up of the boards in local districts. There are only three questions that go to the board, and they come up on the contract, and one of those is, Who is entitled to graze on any range? In giving a contract to a man, instead of coming to you, he goes to this board. However, from the decision of that board there is an appeal to you. In the final end the board would only operate as an advisory board to the Secretary.

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. Senator, may I correct that?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Judge Finney.

STATEMENT OF HON. E. C. FINNEY, FIRST ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. I think you are wrong that an appeal could be made on all matters. I think on matters of fact it is conclusive.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you are mistaken, Judge.

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. That is our conception of it.

Secretary WORK. Which bill do you refer to? The Senate bill or the Phipps bill?

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. The long bill.

The CHAIRMAN. S. 2584.

Secretary WORK. There do not seem to be very many questions in dispute between the two bills, except we believe that there should not be too much-that is, there should not be Federal authority imposed in these local men. They should have and do have authority to counsel and advise, but the division of authority between the local board and the Government is not good. It would add very much to the expense of operation.

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. This is so involved it is hard to find the function of the board. But in Title II it is provided that no appeal shall be had from the board. Section 407 (b) of S. 2584 reads:

The action of the board under authority of Title II in respect of the approval of any contract shall be final and no appeal shall be had.

Secretary WORK. That is on page 3 of our report on the bill, about half way down (see p. 16). Assistant Secretary Finney will read that provision, if you will allow him. He has it here.

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. [reading]:

Appeals from the board. Sec. 407 (a). An appeal from a decision of the board rendered upon an appeal made to the board under Title II may be had to the Secretary of the Interior, and under Title III to the Secretary of Agriculture. The Secretary to whom such appeal is had may affirm, reverse. or modify such decision or remand the proceedings to the board for such action as such Secretary may direct.

And then paragraph (b);

The action of the board under authority of Title II in respect of the approval of any contract shall be final and no appeal shall be had.

That is section 407. Now, Title II relates to the Department of the Interior.

Secretary WORK. That applies to the Secretary of the Interior but not to the Department of Agriculture.

The CHAIRMAN. That is only as to the deciding of the preference right between the contestants for the leasing permit. That does not apply to any other question involved.

Mr. BOWDEN. Mr. Chairman, the bill provides that the register, under the direction of the Secretary, shall make these contracts, fix fees, and determine the period of the contract; and the only question that goes to this board is the question of allocation of grazing privileges, the determination of preferences based on use, and ownership of land. The function of the board in this respect, is similar to the functions of a tax equalization board. You have got to consider all contracts at once in order to allocate contracts fairly, because the preference that you award to one person will affect the preference that you give to another. You have got to divide the range all together, and hence there is need for some board with power to pass on all preferences together.

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. There is now in the Department of Agriculture a body which has been administering those lands for years. That is the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture. They have no board to do it.

Secretary WORK. Why not let the Commissioner of the General Land Office make these allocations, if they are proper, instead of delegating authority to these people to do it themselves? It would set up embarrassment in administration, I would think.

Senator ODDIE, Mr. Secretary, how about the authority of the department in such a case in refusing to hear the equities of any particular case?

Secretary WORK. How about what?

Senator ODDIE. How about the department refusing to hear the equities of a particular case?

Secretary WORK. I never knew of such a thing to happen.

Senator ODDIE. I have known it very recently in the Department of the Interior in regard to some land matters.

Secretary WORK. You might make your citation now, or after a while, if it is not germane.

The CHAIRMAN. Judge Finney, I think that in the granting of permits to graze in certain areas under the direction of the Bureau of Forestry that those permits were made by local committees appointed by users in the forests.

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. And those are merely advisory..
The CHAIRMAN. Those are advisory.

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. I do not think there is any objection. by Secretary Work or anybody else to having local advisory com

mittees.

Secretary WORK. No.

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. But this report objects, first, to delegating a lot of things to the local registers and receivers who have many things to do, by the way, and they are not qualified to pass on these things at all. And then the 30 boards from the different States to pass on the appeals, and whose action in some respects is final, and in other respects almost final before it reaches the Secretary at all. It is not necessary at all, in our opinion. It is creating a lot of machinery and a lot of expense, and what we set out to do and what the stockmen want is to meet the situation Senator Oddie outlined, for one thing, and to improve the public domain. The men on the public range have no legal right to be there now. They are there merely by sufferance. It has been the practice to let them graze there for years. But they have no vested right. If one citizen has a right to go there another has a right to go there, and the thing came about that Senator Oddie suggested. Now, the thought came up that if the Secretary had authority to issue these permits, then each man would be protected during the life of his contract, 10 years, or whatever it was, and others would be prohibited from grazing there. It should not involve any elaborate machinery. And the difficulty that often comes about, if you will pardon me, is that when something is suggested for the good of a given industry some people rush in and want a lot of other things put in. From the department's standpoint, we look at it from the broad standpoint to help the West and all the people and to give each person an equal opportunity at what remains of the public resource. But somebody must determine it by the cheapest and most economical way possible, and we felt that was by the machinery that we have already got. And we thought the machinery we had and the field men, and they are competent, and

more competent than the registers in this line, and they, acting with an advisory board, could administer it very cheaply under the bill we drew up. This committee bill, it seems to me, is a very cumbersome proposition and it is a little difficult to understand offhand how far it does go.

The CHAIRMAN. The bill, Judge Finney, does indicate a certain definite line of procedure. I think that is the thing that the Western people are clamoring for, that the action taken shall be with some degree of certainty and that they shall know with whom they shall deal.

Now, as to the cost of the bill, I have given that careful study and if I may so state, I think you are in error in stating that it would put additional cost on the Federal Government. I think, however, whether it be the register of the local land office or some other person attached to the Department of the Interior that shall take local charge, it must be apparent there is some necessity for somebody on the ground. It might be the supervisor of ranges, but I think you would have an increased cost in that, coming under the local register of the land office. The think we had in mind in drafting that provision of the bill was to have a curtailment of the cost, because it seemed to us that this register could perform this duty with his other duties.

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. We do not think that he could.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, you should provide for some other man to do that.

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. You do not need that. If the bill was passed we could do that with our field men and inspectors. The CHAIRMAN. It would have to be a field man?

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. There are such men there now.
The CHAIRMAN. Then why not name him?

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. I think, from the department's standpoint, it is better to let the Secretary and the commissioner handle it and utilize their own forces than to hamper us and tie us down. If you say a single individual or person shall do this and then he dies, it can not be done, but if you let the supervising officer arrange that, he can do it. There is too much detail in this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. It is very obvious that your idea is it should be a blanket act authorizing the leasing of the public domain for grazing purposes, with the necessary funds and machinery to carry out the purposes of the act.

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. Not quite.

The CHAIRMAN. I am quite sure if you had followed the hearings conducted by the Public Lands Committee last summer you found violent opposition on the part of the people to bureaucratic control of the public domain.

Secretary WORK. Senator, there has not been any bureaucratic control of the public domain. You have the national forest confused with the public domain.

The CHAIRMAN. No, if you will pardon me. I am not saying they are opposing something that does not exist; but I say they are opposed to that which is contemplated, the leasing of the public domain for grazing purposes in that way, and we have attempted, in the drafting of this bill, not to take away any of the rights which should

be necessary for the Secretary of the Interior or the Department of the Interior to have in the administration. In setting up the local board, that is really to decide as to who shall be given preference, it seems to me that it is obvious that people on the ground, appointed by the President—and this board is to be appointed by the President of the United States-men selected for their qualifications and fitness, and men belonging to the locality wherein the grazing is to occur, are certainly better equipped than some one sitting here in Washington to pass upon the preference to graze. And that is the only power that the board has that is not subject to the Secretary of the Interior. Secretary WORK. There is no question about that. But the local men should be in this picture. They are better qualified, without question. I would not have the President appoint them and have them become political appointees. I would have the stockmen select these men themselves, as between their interest and the Federal Gov

ernment.

Senator Oddie raised a question, or suggested it to me, rather, that I should have included when I was asked for an opinion as to whether States and districts should come into these general laws of the bill. I see the bill provides that two States shall remain out. I would feel, if they do remain out, and there are no laws or restrictions covering their States, that they would be legitimate prey for these migratory men. For instance, those in Utah-those migratory men would drift in from Wyoming, or some other place, and they would devastate the range in that State. I believe if any law is created for any State it should be created for every State. And that is all this bill of ours was intended to do, was to protect the ranges against destruction and having the vegetation all pulled out by the grass roots. And so far as Alaska is concerned, to give control of the grazing in Alaska. That is a very imperative matter. It takes 20 years to restore a range up there, because of the mosses and grasses that grow there. And the ranges are being deprived of forage and the natives will soon be deprived of forage for their reindeer, the only industry they have.

The CHAIRMAN. Judge Finney, it seems to me the great difference between the bills 752 and S. 2584 is as to the local board. Now, Mr. Secretary, I think it was you that stated that you would prefer that it should be a board selected by the stockmen themselves. Secretary WORK. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, that would not be a judicial board. Assistant Secretary FINNEY. An advisory board.

The CHAIRMAN. An advisory board.

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. Or advisory boards. There would be a number of them.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; there would be a number of them, as many as there are districts or States. Now, Congress has established a precedent, it seems to me, in the creation of the Board of Tax Appeals. That is, some board outside of the department or bureau of the Government where contestants may go. That is the purpose of this board, and it should be in the nature of a judicial body, and in order to have such a board it appears to me and I would like to know if it does not appear to you that it would be better for the