The CHAIRMAN. I think that is quite a proper supposition, that he does, because we all know his interest in the State and the length of time he has represented it.

Mr. MONDELL. I thank you for that suggestion, Senator Kendrick. The CHAIRMAN. We will listen to you professionally and to such remarks as you care to make in the interest of the State generally. Mr. MONDELL. I think I may say, having known the sentiment of the State for many years and having read all of the hearings by your committee in the State last summer, that I represent in what I shall say the practically unanimous sentiment of the State on the subject. I think that the sentiment in the State of Wyoming on the subject of grazing control is practically unanimous. And that sentiment is represented and expressed by Senator Kendrick, a member of the committee. I do not think it is necessary to have anyone here to express the views of the State further than the Senator himself might express and present them, but our folks thought perhaps it would be well to have some one at the hearing who would present the matter on their behalf. I think the views I express will be the views that will be expressed by our Senator, who is a member of this committee.

If I may begin by reciting a little history, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I have known something about the public lands and the public range for a little over half a century. That is rather a giveaway in the matter of age; but 50 years ago I lived on a homestead in northwestern Iowa and was then quite old enough to understand the conditions surrounding the settlement in which we lived and of a very considerable territory adjacent to it. And something like 45 years ago I traversed Nebraska and Kansas and the Dakotas into Colorado, and for some 10 or 12 years I saw much of the western country somewhat interested in agriculture, but more particularly employed in railway construction. During that period I was in Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah. I settled in Wyoming in 1887 and from that time on continued my acquaintance with public land conditions; so that my recollection of conditions in the past and my knowledge of the problems in the past covers a wide territory and a considerable period of time.

Our people in Wyoming, Mr. Chairman, are opposed to any kind of Federal control of grazing on the public lands, whether it be a grazing control such as is suggested in the measures before you, or leasing legislation. Our reasons for that, we feel, are rather fundamental. They are based on the proposition that the Federal Government holds the public land in trust for the oncoming settler and for the citizen of the State with a view to gradually passing those lands, under appropriate laws, into private ownership, the ultimate object being to eventually-except for the land specifically reserved for definite purposes-pass the lands into the hands of the citizen and place them on the tax rolls of the State.

Now, we realize, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that the carrying out of that policy is attended with more or less difficulty; that it does not always produce or maintain ideal conditions; that there are times and places where and when conditions are most unsatisfactory. We sympathize now and we always have with those who sought a

remedy and now seek a remedy for the difficulties which they are confronted with; but our view is that there is a very great danger of passing, as a very celebrated author once said, "From the ills we now suffer to those we know not of," but the general character of which we may perhaps reasonably infer.

In the first place, any range control or leasing of the unreserved lands is, of necessity, a reversal of our policy established in the 60's, when the homestead law was passed, and constantly maintained up to this time.

Senator KENDRICK. Will it interrupt you to ask a question?
Mr. MONDELL. Not at all.

Senator KENDRICK. Then, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Mondell if he does not believe that conditions applying in our State of Wyoming are somewhat dissimilar to those applying in some of the other Western States, in that we have very few territories of great extent that will not eventually be absorbed by settlement, while some of the other Western States no doubt have vast tracts of country that will not, in all probability, be used or employed by settlers for many, many years from now?

Mr. MONDELL. Well, I think that is true, Senator and gentlemen, that the conditions in Wyoming, taken as a whole, differ quite radically from those in parts of Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona, perhaps. And one of the bills-the bill introduced by Senator Stanfield, S. 2584-does not include Wyoming in its grazing provisions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mondell, may I just at that point interpolate that S. 2584 is the bill that has been worked out by experts employed by the committee, based on the findings of the hearings held last

.summer.

Mr. MONDELL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. It is a bill that has attempted to make provision for the enactment of what is the consensus of opinion as expressed in the various hearings. The reason Wyoming is excepted therefrom is that it was evident and apparent that the conditions applying to many States necessitating regulation and control of the public domain did not appertain in Wyoming.

Mr. MONDELL. Well, Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that that bill does not apply to Wyoming, possibly we are not called upon to present just the sort of opposition against that particular measure that we otherwise would. But the other bills that have been suggested, Senator Phipps's bill and the department bill, include Wyoming, and the States of Washington, and North Dakota and South Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, and even Florida; wherever there is any public land the law would apply. And inasmuch as the other bills do apply to our State we feel a very great interest in the matter. And, furthermore, it is my opinion and that of our people that it would be harmful to us to have this class of legislation enacted, at least anywhere near our borders, as it would leave us the only uncontrolled range area in that section and might very seriously affect our people by the drifting or moving of bands of sheep or herds of cattle that did not find grazing privileges elsewhere. They

91165-267

might come to our uncontrolled ranges because they have no other place to go.

Senator PITTMAN. What is the answer to that, Mr. Mondell? Mr. MONDELL. I beg pardon, Senator?

Senator PITTMAN. You do not want any range control in your State, and you object to range control around your State, because that is injurious to your State. What do you want us to donothing?

Mr. MONDELL. Yes; that has been our answer for 25 years, Senator.

Now, let us remember that this is not the first time that leasing or range control has been proposed. It has been proposed every few years since I can remember.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mondell, are you going to oppose regulation of grazing on the public domain in other States because it might be harmful to your State, notwithstanding the other States want such regulation?

Mr. MONDELL. Well, I have no right to do more than to suggest that we think such regulation would be harmful to us, and I think in the long run it would be very harmful to other States. Our view against range control is not because we happen to live in Wyoming, but because we have studied this question for quite a long time, and we very greatly doubt the wisdom of such a policy anywhere.

Now, this is true the world over and always and everywhere, that people finding themselves in an unfortunate situation seek a remedy. It is also true that the remedy sought may not bring the relief anticipated. That very, very frequently happens. For instance. Senator Oddie referred to a situation in his State with which we profoundly sympathize. The nomadic sheepman-we have had him all the way from Oregon, Idaho, Utah, Colorado, and even Nebraska. We have had all of these difficulties to meet. Senator Kendrick said the other day we have suffered from them so long that we have become sort of accustomed to them and inured to them, as it were.

Senator KENDRICK. May I ask a question there in connection with the question of these nomadic flocks and herds across the border? Mr. MONDELL. Yes, sir.

Senator KENDRICK. Do you not believe it possible that the regulation of these ranges along the borders of our State will bring a measure of relief to us from the very ills from which we have in the past suffered?

to

Mr. MONDELL. I should say, Senator, that if the relief which I am sure gentlemen anticipate who advocate this legislation were come and I realize the very good faith of those who do approve of such legislation--that if that relief came to them in the full measure they hope for and to all concerned, instead of injuring us, it might relieve us, as you suggest.

But coming back now to the situation to which Senator Oddie referred, the nomadic sheepman who comes into the vicinity of a patented holding of the stockman along the river, I think it is altogether possible under a bill of this kind which provides for grazing districts authorized on petition and very considerably operated in

accordance with the view of those who are now using the range, that the nomadic sheepman and not the local cattleman would largely control the situation. Of course, the notion is that by having range control you can drive the nomadic sheepman out. But I am not so sure that that would follow where he had been largely utilizing the range. It is true, of course

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Well, he would cease to be nomadic then, Mr. Mondell. You place him on certain ranges, and he would not be nomadic.

Mr. MONDELL. Well, I do not think the fact that we classify him as nomadic makes him particularly objectionable. That is a term we have applied to men who graze their stock at times some distance from the home ranges and home ranches.

The CHAIRMAN. No; there is a class of stockmen who have no home; the real nomadic stockmen; they are continually roaming. I think that is the typical nomadic stockman. I do not think the man who has a home and who may erstwhile roam from that home is the man to whom the term applies. The man who is constantly roaming is the nomadic stockman.

Mr. MONDELL. Well, possibly not, but I think the sheepman has generally somewhere a foothold. Possibly there are still some who have no home at all. But what I want to suggest is this: That men see difficulties; they see unsettled conditions; they know of conflicts and they assume that all those may be cured by a certain kind of legislation. It does not follow at all that they will be. In curing or attempting to cure certain conditions you may create conditions that are even more unsatisfactory, you may so hamper the industry, so heavily burden it with regulation and control as to do more harm to the industry as a whole than you do good.

If I may come back just once more to the basic thought-because I do not believe that we can afford in this day to forget what we have had in our mind all the years that eventually the public lands, unless they are definitely reserved for certain purposes, shall eventually pass into the hands of private owners and go upon the county tax rolls. These bills, let us remember, as far as the grazing districts are concerned, either entirely repeal the homestead law or so greatly modify the operation of the law within those districts as to amount to an absolute repeal.

Now, that is quite a serious and important thing to do. I do not pretend to say that there may not be districts where you gentlemen may think that ought to be done. I do not even pretend to say that there might not be districts where such action might be justified; but, of course, you would not do that without very careful consideration. I think that S. 752, if I have read it aright, practically wipes out homesteading within the grazing districts established.

The CHAIRMAN. Excepting as to agricultural land, I think that is

true.

Mr. MONDELL. Well, I do not believe-I do not recall an exception there.

The CHAIRMAN. There is an exception there.

Mr. MONDELL. There is a provision there with regard to mineral land, but, curiously enough, there is none in regard to agricultural land. There is a mineral-land provision, as I recall it.

The CHAIRMAN. Section 7, Mr. Mondell.

Mr. MONDELL. Of S. 752?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; if I may read it [reading]:

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 and 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.

Mr. MONDELL. There is a definite repeal there of all the homestead laws within a grazing district, except as within a grazing district the Secretary may see fit to allow on given areas the operation of the 320-acre homestead law. It is an absolute repeal of the stockraising homestead law of 640 acres. It is a repeal of the 320 acretract act except as the Secretary may allow the law to operate, and there only where the land is either irrigable or favorable to the production of crops other than native_grasses and forage plants. Well, now, just what is meant by that I do not know, but I would assume that that would naturally exclude from the area to be opened under the 320 acre act lands

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). That would be the ordinary crops. Mr. MONDELL. The ordinary dry-land crop is, in the main, a forage plant and if I were writing that with the purpose of excluding everything there except land that had so much moisture and so much rainfall that beyond all question it could be successfully cultivated every year and produce all the ordinary crops, I would write it that way. It certainly does not apply to the ordinary dry land upon which you can produce a forage crop, kaffir corn, millet, corn for fodder, and feed of that sort. That kind of land could not be homesteaded.

I just call attention to that as one of the tremendously important features of the legislation that does not seem to have been given much attention. Evidently it is not intended that the homestead laws shall operate on the lands of the grazing districts.

Now, it is rather important to have that in mind, because that means very radical departure from the policy which we have pursued from the beginning, and, remember, this is not the first time that leasing or range control has been proposed. It was suggested when a region in Iowa in which I lived as a boy 50 years ago was depopulated temporarily because of drought and grasshoppers. It was proposed later about the time when I helped to build a railroad across Kansas, 45 years ago, when there was not a family for 40 miles, although there was a sod house on every quarter section. It is now all good corn land. It was pressed with very great vigor about 1893, when the desert land law was modified, the preemption act repealed, and the amount of land which one might acquire under all the land laws was reduced to 320 acres. It was one of the first plans I heard urged when I came to Congress nearly 30 years ago. It has been before the committees of Congress one time or another in one way and another in all the years between.

Leasing legislation was urged with particular vigor and earnestness in Nebraska years ago where there was perhaps as trying a condition touching the use of the public grazing lands of that State as has ever occurred anywhere in the Union, a condition with which