Mr. BOWDEN. But the Forest Service has endeavored through considering cost of operation to get the fair value for that stumpage? Mr. GREENE. Yes, sir. I haven't gone a great deal into detail on this range appraisal but I understood that was the basis on which they were working there.

Senator CAMERON. That will be all; thank you, Mr. Greene.
Senator ASHURST. Thank you.

Senator CAMERON. Mr. Scott?

STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES SCOTT, OF PINEDALE, ARIZ.

Senator CAMERON. Give your full name and residence.
Mr. SCOTT. James Scott, Pinedale, Ariz.

Senator CAMERON. That is in Navajo County?

Mr. Scort. Yes, sir.

Senator CAMERON. You are in the sheep business?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir.

Senator CAMERON. Cattle business as well?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir.

Senator CAMERON. You have forest permit on what reserve? Mr. Scort. I have a permit on the Indian reservation.

Senator CAMERON. What Indian reservation?

Mr. SCOTT. Fort Apache Indian Reservation.
Senator CAMERON. Which forest reserve?

Mr. Scort. Sitgreaves.

Senator CAMERON. You have been in the cattle and sheep business for how many years?

Mr. SCOTT. Oh, I don't know.

Senator CAMERON. About how many years have you been in the sheep business?

Mr. SCOTT. I have been in the sheep business four or five years. Senator CAMERON. How long have you been in the cattle business! Mr. SCOTT. Well, I think about 10 years.

Mr. BOWDEN. What recommendation have you to make to the committee relative to the policy to be pursued on the public domain? Mr. SCOTT. I think the public domain should be sold to the men now using it at the very nominal rate, to extend over a period of 40 or 50 years, the annual payment that they should make should not equal, more than equal, what a rental fee would be on a lease, and this should be sold to the men who are using it and they should be given the preference. Now, all of these public domain that amounts to anything has been homesteaded. The land that is left is worthless in a great many ways except for grazing. Why should the Government hold it, because it can not be used at a rental where the cattlemen and stockmen would buy it and give them the profit? Sell it on long time annual payments. That is my idea of the public domain.

Mr. BOWDEN. Then you would finally get it into private hands and on the tax rolls?

Mr. SCOTT. You would finally get into private hands and on the tax rolls and the man buying a tract of land would go to work and take his family out there and fence it and go to work raising stock and babies.

Mr. BOWDEN. In order to put your program into operation it would be necessary to classify that land and put a price on it?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. BOWDEN. And then provide for the sale of it with a preference being given to the present user?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. BOWDEN. Have you any recommendation to make relative to the basis to be used in making an appraisal?

Mr. SCOTT. Well, now, it would have to be practical stockmen to make that appraisal in each State. There shouldn't be a man sent out from Washington; it should be a man who lives in this State, and the appraisal should be made according to the feed value that was on certain classes of range.

Mr. BOWDEN. Now, we all know that the public domain in the north is better than here; would you make your appraisal according to your carrying capacity of the range?

Mr. Scorr. That is the only way to do it, and it should be made by the men who live in this State and locality that are absolutely familiar with the range conditions and not send a man out from Washington who don't know anything about it.

Mr. BOWDEN. What about a limit on the amount that any one man could buy?

Mr. SCOTT. If I was selling to a man who was using it, I would sell him the land he was using. There must be a certain limit; you can't sell it all to one man, but I would make the limit on the amount of land that that individual is using.

Mr. BOWDEN. How long a period of years would you give him to pay for it?

Mr. SCOTT. I would give him 40 years.

Mr. BOWDEN. This State gives 38 years to pay for State land?
Mr. SCOTT. That is what they get in this State.

Mr. BOWDEN. Charge interest?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, charge interest; and that is another thing that is wrong that should be taken care of; you see the enabling act puts a minimum on these lands of $3 an acre, and they are not worth that; they are not worth any ways near that; some of it is not worth two That is wrong. That should be corrected. That is absolutely wrong because they will never sell their land, they can

bits an acre.

never be sold.

Mr. BOWDEN. Have you any recommendations to make relative to Indian reservation?

Mr. SCOTT. Not particularly; no.

Mr. BOWDEN. The leasing period on Indian reservation?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes; I think there ought to be a limit put on the leasing; that is, a term of years.

Mr. BOWDEN. And making the tenure definite?

Mr. ScoTT. It is just like the Forest Service. I have been on the Indian reservation and we have no assurance that we are going to stay there any length of time, because the contract we sign can be revoked at any time. The lease calls for five years, but, of course, that can be revoked at any time, and when a man makes his investment he has no assurance that he is going to stay there any length of time and we can not figure where we are at.

Mr. BOWDEN. Of course, that is demoralizing?

Mr. SCOTT. Absolutely so; that is one objection to leasing on the Indian reservation; and the Indian Department holds that those are Indian lands and that they are there just to administer the Indian land, and they are compelled to administer those lands to the best of their ability for the benefit of the Indians.

Mr. BOWDEN. Do you object to that policy?

Mr. SCOTT. If it is Indian and we have no right there only just as they think they can give us those lands, it is all right.

Mr. BOWDEN. I can not see wherein it would be harmful to the Indians to give you a definite tenure there for a limited number of years. The lands would bring more revenue if you have a definite

tenure.

Mr. Scorт. I would think so; I would think that would be the best policy, and they would get more money out of it.

Mr. BOWDEN. Is the tenure there stable on the Apache Indian Reservation, to your knowledge?

Mr. SCOTT. No; it is not; absolutely not. We don't know what minute our permits will be revoked.

Mr. BOWDEN. Do you know of leases being canceled before the date set for their expiration at this present time?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes.

Mr. BOWDEN. Do you know the lessees whose leases have been canceled?

Mr. Scorr. I have had a lease for 3.000 head of sheep canceled. Mr. BOWDEN. What was the occasion for the canceling of it? Mr. SCOTT. Well, it was this way, you know: It has been very dry and it didn't rain on my range last year, and the agent informed me that it was detrimental to the farmed area, and I realized at the time and I told him so that the range was overgrazed at that time; but if we have rains here, if the rains come back normal I think that my range would carry the stock that is on it. However, I am going to dispose of my cattle and replace them with sheep; not the full number-that is, I have a permit for 6,000 sheep and 1,200 head of cattle. My plan is to try to sell my cattle when I can get a reasonable price for them, and then continue my permit for 6,000 head of sheep; and there is an abundance of rain for that many sheep. I only use it in the summer time. I use this property from May until along the 1st of October, and then it has the whole winter season to rest.

Senator CAMERON. Have you any assurance that you can make the exchange?

Mr. SCOTT. I am going to take the matter up with the agent, because if it is overgrazed that will relieve the range.

Mr. BOWDEN. How is the fee determined on this reservation?
Mr. SCOTT. Well, it is per head. It is so much per head.

Mr. BOWDEN. How do you fix the amount?

Mr. Scorr. Well, the cattle are $1.55 a year per head, and the sheep about $0.23, I think, for a six months' period.

Mr. BOWDEN. That is not arrived at by public bid?

Mr. SCOTT. Oh, no.

Mr. BOWDEN. It is just a negotiated figure?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir; I think there was some arrangement made with the Indian Commissioner.

Mr. BOWDEN. Have you any complaint to make on the manner of fixing the fee?

Mr. SCOTT. No; it has been fair. The way the fee has been handled it has been very fair. Of course, now to be frank we can not pay the $1.75, because I didn't sell a steer last year. My sheep business is carrying my cattle. That is the reason I am going to sell. It is a large fee and we can not afford to pay it, but we have got to pay something. We can not ask something for nothing.

Mr. BOWDEN. Are leases being canceled for nonpayment of fees? Mr. SCOTT. I haven't heard of any being canceled. Now, so far as my knowledge goes, the agent has been reasonable on the payment of fees; that is, he has been in my personal case.

Mr. BOWDEN. You are a permittee on the forest?

Mr. SCOTT. I am a permittee on the forest.

Mr. BOWDEN. On what forest?

Mr. SCOTT. The Sitgreaves.

Mr. BOWDEN. How large a preference?

Mr. SCOTT. I consider I was there before the forest was ever established. My impression was I started in with 5,000 head of sheep and I have been cut down to 2,280 head.

Mr. BOWDEN. What have you to say relative to the forest fee?
Mr. SCOTT. Well, I think the forest fees are a little high.

Mr. BOWDEN. What have you to say relative to how the forest fees should be determined?

Mr. Scort. Well, I think the better way is by the head, the way they are doing now.

Mr. BOWDEN. Will you state your reasons why you favor that? Mr. SCOTT. Well, now in the forest you have a certain range. Here is my idea, to have an individual permit and fence it and the forest may say now that you can run 3,000 head of sheep there and you pay so much a head for those sheep. If you can take care of that range in such a manner that you can run 500 head of sheep more you should be allowed to put more on there and pay for them.

Mr. BOWDEN. Pay the additional fee?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir. Now, it all amounts to the same thing whether it is per head or per acre.

Mr. BOWDEN. If you once determine the carrying capacity?

Mr. SCOTT. But I think we ought to be allowed now, if we can take care of the range in such a manner, we ought to be allowed to put sheep on there as long as they are doing well and protecting the range, and the charge should be by the month. Now, there are cases where a man comes on about the 15th of June and leaves about the 1st of October and could get the benefit of that. Now, the way the permits are we go on the 1st of April, or whenever it is, the 1st of May and it extends to November and you pay just the same. If you only stay three months you pay the same fee that the other fellows pay if he stays the whole time. Now, you ought to get a credit for what benefit you may be to the forest.

Mr. BOWDEN. Do you think that the Forest Service ought to get out of their forage the commercial value of it?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir; as much as they can get reasonably; I don't believe in commercializing the forest at all, but I believe we ought to get credit for what we protect the forest.

Mr. BOWDEN. Then, you are not in favor of their present policy of fixing fees?

Mr. SCOTT. No; I am not.

Mr. BOWDEN. You don't think it would be fair to charge for the forest lands what proviate owners get out of their land?

Mr. SCOTT. Absolutely no. We are an asset to the forest. I came here 45 years ago and the grass stood that high all over the mountains [indicating], and the reforestation was negligible. Of course, there were trees that escaped the fire. Now, when I first came here the Indians didn't do a thing but go out and build fires; they claimed it would make the range good, and the whole country burned off, and the grass being so high it made perfect fires and it just swept everything ahead of it. Now, we came in here and are grazing the forests and keeping the grass down and stopping the fires, and if you go out over the forests now you will see the little trees, the reforestation. I think we are responsible for the reforestation we have had and we are an asset in place of a cost and we should be allowed for that. But they can not run the forest without a reasonable fee. Mr. BOWDEN. In other words, the fee has to be reasonable? Mr. Scort. Yes, sir; they have got to have us or spend an enormous sum of money fighting the fires. If there was no grazing on that forest the grass would be 2 feet high all over.

Mr. BOWDEN. Now, if they maintain their present rates, for example, people will continue to use the forests for grazing purposes? Mr. ScoTT. They probably will.

Mr. BOWDEN. So they will get three times what it costs to operate! Mr. SCOTT. Why, yes; there is a class of people who would pay double three times the fee. If they would put the forest grazing up for bidding the fee would be run up five times what it is now by a lot of reckless people.

Mr. BOWDEN. Have you got any recommendations you want to give the committe relative to the system of administration on the forest?

Mr. Scorr. Well, I think we should have a board of appeal. It should be a State board and should be located in the center of the grazing country, and should be composed of a practical sheepman that was interested and was a good man, and a forest supervisor or a forest official and then a judge, we will say, of the superior court, likewise you would have to have a man for the cowmen.

Mr. BOWDEN. You don't think you could use the same man for both?

Mr. SCOTT. No, sir; they don't mix, they don't understand one another's business. They don't mix at all; just like mixing oil and water. You want two boards.

Mr. BOWDEN. What are you going to do when you have a dispute affecting both interests?

Mr. SCOTT. Then the two would have to come together; there would have to be a provision for the two boards to work together. Mr. BOWDEN. Do you believe there is a necessity for an appeal board?

Mr. SCOTT. Absolutely, and we wouldn't want to go to Albuquerque, we would want to have it right here at Phoenix or the central part of the grazing district. Perhaps the sheep board would