Assistant Secretary FINNEY. No. If there were a surplusSenator DILL. You said 55 per cent would go into the Treasury. You mean into these funds?

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. Into these funds; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Does your bill provide that the receipts from grazing shall go into the reclamation fund, or do they go into the Treasury of the United States for general purposes?

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. Of course, a part of it would be paid out for administration, but any surplus that went into the Treasury-I believe this bill does not say where it would go. I assume it would go into the reclamation fund.

Senator DILL. I think it would be a very serious mistake to undertake to overturn the present law-without special consideration, anyhow. I mean, if it is going to the Treasury, it should go into those funds.

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. Our bill provides that 10 per cent of the receipts shall be available for range improvements, 25 per cent be paid by the Secreteary of the Treasury to the States, and then the other goes into miscellaneous receipts.

Senator ODDIE. The reclamation fund would not get any from that?

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. No.

Senator DILL. It was not your intention to do that?

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. No; absolutely not. Any balance should be disposed of as are other receipts from the public lands. You remember also, Senator, that 5 per cent goes to the States for educational purposes.

Senator DILL. About these appeal boards: As I understand the Stanfield bill, S. 2584 (see p. 12), the decisions of the appeal boards will be appealable to the departments. To that extent they do not take away from the departments the final control of these public lands and forest reserves?

The CHAIRMAN. That is exactly right.

Senator DILL. And Senate bill 752 (see p. 14) puts the appeal board over the department heads, and their action is final? Assistant Secretary FINNEY. Yes, sir.

Senator DILL. And the departments' position is, of course, that they want to have the final word?

The CHAIRMAN. I think both bills provide that the departments shall have the final word.

Senator DILL. I do not so understand S. 752.

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. Let me explain. The department prepared a bill. (See p. 27.) Thereafter Senator Phipps introduced S. 752 (see p. 13), which is the department's bill with three changes. One of those changes provides for the creation of this board of appeals, which is not provided for nor recommended by the depart

ment.

The Secretary in reporting on S. 752 reports adversely to the board. (See p. 19.) (See p. 19.) He says the board would be a cumbersome, expensive,and unnecesary addition to the administrative machinery. "It is contrary to the letter and the spirit of existing public lands and forest reserve practice and laws. And then he goes on for another paragraph opposing that feature of the bill.

Now, the committee's bill, S. 2584 (see p. 12), as you say, Senator, puts the board down below with an appeal to the Secretary. We object to that, because we think it is unnecessary to have that sort of cog in the wheel. Then the bill provides that as to certain provisions the action of that board of appeals is to be final, that the Secretary does not have reviewing authority.

Senator DILL. And the position of the department is that whatever board is provided for its findings should be subject to review finally by the department?

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. Yes, sir. Really, we would like to have it advisory.

Senator ASHURST. Judge Finney, under the Constitution Congress, not the Secretary of the Interior, has the disposition of the public lands.

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. Quite right. I fully agree with that doctrine.

Senator ASHURST. But the Secretary of the Interior says he should have the last word as to disposing of the public lands?

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. Senator, ever since Congress has existed and ever since there have been Cabinet officers it has been customary to send the bills down to Congress, and that is all we are doing.

Senator ASHURST. I understand.

Senator DILL. Of course, we all understand that when any public official once gets certain power, he wants to hold that power and get more. I do not mean to reflect upon the present holder of any office when I say that.

Senator ASHURST. I am not criticizing the Secretary of the Interior because he objects to anyone reviewing his work, because if he did not object he would stand out as a monumental and unique character in Washington. So he simply is doing what I would do and what all other human beings would do under similar circumstances. Assistant Secretary FINNEY. Senator, Congress has created the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture. It has given them certain functions. The Secretary's position is that he is able and willing to perform those functions, that it is not necessary to create additional boards or additional courts to review his work.

Senator ASHURST. He says in effect: "I do not want any of my powers stripped from me."

I would think that the Secretary of the Interior should be willing to have a board that would pass upon these matters, and I regret to see that he opposes this proposal. I give him credit for absolute honesty of purpose.

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. I see no more reason why the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture should have a board to review his administration of the law than that the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary of the Treasury

Senator ASHURST. The Secretary of State has a board that reviews his work.

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. Pardon me, Senator, but that relates to civil service appointments, and

Senator ASHURST. Oh, no.

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. It relates to appointments and not to matters of policy

Senator ASHURST. It does relate to matters of policy.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Ashurst, if you will pardon me, that is also true of the Board of Tax Appeals and Treasury Department? Senator ASHURST. Yes, that is true of the Board of Tax Appeals. Assistant Secretary FINNEY. The Board of Tax Appeals is a creation in the Department of the Treasury. It is made up of men appointed.

The CHAIRMAN. No, I really think you are mistaken in that. The Board of Tax Appeals is entirely outside of the Treasury Department.

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. Their decisions are final in certain matters, I grant you that.

Senator ASHURST. Well, they appeal from the Secretary to this Board of Tax Appeals.

The CHAIRMAN. And from the Board of Tax Appeals to the Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States.

Senator ASHURST. I do not want to get into a controversy, and Judge Finney understands that. What I say is not personal, and it is not partisan, because the record of my party made on this subject is just as bad as is the record now being made in the department.

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. Yes, but I do not agree with all your statements. We are not out of touch with the people in the West. We are not behind the veil.

Senator ASHURST. Well, if you are in touch with them you may be like the fellow who went home to his district and was running for reelection, and some said, "He is not in touch with the people," and he replied, "Oh, yes, I am; some of them touch me every day."

Senator DILL. I want to call attention to another difference between these two departments in connection with the grazing. These lands are held out of private ownership. They are for the use of the public. When a dispute arises the local administrator of the Department of Agriculture or the Department of the Interior is necessarily on one side and the disputant or the aggrieved party on the other side. There is a growing sentiment that there should be some independent body somewhere that did not have any interest on either side. Our investigation I think indicated that, particularly in the Forest Service, the local forester was the only one who was familiar with the details of the situation which he investigated, which he prosecuted, which he decided. This is contrary to our methods of deciding disputes in other matters of a similar nature. And I am not prepared to say that I want yet to vote for a board to override these Secretaries, but I do not think it is so revolutionary that such a board should be established.

The CHAIRMAN. Judge Finney, how would you determine a reasonable fee? Senate 752 provides that a reasonable fee or rental should be charged. Now what would you consider to be a reasonable fee, or what is meant by that term, a reasonable fee?

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. Well, speaking generally that would have to take into consideration the character of the land and the

forage upon it. I assume that there is a great difference of value. One particular area might be so arid and so desert that it would have a very low value. A man that would graze there and come out even at the end of the year or with a little balance to his credit could afford to pay only a very small fee to cover some necessary administrative expense. But a man who grazed in some of these specially favored States, plenty of rainfall and rich grasses, possibly ought to pay a higher rate, and could afford to pay it, and still make a larger profit than the man in the poorer area.

So that I do not see how it would be possible to have an absolutely uniform rate applying in all States and to all classes and characters. of land. So that it would seem, sir, that some sort of a discretion must be left to some one to fix the fee. Now, the word "reasonable," is put in to convey the idea that it is not to be a big money-making enterprise and all the traffic can bear.

The CHAIRMAN. The difference in language in the two bills, S. 2584 (see p. 5), and S. 752 (see p. 27), is this: In S. 752 it says "reasonable fee," and in S. 2584 it says "moderate fee."

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. I think they mean the same thing. The CHAIRMAN. So there is not any divergence between the two, moderate and reasonable?

Senator ASHURST. "Reasonably moderate."

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Well, I think there is a difference between the terms "moderate fee" and "reasonable fee," because I think that "moderate" is intended to convey the idea that it shall not be a fee for the purpose of exacting profit or putting the charge on a commercial basis, whereas "reasonable fee" might be construed to mean on a commercial basis.

Senator ASHURST. That is true.

The CHAIRMAN. I have finished, Senator.

Senator ASHURST. Judge Finney, I may not have heard aright, but are you speaking of fees for grazing livestock on the public domain, and did you say that the fees should be no higher than the amount of money necessary to administer the range economically?

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. I think you misunderstood me.
Senator ASHURST. Possibly I did.

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. The Senator said that he understood Secretary Work to make that statement yesterday, and I said that our thought in this bill was that the fees should be reasonable or moderate, and that we contemplated some return was evidenced by the fact that there is a provision made that 10 per cent of the receipts should be used in the improvement of the range itself and 25 per cent should go to the State, which implied that there was going to be some return.

Senator ASHURST. I am listening. Assistant Secretary FINNEY. But I did say that I did not think it should be an effort to put on all the traffic could bear, or an effort to make a large return as we got from oil and coal. That is, the fees should be reasonably moderate, as you put it. Senator ASHURST. I agree with you about that.

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. But some return, because the man, in many cases at least, has a valuable concession, and we hope that he will make money.

Senator ASHURST. No doubt.

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. And a moderate amount should come back to be used for paying administrative expense, improving the range, give something to the State, and if there is a little surplus let it go into the reclamation fund.

Senator ASHURST. Would you be willing to apply that same rule to the Forestry Bureau?

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. I have nothing to say about that subject.

Senator ASHURST. You decline to say anything on that subject? Assistant Secretary FINNEY. That is under the jurisdiction of another department, and I do not want to express any opinion. Senator ASHURST. Have you any opinion?

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. No; conditions might be different, and I do not care to express an opinion.

Senator ASHURST. Well, have you an opinion which you do not care to express?

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. No, I have not.

Senator ASHURST. I just wish to say frankly, without attempting to flatter you, that I value your opinion; you are a man of character, influence, learning, and experience

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. Thank you.

Do

Senator ASHURST (continuing). --and I would like to have your opinion on that subject if you feel at liberty to give same. you favor any tendency, if such there be, to commercialize the forests and charge more for grazing livestock thereon than is actually necessary to administer the grazing regulations?

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. I wish you would excuse me from answering that question.

Senator ASHURST. Certainly.

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. I feel that I should not express an opinion of another department's business.

Senator ASHURST. Do you think that the Forestry Bureau should charge more for grazing livestock on forests than is actually necessary to administer the grazing?

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. Yes, I do.

Senator ASHURST. You think it should charge more?

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. Yes, sir.

Senator ASHURST. And if such charge was oppressive to the stockman and about to drive him out of business do you still think that such should be made?

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. No; I do not think it should be made oppressive. It should be reasonable.

Senator ASHURST. Now, whom do you think should be judge of whether or not it is oppressive; the stockman or the man not engaged in the stock business?

Assistant Secretary FINNEY. I do not think the stockman should be the judge, if he is the man who is utilizing the range, because be is an interested party.