The CHAIRMAN. Under the provisions of Senate bill 2584 there are two provisions for relief from such a situation. One would be the discretionary power vested in the Secretary of the Interior, and the other would be in the local State board to pass upon the qualifications as to preference rights of all the applicants. It is there where it seems to me meet, just, and fair that there should be some local board, some one on the ground who is familiar with the facts, to determine to whom these preference rights shall be given, and of course all those that are determined to have the right would be competent as electors in that district.

Secretary WORK. The local board, however organized, would be competent to determine that on the ground, as to who was eligible

to vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Mr. Secretary; they would be. And I do not think it is of great importance as to how that board is created, whether by appointment of the Secretary of the Interior, appointment by the President, or possibly elected, if you can determine the qualifications of the electors.

Secretary WORK. Absolutely.

(After informal discussion with reference to further hearings:) Senator KENDRICK. Mr. Chairman, because of other engagements, our witness, Mr. Mondell, would like to be heard when we convene on Wednesday morning.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well; we will fix the time for Wednesday morning for Mr. Mondell to be heard.

GRAZING IN ALASKA

Mr. Secretary, Senate bill 752 contemplates the regulation of grazing in Alaska, while the bill S. 2584 does not contemplate any such control. Does not grazing in Alaska involve problems that are entirely different from those involved in the control of grazing in the United States?

Secretary WORK. I do not think so.

The CHAIRMAN. What I have in mind is as to the rules and regulations. Do you think the same rules and regulations that you would make for the control of grazing in the States would be applicable to the grazing situation in Alaska?

Secretary WORK. We would have to make somewhat different rules and regulations, because of the absence of associations and people to vote; that would be all. Aside from that the administration of it could be carried on much in the same way. I think it might be well to include it with the other bill, and not make it the subject of a special bill. Under the proposed bill it would be necessary to have regulations to meet their peculiar conditions in Alaska, but the gen-. eral principles would apply.

Senator PITTMAN. The principal object to be obtained is the control of the raising of reindeer, is it not?

Secretary WORK. Yes.

Senator PITTMAN. And reindeer drivers are principally Laps? Secretary WORK. Yes.

Senator PITTMAN. Not of a very high class of intelligence? Secretary WORK. No; more intelligence than education, however.

Senator PITTMAN. And here we are dealing with people of a different class of intelligence?

Secretary WORK. Yes.

Senator PITTMAN. I really think we should separate the bills, because there you could use the most arbitrary regulations and be justified, but down here you can not.

Secretary WORK. But, Senator, could that not be protected by provision in the general bill that the grazing privilege should be administered by the Department of the Interior, through the Bureau of Education, which has control of both reindeer and railroads, anomalous as that may seem?

Senator PITTMAN. I would not object to having them in the same bill if the provisions were separated.

Secretary WORK. A regulation could cover it, or, if you think best, just a provision in the bill stipulating that the regulation of grazing in Alaska shall be controlled by the department and that these elective and association features should not apply.

Senator PITTMAN. May I suggest that from a legislative standpoint, when you include in a bill something that is quite aside from its main purpose it is liable to arouse debate on that provision, which will delay the passage of the bill. From my experience in dealing with legislators I think that, from the strategic standpoint, the less complicated you make a bill and the less you have in it the better it is. I fear that if we insert any such different provisions with regard to Alaska the first thing we know somebody will want to include the same provisions we have with regard to the States, somebody that knows nothing about Alaska, and you will have the whole thing involved in debate.

Secretary WORK. Why would it not be sufficient to put in the bill "including Alaska" and then leave it to the department to make the necessary regulations? You see, we have foreign companies up there now that are raising reindeer. They have a cold-storage plant and they raise reindeer, and they buy and kill and ship, and the natives are going to be very soon pushed over the circle if there is not some regulations whereby the department can protect them.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, it seems to me that the broadest power should be granted to the Interior Department in the regulation and control of grazing in Alaska, because it is in an experimental stage.

Secretary WORK. Quite so.

The CHAIRMAN. Whereas in the States the basic principles have been well determined and are known and can be enacted into law. Secretary WORK. That is true.

The CHAIRMAN. We know very little about the Alaskan situation, and I can conceive that Congress would not feel sufficiently advised to enact legal provisions.

Secretary WORK. You are quite right. The department itself does not know just what would be necessary to be done up there, and its authority should, therefore, be rather flexible.

The CHAIRMAN. I think, Mr. Secretary, if I may so suggest, that if we are going to enact any legislation for the control and regulation of grazing on the public domain, in order for it to meet the approval of the people so that it may have the favorable considera

tion of Congress any bill that we introduce must fairly well define the basic principles of grazing and give to the users of the range the right of appeal so that they can go from the bureau to some board or some court for a final decision. I do not think it is worth the time of this committee to attempt the consideration of a grazing bill that does not carry some provision of that kind, because it would be futile. I do not believe it could be enacted into law. Personally I am very much in favor of the regulation of grazing on the public domain and I think there is dire necessity for it.

Secretary WORK. There seems then to be no particular difference between us, except as to this intermediary board and how it shall be constituted and what authority it shall have.

The CHAIRMAN. It seems to me that the hearing this morning brought out very clearly that the main difference is to how the board shall be created, or whether there shall be a board or not.

Secretary WORK. I think there should be a board, and I think it ought to be created by the stockgrowers-the people directly at interest. They should constitute the membership of their association and determine who is entitled to vote. They should elect their own officers, and those officers should act as the intermediaries between the range interests and the Bureau of the General Land Office.

Senator PITTMAN. Would you mind stating that in the bill?

Secretary WORK. I do not want them to have more authority, or equal authority. The final decision of all questions must rest with somebody, and it ought to rest with the Government, not with the local board. If the board is not federalized, then, of course, there would be no appointments to be made by the President, and there would be no expense entailed to the Government for travel, railroad fare, maintenance, and office room for the organizations that would be set up. I think they are wholly unnecessary.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, they must keep in mind that those expenses are not going to be a loss to the taxpayers.

Secretary WORK. There is no particular reason why the officers should consume that expense; it should go into the State treasury or the Federal Treasury. So, after all, there is not much difference between us. I would urge that you make it as simple as possible, so that it would be easy to administer and easy to understand, and do not take away from the local people their options that they are entitled to.

The CHAIRMAN. I can assure you, on behalf of the committee, that we are very eager to enact such legislation as meets with your approval. We certainly want to cooperate with the department.

Secretary WORK. We want to cooperate, and we want to give before you the administrative features of such an act as would come up and the difficulties that surround it. It is of vital importance, in my opinion, to have such a law and that the local people should have every option, so long as it does not give them transcendent authority over the Federal Government. I should not like to federalize any more activities in the States in connection with our department than are already federalized.

Senator ODDIE. Mr. Chairman, I think there should be some notice taken of the vast preponderance of opinion of the stockmen of the

West given before the committee last summer, referring particularly to the Forest Service, that as between the stockmen and the depart

ment

Secretary WORK. Just a moment. There has been no conflict between the Interior Department and the stockmen, because we have no authority.

Senator ODDIE. No. I just made the comment that in dealing with the Forest Service the stockmen have stated their case so plainly and so convincingly that there should be some impartial tribunal to decide controversial questions, rather than that they should be left to one of the parties in the controversy.

Secretary WORK. This local board, no matter how constituted, can come up step by step until it gets to the Secretary of the Interior, and if it is a question of law, why, then they can go to the

courts.

Senator ODDIE. Well, as between questions of fact and questions of law-that should be considered.

The CHAIRMAN. Judge Finney, can you and Commissioner Spry attend the hearings to-morrow? I do not think it would be necessary to ask you, Mr. Secretary, unless you wish to come.

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. If the committee desires, we can

come.

The CHAIRMAN. We would like to go over these bills section by section and see what we can work out and see if we can not compromise whatever conditions may exist.

Secretary WORK. Mr. Chairman, I am perfectly willing that that be done, but we don't want credit at the same time for what the Forest Service is doing.

I understand that Mr. Greeley has a statement that he wishes to have made a part of the record.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM B. GREELEY, NEW YORK CITY, REPRESENTING THE CAMP FIRE CLUB OF AMERICA

Mr. GREELEY. Mr. Chairman, I am speaking for the Camp Fire Club, of New York. My name is William B. Greeley. I am not the chief forester; he and I have the same name.

I sent you, Mr. Chairman, a few days ago a resolution adopted by the Camp Fire Club of America, relative to the grazing features of the bill, under cover of a letter to you in which I stated very briefly the character of the Camp Fire Club. I ask, if it is the pleasure of the committee, that my letter and the resolution be made a part of the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the letter and resolution may be filed with the committee.

(Whereupon, at 12 o'clock m., the committee adjourned to meet tomorrow, Tuesday, February 16, 1926, at 10 o'clock a. m.)

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND SURVEYS,
Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10.30 o'clock a. m., in the committee's hearing room in the Capitol, Senator Robert N. Stanfield (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Stanfield (chairman) presiding, Smoot, Norbeck, Cameron, Oddie, Dale, Walsh, Dill, and Ashhurst.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Judge Finney, will you take the stand?

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD G. FINNEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR-Resumed

The CHAIRMAN. Judge Finney, are you familiar with the letter dated February 1, 1926, signed by Hubert Work, Secretary, addressed to the chairman of the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, in which is discussed the Senate bill 2584 (see p. 15)?

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. I read the letter; yes, sir. I did not write it, but I have to read it over and I am familiar with it. The CHAIRMAN. It is not your letter, then?

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Judge Finney, in this letter, paragraph 5 (see p. 15)-we will pass along to paragraph 5, I think, because there is no particular discussion of the bill in the preceding paragraphs. That paragraph states:

There are 24 district land offices in the States named in Title II. and 124 national forests in the States named in Title III. Under the provisions of the act, therefore, there would be 148 officials having original jurisdiction over the allocation of grazing privileges and the issuance of contracts therefor.

Do you believe that to be a correct statement, or might it be somewhat misleading? The letter purports not to consider the bill in its entirety, but only that part which takes up the grazing of the public domain, not grazing within the forests.

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. Of course this paragraph does relate to both. It points out the fact that original jurisdiction as far as public lands are concerned will be vested in 24 district land offices, and then it does incidentally mention that there are 124 forests. Adding that number to the 24 land offices would make 148.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Of course the forest supervisors are now existent officers in the service.

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. That is right.

91165-265

53