those properties are largely on the national forest; in fact, this one property that I speak of now is all on the national forest.

Now, we have other properties off of the national forest, and we owned these properties, occupied them, ran cattle on them long prior to the creation of the national forest. And we are still occupying those. And we have a pretty good condition in grazing, both on and off of the national forest, both on owned private lands and under the permit system, which we have had a number of times with our other properties.

Now, I would like to say this regarding the national forest. great many people disagree with them, and I do myself and have disagreed with them in many, many things; but they are guided by rules and regulations which they have to comply with, and I have yet the first disagreement to have with these people that when we got together and talked it over was not settled perfectly satisfactorily to all parties concerned.

And, now, so far as the grazing-fee end of that is concerned, I am not in favor of any change. I do not care to have it for any less than we are getting it to-day. I do not think when you get something for nothing it is worth anything. And I think that we get ample protection on the national forest, and when we pay the grazing fee that we are paying to-day on the national forest I think we are getting it about as cheap as it can be gotten in the United States anywhere.

Now, we have properties off where we own the lands. Of course, it is a little more satisfactory to handle your stuff, because there are absolutely no restrictions there. Now, the restrictions that we are up against on the national forest are not to-day as numerous as they were when it was created some time ago. I think their organization is rapidly improving all the time. It is much better to-day than it was even two or three years ago, and they are getting by with less friction, less trouble.

Now, a great many people down there have personal grievances which happen to come up before me, inasmuch as I am chairman of the advisory board of that district. And when you come to sum them up they are imaginary grievances. They do not amount to anything at all. As far as any complaint against the national forest is concerned we haven't any to make at all; absolutely not.

Now, getting back to the public-lands question, that is something we have got to have, there is no question about it, or else quit business. We have got to have that regulated in some way. My companies are running two properties where there is quite a good deal of public domain, and we want to pay for it, because the day that we have to take those fences down we lose every dollar of collateral we have got. We can not go to a bank and get any assistance. They would be foolish to let us have it.

If we had to remove the fences that we have got-the people I am speaking of now in the cow business west of Silver City that are on public domain-you could not employ men enough to keep them out of the crops and the farms. They would go here and there and everywhere. And I think that we ought to have some regulation regarding those lands, and I think the people occupying those lands at the present time should have the preference of leasing, because there are not any of them that are occupying the public domain but

what have put large sums of money in in improvements. We have put some improvements there on Government lands that cost us as uch as $5,000 to develop a piece of property. The country is not worth a snap of your finger without this water. And I believe that if something is done with them that it should be borne in mind that the people occupying them at the present time should have the preference of leasing those lands at a rental that the business will stand up under.

Now, I do not for one second think that our State should handle this and administer it; that our troubles then would never be at an end. We would have a change of administration, and that every two years. We would not know where we stood, and I am not going to say who I think should handle it. But I think the lands should be handled by some one of the bureaus. I do not think our State has any business attempting to touch those lands in the way of administering them to the cowmen.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Suppose that plan were adopted, Mr. Culberson, that existing homestead laws should be repealed? And, by the way, I may say that the so-called Finney bill, in its ultimate entirety, would result in that, that the homesteaders would be eliminated unless it could be found that there was some tillable land in an area not exceeding 320 acres. There is that question to be considered, whether, in respect to the lands which you have in mind, the section homestead law ought to be repealed, and depend on the classification of those lands, so as to eliminate from the operation of all homestead laws any lands which are not suitable for the production of crops other than native grasses and forage plants. That is the language of the Finney bill.

Mr. CULBERSON. Yes.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Do you think that that would be advisable in that section of the State?

Mr. CULBERSON. No, sir; I do not mean to say to repeal the homestead law, not by any means. But I say to classify these lands, and where a site is found that is suitable to make a home on and can be cultivated, any portion of it, I say let that remain. But if that piece of land should happen to fall in an area that is now occupied by people running the cattle business and it has not been homesteaded up to the present time, the man leasing that should have a tenure, say, of 10 years. He can not afford to improve that property on less than that, and I don't think he can in 10 years build up his

waters.

Now, the lands in the southwestern part of the State, I will venture to say there isn't anything like 10 per cent of them adaptable for homestead entries; that you could make a home on at all.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, now, by the use of the words homestead entry" just what do you have in mind?

Mr. CULBERSON. The 640-acre. It has proven a failure-that a man simply can not support a family on the grazing from a 640-acre tract of land-can he? It is out of the question. There are no 640 acres of land in the State of New Mexico that will carry livestock enough to support a reasonable sized family.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, of course, the suggestion has been made that instead of eliminating such homesteads that the area in some manner be increased?

Mr. CULBERSON. That might be done. If the man had a larger homestead, there are many, many places where they could get by with it very nicely. We do not feel for one second that we should do anything to go against the home seeker. But we do feel on these arid lands, where we have gone to the trouble and expense of fencing those lands, developing water, and putting them in shape where they really are yielding something to the State, you are running cattle on them, you are paying taxes on them-we feel that we should be protected by a tenure of time if we lease them. In other words, so whatever time it might be, 10 years, 5 years, whatever it was, that the homesteader could not go right in the middle of your pasture and say, "Get out; I have taken this."

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Of course, your suggestion-and it is made rather generally-is that the cattle business should be stabilized so that the cattleman should know what he has to depend upon?

Mr. CULBERSON. We have to be stabilized, Senator, or else we have to quit. One of the two.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Yes. Well, now, would a limited tenure accomplish the result? If not in its entirety, to what extent? The thought being, of course, that if your tenure of lease is limited to a period of years, say, 10 years, after the first year it is only for 9 years, and you soon get down to where it is only for 5 years, and after that time would he not be in just as precarious a condition as if he had a 5-year lease and then later on annual lease or permit, and to what extent would that actually stabilize the industry?

Mr. CULBERSON. It would stabilize it to this extent: It would increase your collateral; you could go to your banks or loan companies and get financed if the money lenders knew that you had a permanent location unharmed for a period of 10 years. Don't you believe that that would give a greater leverage?

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Unquestionably at the beginning of the 10-year period.

Mr. CULBERSON. Yes. Later on, of course, it would weaken it as you went down the line.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. And unless there is some assurance of renewal you would soon come to the point where you were about as bad off as you are now on the forest reserves?

Mr. CULBERSON. Well, I will tell you now, when the forest reserve issued us these 10-year permits, of course, at the expiration of the first five years they reserved the right of redistribution in case bona fide applicants come in and make their showing to such an extent that they are entitled to a grazing permit. But that is a great deal better than when we had it from year to year. That strengthened our position down there a great deal.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Would it not strengthen it more if at the end of the first five years you were to take up again the question of the removal of the lease for 10 years, or rather, an extension of it for another five years?

Mr. CULBERSON. Yes, sir; absolutely it would. But that is so much better than anything we had before that we have been kind of sitting easy on it.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Of course it is quite clear to anyone who is acquainted with the situation that the cattle industry ought to be stabilized so far as it can be done.

Mr. CULBERSON. Well, it is kind of a risk for anyone to loan money until it is stabilized better than it is to-day. It has no collateral. And it will be a good deal less if such a thing happens that we are forced to move these fences that are now on the public

domain.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Now, if it were stabilized to the extent that we have been talking about the effect of it would practically be to make that a permanent asset of the Federal Government and prevent those lands from becoming subject to taxation. What 18 your suggestion as to the way that problem might be met?

Mr. CULBERSON. I don't know. I haven't any suggestion to make along that line. I don't know just exactly how it could be handled. But if these lands were administered by the Federal Government at, we will say for the sake of the argument, a rental of half a cent an acre-many of them are worth as much as 3 cents an acre, but the better lands of the country have long since passed into private ownership; there are not any considerable desirable tracts left-if they were earning that amount it would certainly help in bearing the burden of the rest of the taxes that are paid in the State.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. That is, on the assumption that that rental would in some way be turned over to the States? Mr. CULBERSON. A portion. I do not mean to say all of it. A portion of it.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, now, is that plan of turning over to the States a portion of the revenue, and a considerable portion, a condition which is so material that we ought not to enter into this plan unless upon an agreement to turn over, say, half of the receipts to the States in lieu of taxation or something of that sort!

Mr. CULBERSON. No; I would not attempt to say that. I think that we must get this in in some way, even if we can not get it from the State. We must have some Federal control of this land to stabilize our business. We can not handle our herds, we can not breed our herds as they should be bred. You can not do it on the Lational forest in many of the places where they have community allotments. They have rules and regulations whereby a man has to have a certain graded bull before he can be turned on the forest erve. But you can not make these people live up to a thing of that kind. It is out of the question. And the only way under the sun that you can ever do it, that people will raise less cattle, is if these people can control these lands. There is no question about t. They will raise less cattle and better cattle, and we won't suffer the losses that we suffer to-day.

Now, if it is handled in that way I am not in favor of a per Eead basis. It should be upon an acreage basis. I believe that the average cowman in the cattle business is better qualified to deterne the carrying capacity of a piece of country where he is making his living and meeting his obligations than any Government agency at you can put in office. And I don't think for one second that any man looking in the future to his own interest is going to rent a piece of land in any form and then go to work and cut his throat

by overstocking it and running it down. But the moment he can say, if it is only but a section, "I control that; that belongs to me," he is going to take some pride in seeing how well he can handle that and seeing what kind of stock he can raise on it. He is going to take some interest in improving that land. Whereas, on the other hand, Tom, Dick, and Harry, working the same country under different conditions, would work it to death to get all they could from it. Senator JONES of New Mexico. The final effect of that plan, of course, must be considered, and do you not think it would be about this, that the Federal Government would retain the title to these lands? That they would be leased at a low rental? A less rental, perhaps, than the lands would produce by way of taxation? And do you think that it would be advisable to bring about that sort of a condition as a permanent policy?

Mr. CULBERSON. Well, I don't know as to that, whether it would be or not. I would not attempt to say whether it would be advisable to.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, now, the bills which have been proposed for a leasing system by area, I think, virtually amount to that.

Mr. CULBERSON. Did that bill specify the length of time that it should be leased?

Senator JONES of New Mexico. It is wholly indefinite as to the time of the operation of the law, but as long as the law operates why that is the effect of it, as I interpret it. And it not only does that, but it provides that people who are owners of lands may surrender their title, and the effect of that would be that those owners of land might surrender the title to the Federal Government and get a permit to graze cattle there, or a lease, whatever plan is adopted. And the effect of that would be

Mr. CULBERSON (interposing). Do you mean to say then that they would reconvey to the Government the title to this land for the purpose of leasing it at a lower rental?

Senator JONES of New Mexico. It is possible under the proposed bill. Mr. CULBERSON. I would not think that that would work out. Senator JONES of New Mexico. You do not think that they would do that?

Mr. CULBERSON. No, sir; I do not.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Notwithstanding that by doing so they could relieve themselves from taxation and only pay the rental charge?

Mr. CULBERSON. No, sir; I do not believe that they would ever do it. The moment they do that they haven't anything positive from the Government, that the Government is going to renew that lease to them. They destroy their rights.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, then, the effect of this plan or a leasing plan is not to stabilize the industry to the same extent that it would be stabilized if the lands were in private ownership?

Mr. CULBERSON. The effect of this plan is to stabilize it, and I believe it would do it practically as much so as if a man did own it if he could get the tenure, if he could get the long enough time. Senator JONES of New Mexico. Well, I thought you had just made the statement that a man would not surrender his lands to the Government?