Mr. SHIPE. I was told that 10 years ago the Indians had nice little farms there, and I saw the remains of their ditches. Senator ÁSHURST. Who told you that?

Mr. SHIPE. Mr. Davis.

Senator ASHURST. Of course, that was hearsay?

Mr. SHIPE. I had every reason to believe, through association with him in the past, that he was telling the truth.

Senator ASHURST. No doubt; but you feel, do you, that you would adopt hearsay testimony and disregard the reports of the two men who made the investigation-the two men that went over the ground?

Mr. SHIPE. This positively happened. Ten years ago the farms were there, Mr. Davis said, and the Indians were farming there, little farms.

Senator ASHURST. Mr. Davis had only been there eight years?
Mr. SHIPE. Yes.

Senator ASHURST. So he had two years of hearsay to draw from? Mr. SHIPE. Well, I am quite sure than he said even eight years ago, when he came there, they were there. He was speaking of his personal knowledge.

Senator ASHURST. Do you remember when the commissioner signed the letter?

Mr. SHIPE. I do not. I think it must have been around the 1st of December.

Senator ASHURST. Did you see him sign it?

Mr. SHIPE. No; I did not.

Senator ASHURST. You don't know, then, whether he had 100 to sign or 1 to sign that day?

Mr. SHIPE. No, sir.

Senator ASHURST. He might have signed a hundred at the same time.

Mr. SHIPE. Possibly. It is not likely that he signed a hundred, because I am quite sure that there are not many days that he signs a hundred letters; the assistant commissioner signs letters and so does the chief clerk.

Senator ASHURST. Well, the results were that the commissioner had to pay the expenses of two men to make this investigation, and two of the men who made the report went upon the ground, and you didn't go upon the range nor did Mr. Davis, yet your views prevailed; is that true?

Mr. SHIPE. Well, I certainly recommended the action that was taken.

Senator ASHURST. You were quite solicitous about it, weren't you; you didn't want Mr. Davis to lose out on this; is that true? Mr. SHIPE. No, sir.

Senator ASHURST. Why did you write a letter sustaining it if you didn't want it sustained?

Mr. SHIPE. Your question intimates that I wanted to sustain it because I was a friend of his or something of that kind. If I had any evidence to back it up I might do it. It was my best judgment that the best interest of the Apache Indians would be served by not changing from cattle to sheep on that particular range.

43213-25-PT 4—53

Senator ASHURST. Then you think Mr. Davis did not make a mistake in his view of the matter?

Mr. SHIPE. I do.

Senator ASHURST. Do you think he made a mistake when he said the commissioner made a mistake in appointing these men! Mr. SHIPE. That is just a difference of opinion.

Senator ASHURST. Do you think he made a mistake when he said "I think the commissioner made a mistake"?

Mr. SHIPE. Well, yes, sir; to my way of looking at it. I don't think the commissioner made a mistake.

Senator ASHURST. Do you think Mr. Davis made a mistake! Mr. SHIPE. Why, naturally that follows.

Senator ASHURST. That is all; thank you.

Senator CAMERON. Mr. Shipe, this thing was talked over at Washington at some length before you came out on this last trip to see Mr. Davis, was it not? You had the reports of the two men and you had discussed this thing pretty thoroughly at Washington before, and you had practically made up your mind, and the decision had practically been rendered before you made this last trip! I would like to have you speak frankly on that.

Mr. SHIPE. I think to a large extent you are right.

Senator CAMERON. Then the trip was not really necessary, was it! Mr. SHIPE. I don't think the trip would have been made except that I was coming down into that section of the country.

Senator CAMERON. Then the trip, so far as I can see, your last trip did not have much to do with the question involved, if you had practically decided the question in Washington before the trip was made?

Mr. SHIPE. I think you are about right.

Senator CAMERON. Well, don't you feel, Mr. Shipe, that so far as Mr. Duffield is concerned, there has been some animosity in this case! Let's talk frankly.

Mr. SHIPE. Well, the record would seem to indicate that.

Senator CAMERON. I think so, and that there has been partiality shown. In other words, Mr. Duffield is not in as good standing be fore the Commissioner of Indian Affairs as he ought to be?

Mr. SHIPE. So far as the office is concerned, or whatever I might have to do with it, or what the commissioner has had to do with it, I am quite sure there is no animosity.

Senator CAMERON. But there is animosity at this end?

Mr. SHIPE. I don't kow whether you would call it animosity. Senator CAMERON. Well, there is a feeling that is not exactly right.

Mr. SHIPE. There is evidently some serious difference, because it shows in the testimony.

Senator CAMERON. Has Mr. Davis ever intimated to you by conversation that he was not feeling friendly toward Mr. Duffield?

Mr. SHIPE. No; he has always said that personally he was always friendly to him, but there seems to be a connection here that don't jibe with that expression. I don't believe Mr. Davis would consciously allow his feelings to bias his judgment. He has always been very fair in regard to that and has always taken pains to explain the situation very carefully and show me why he believed it was for the best interest of the Indians to do this.

Senator CAMERON. You do believe that if you had signed a recommendation that Mr. Duffield's permit should be granted or your report to the commissioner had been favorable there is no question but that Mr. Burke would have signed the letter giving him the permit he was asking for.

Mr. SHIPE. You mean if my recommendation had been just the opposite ?

Senator CAMERON. Yes?

Mr. SHIPE. I am very doubtful in that case.

Senator CAMERON. He took your view of it in preference to the two inspectors he had sent out.

Mr. SHIPE. He took my view probably because it coincides with Mr. Davis's view. I know that the commissioner thinks very highly of Mr. Davis's opinion.

Senator CAMERON. And you took Mr. Davis's view and recommended it to Mr. Burke?

Mr. SHIPE. Yes, sir.

Senator CAMERON. That is all; thank you.

STATEMENT OF MR. E. H. DUFFIELD—Continued

Mr. DUFFIELD. For the benefit of the committee I wish first to establish that the granting or refusal of this request on the part of the White River Sheep Co., according to the evidence in this case, was rendered on their findings in regard to erosion on some place on lower Cedar Creek. This question of erosion on lower Cedar Creek, properly speaking, has no place in the whole question, for one reason that the range or area of upper Cedar Creek was at the time of the inspection properly fenced off and on the Indian range, and not a part of the request. This fence had been built a few months before, and in some places it is so close to the crest of the watershed between Cedar Creek and the next watershed to the north, which is Corduroy Creek, that it is less than a mile from the crest to the fence. True, it is in the vicinity of Big Canyon, which is the easterly extremity of the Cedar Creek system-there is an area of possibly 2 miles back from the crest to the watershed between the watershed and the fence.

Furthermore, when Mr. Davis wrote on February 28, 1924, that he was going to take this upper drainage area, he explained quite fully in his letter that the area was not overgrazed in the vicinity of Čedar Creek and that I had lightly stocked it, and because of those reasons I wouldn't miss it much. If the erosion on lower Cedar Creek is attributed or in any way connected with the range on upper Cedar Creek, which has always been highly stocked and which is well covered with grass, then I submit that there is no hope for the little Indian farmers.

Furthermore, I have had occasion many times to traverse the area involved, the little farm along Cedar Creek, because of my sheep business on the E-B range to the south. There is erosion there, gentlemen, but it has been there since I first viewed it, and because of its startling sharpness I studied it and to my amazement I found driftwood on the lower section of Cedar Creek at least 3 feet higher than any other driftwood that has occurred in the last 10

years, indicating beyond any question of a doubt that some 15 or 20 years ago there had been 3 or 4 feet more water go down the creeks than in recent years.

Continuing the watershed question: On the range which I have asked permission to change from cattle to sheep there are and was at the time the committee inspected it two drainage systems, one being White River, running southward along the eastern section of the permit, the other being Corduroy Creek, running westward, out of the west end of the range, north of the Cedar Creek country. Corduroy Creek is not involved in any way in any Indian farm questions, for the confluence of Corduroy and the Carriso is below the little Indian farms, with the possible exception of an area of a few acres in connection with the stockmens' headquarters ranch. At the confluence sheep or cattle might be grazed on the Corduroy independently, and the erosion from flood waters could not in any way that I know of effect the Indian farms on Carriso Creek above its confluence, and certainly there are no little Indian farms on Corduroy excepting in the vicinity of our headquarters range, which is known as Big Springs. There is at that point a squaw-man and a couple of Indian women. As regards the White River watershed there would be some little question on that little area, but it was proposed and agreed that I would keep my sheep off of the cut-over areas, where reforestation was a problem, which seemed to be satisfactory.

In regard to the driveway question that was mentioned in this case, for the reason that it was necessary to establish a course of events leading up to the commencement of the policy against further sheep grazing, I have given Mr. Davis my word that I would never strive or lend my effort to securing a driveway crossing the Indian lands and I wish to continue my good word to Mr. Davis in that respect.

In regard to the association, the Holbrook meeting was called at the request of various members, and the place mentioned by various memebrs as that being most handy to those coming from long dis tance points by train. However, I took occasion to send Mr. Davis a telegram asking him to be present, if possible. He didn't come. The last meeting of the association was held at McNary. Mr. Davis was there. There was a splendid attendance. I have no criticism to make on Mr. Davis's method of running cattle. My method of handling cattle differs from his in this respect, that I sell my calves as veal, and occasionally I let some run over until they become yearlings, while it is my understanding that he permits his to run along until they obtain more growth and more weight.

As regards who named the committeemen while I was in Washington, gentlemen, I didn't know who the committee was and I didn't know until Mr. Shipe announced to me who they were to be.

In regard to the statement contained in an affidavit, reciting what Mr. Moore said and did I make this statement. I simply secured affidavits from those who knew, not by hearsay but by their own ears and eyes. The statement that I have a representative during the Indian cattle work is correct. I have done so regularly. However, as the affidavit will indicate, when the statement was made by Mr. Moore he was not engaged in cattle round-up work, but was en

gaged in building a fence. Consequently it was not to be expected that I was to have cowboy representation with him in the building of this fence. The wire was packed by a pack animal from Gomez Creek across the area where the cattle mentioned in the affidavit were. I believe that is all I have to say. I thank you.

Senator CAMERON. Thank you, Mr. Duffield. The committee will adjourn until 7.45 this evening.

EVENING SESSION

The subcommittee met at 7.45 p. m., pursuant to adjournment for recess at 6 o'clock p. m., in the courthouse, Senator Ralph H. Cameron presiding.

Senator CAMERON. The committee will come to order. Mr. Lee, will you come forward?

STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN LEE, OF CORNFIELD, ARIZ.

Senator CAMERON. Give your full name and residence.

Mr. LEE. My name is John H. Lee. My residence is Cornfield, Ariz.

Senator CAMERON. Mr. Lee, you are an old-time cattleman here? Mr. LEE. Yes, sir; I am; I have been in the cattle business-I have been in the livestock business 40 years, and most of the time the cattle business.

Senator CAMERON. Have you any sheep now?

Mr. LEE. Never did have.

Senator CAMERON. Have you a forest permit?
Mr. LEE. I have.

Senator CAMERON. On what forest?

Mr. LEE. Coconino.

Senator CAMERON. For how many head?

Mr. LEE. Well, I think if my cuts were made as I have requested to make them, it would be about 192 or 193 head. I started in with about 300, but from time to time I have been asked to reduce my herd. Well, I haven't made the cut that I was requested to make for the simple reason that there was no market for the cattle and the consequences was I couldn't make the cut without giving them away, and I haven't given them away. I have got them yet. I have got now on the Coconino National Forest about 391 head. Last year I was asked to cut 119. I cut 28. That was all I could find a market for.

Senator CAMERON. Mr. Bowden, will you take the witness?

Mr. BOWDEN. Have you been notified that the forest was going to take any action in the matter?

Mr. LEE. Oh, yes; they threatened to do several little things.
Mr. BOWDEN. What have they threatened to do?

Mr. LEE. Oh, threatened to cut my permit and such things as that

for not complying with their orders.

Mr. BOWDEN. Threatened to take away your permit?

Mr. LEE. Oh, no; just reduce me down to nothing.

Mr. BOWDEN. You say your present permit is for 192 head?