anything on that. I think 184 was all that I would be allowed on the forest and then I had the other sheep on my hands and no place to put them. I did not know what to do with them and, as a result, I had to peddle them here and there and elsewhere and finally sold out to a gentleman present here, Albert A. Woods, a class B man. Well, I learned he was permitted to place those sheep right on the forest and no doubt they are there at the present time. Not only that but our community allotment, it seems as though we have the name and not the game so much. Other men are grazing sheep, that is, I might say transients, right almost in our back dooryard there and I see no reason why the class A men should not have an equal right with them, that is, a priority right.

Mr. BOWDEN. Under the regulations they have more than an equal right, do they not?

Mr. Love. I should think so. That is the way I understand it. Mr. BOWDEN. You don't believe that the forest regulations are being interpreted?

Mr. Love. It don't seem to me that they are.

Mr. BOWDEN. Do you know of any other instances?

Mr. LOVE. Only by hearsay.

Senator CAMERON. Mr. Sizer, can you give us a short explanation of this, please?

Mr. SIZER. In Mr. Love's case, the steers he mentions are steers that he purchased from other permittees on the range.

forest rule a person having established preference, holding a permit for a fixed number of stock, can dispose of that stock during the season and, by submitting statement to the forest supervisor to the effect that he does not wish to replace that stock during the remainder of that grazing season, the purchaser may be granted a temporary permit for the number purchased. That is what was done in Mr. Love's case. The men that he purchased those steers from were all class A men. The number of steers purchased varied from probably 2 or 3 to 5 or 6 from each individual and the total number, if I recall it, was somewhere in the neighborhood of 18 or 20 head. That was over Mr. Love's established preference and, consequently, when these class A men that he purchased these steers from did not sign a waiver and wanted to replace that stock the following year his permit for that stock was not renewed. Neither was he allowed to replace that stock with sheep for the reason that the preference was with the other party. In regard to issuing a permit for that stock to Mr. Woods, class B man, I believe that he is mistaken as to Mr. Woods's classification. If I understand Mr. Woods's holdings, he is a class A man. His permit for that stock was approved for a permit the year following the time that Mr. Love had them on an entirely different range, where a reduction had been made to provide for increases, and the total number granted to Mr. Woods was way below the protective limit number. His allotment was also inside of range that was open to sheep grazing at the time.

Mr. Love. In regard to those steers Mr. Sizer mentioned being purchased, you will no doubt notice that I mentioned that I had also certain old bunch of stock cattle. Some of the increase of those

43213-25-PT 4- 63

stock cattle were steers that I had raised myself and it seemed to me at least they should have been under the permanent right, and I would have been glad to have got on not only on that community allotment but anywhere on the forest. As a result, I had to peddle the sheep around and--I lost two-thirds of my grain crop trying to hold them in the field trying to get the thing straightened out so I could get a little grazing, and I had to get out of it entirely and at the same time others grazing thousands of head on the community allotment and general allotment.

Senator CAMERON. You were compelled to sell your sheep though? Mr. Love. Yes, sir.

Senator CAMERON. For the reason you had no range to go to that you could get in?

Mr. Love. Yes, sir; that was it exactly.

Mr. BOWDEN. Do you favor the establishment of individual allotments on the forest?

Mr. Love. No, sir; I don't believe I would.

Mr. BOWDEN. For the small man, you have practically got to have community pastures, don't you?

Mr. Love. It seems to me that we have, and the reason why I would not favor individual allotments, unless there was some readjustment made beforehand, it seems to me that it would uphold a monopoly, inasmuch as prior permittees at present holding permits have several hundred or perhaps thousands of head of cattle and others have very small bunches. Well, then, those allotments are made according to the number of cattle. That would prevent the small man from building up at all. He would have no place to go after the allotments were established-individual allotments were established-so that would stop everything, and it seems to me like it would be on a standstill from now on-would stop that increase in regards to the small man.

Senator CAMERON. Anything else, Mr. Love?

Mr. Love. No.

Senator CAMERON. Thank you very much.

(Witness excused.)

STATEMENT OF MR. HARRIS MILLER, SPRINGERVILLE, ARIZ.

Senator CAMERON. Give your full name to the reporters.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Harris Miller, Springerville, Ariz.

Senator CAMERON. How long have you lived in Springerville or

this section of the country?

Mr. MILLER. Forty-eight years, I guess.

Senator CAMERON. Are you in the stock business?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.

Senator CAMERON. Cattle or sheep or both?

Mr. MILLER. Cattle.

Senator CAMERON. Are you a permittee on a forest reserve?
Mr. MILLER. No, sir.

Senator CAMERON. Have you a permit on the Apache Indian Reservation?

Mr. MILLER. No, sir.

Senator CAMERON. You are on public land?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.

Senator CAMERON. Will you make a statement to the committee, please?

Mr. MILLER. Public lands.

Senator CAMERON. No; I say do you care to make a statement to the committee?

Mr. MILLER. No.

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

Mr. BOWDEN. Are you in favor of turning over the public domain to the State of Arizona?

Mr. MILLER. Well, my interests-my stock is not in Arizona.
Senator CAMERON. You are not on public domain?

Mr. MILLER. In New Mexico.

Senator CAMERON. You are in New Mexico?

Mr. MILLER. I live here but my rights are in New Mexico. Senator CAMERON. Well, you have practically the same questions in New Mexico?

Mr. MILLER. Yes.

Senator CAMERON. Are conditions in New Mexico as we have here? Mr. MILLER. Yes, same.

Mr. BOWDEN. Would you recommend turning over the public domain in New Mexico to the State of New Mexico?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BOWDEN. Instead of having the Federal Government control it?

Mr. MILLER. Yes.

Mr. BOWDEN. In the event the Federal Government would not turn over this land to the States, do you think the range ought to be left as it is now or do you think there ought to be some lease system adopted?

Mr. MILLER. Well, I don't know. That is a question of how it was done.

Mr. BOWDEN. Well, long-term leases on an acre basis?

Mr. MILLER. Well, I would suggest long-term leases, providing you would give one man the same chance as another.

Mr. BOWDEN. You mean you would not give any preference to the previous user or the present user?

Mr. MILLER. In what way do you mean preference?

Senator CAMERON. Would you give a preference to the man in making a lease that already was on the range and had been using the range over a newcomer?

Mr. MILLER. Most certainly I would; yes, sir.

Senator CAMERON. In other words, you believe in preference rights to this range?

Mr. MILLER. Yes.

Mr. BOWDEN. What could this land be rented for?

Mr. MILLER. I don't know. Mighty little, though. It is not

worth very much.

Mr. BOWDEN. Is it worth 2 cents an acre?

Mr. MILLER. No; I would not think so.

Mr. BOWDEN. A cent?

Mr. MILLER. That would be enough.

Senator CAMERON. Half a cent would be nearer right, wouldn't it? Mr. MILLER. Yes; I think it would.

Mr. BOWDEN. That is all.

Senator ASHURST. Thank you, sir.

(Witness excused.)

STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS PHELPS, SPRINGERVILLE, ARIZ.

Senator CAMERON. Will you give your full name to the committee. Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Thomas Phelps, Springerville, Ariz.

Senator CAMERON. You are in the cattle business?

Mr. PHELPS. Yes, sir.

Mr. CAMERON. How long have you been in the cattle business, Mr. Phelps?

Mr. PHELPS. Forty-six years.

Senator CAMERON. You ought to be an expert.

Mr. PHELPS. Well, probably so.

Senator CAMERON. Well, we will consider you are one.

Mr. PHELPS. All right.

Senator CAMERON. Are you on the forest reserve?

Mr. PHELPS. Yes, sir.

Senator CAMERON. Have a permit on the Apache Forest Reserve? Mr. PHELPS. Yes, sir.

Senator CAMERON. Have you any permit on the Apache Indian Reservation?

Mr. PHELPS. No; that is, not now.

Senator CAMERON. Have you any sheep?

Mr. PHELPS. A few.

Senator CAMERON. But the principal business is cattle?

Mr. PHELPS. Yes, sir.

Senator CAMERON. Do you want to make a statement to the committee about anything you have in mind or would you prefer to have them ask you questions?

Mr. PHELPS. Well, question me awhile and you would probably bring out more than I would ever get out.

Senator CAMERON. Go on, Mr. Bowden.

Mr. BOWDEN. How large a preference have you on the forest now? Mr. PHELPS. Three hundred eighty-eight head for cattle.

Mr. BOWDEN. Have you been cut recently?

Mr. PHELPS. No, sir.

Mr. BOWDEN. Do you have an individual allotment?

Mr. PHELPS. No; community.

Mr. BOWDEN. Do you favor individual allotments?

Mr. PHELPS. Certainly; yes.

Mr. BOWDEN. You would favor doing away with dual grazing also?

Mr. PHELPS. Which?

Mr. BOWDEN. Doing away with dual grazing of sheep and cattle. Senator CAMERON. He means that you should have a separate range or allotment for sheep and a separate range or allotment for cattle?

Mr. PHELPS. No, sir. I guess that sounds strange for an old cow man. No, sir.

Mr. BOWDEN. Are there many individual pastures or ranges on the Apache Forest?

Mr. PHELPS. I don't think so. I don't know of a one.

Mr. BOWDEN. They haven't carried that policy out on the Apache Forest?

Mr. PHELPS. Oh, yes-I don't know of a one individual. Well, there is too yes, that is right-small allotment.

Mr. BOWDEN. Why do you favor an individual allotment?

Mr. PHELPS. Well, for many reasons. That all depends you know, individual. Now, of course, I favor a community where, of course, men can get together again, about the same type of cattle men, and you let a new man go into the cow business and he doesn't know anything about it and it works a hardship on a man who has made a life study of it. Now, we have got, I think, perfect results out of a community pasture. I may be partial, perhaps, because we have been in the cow business, all of our allottees, but you take a man that just goes into the business maybe several of them and maybe a good many-well, a man, after he has had the experience a short time. knows more about it than he will probably ten years after and it works a hardship on you. If a man knows a thing, he differs it. If he is a real cow man, he does not differ. He will work the range the same and he knows and don't make the trouble in a community pasture lots of times. You can't work a few cattle. You have got to have a certain amount of cattle to make it pay. If you are going to give me a hundred head up there, I don't want them.

Senator ASHURST. That is like practicing law. You have got to have a certain amount of business to make a living?

Mr. PHELPS. That is right. A community that has all cow men, there is no question but what it would be a success, but it works a hardship here on a community where the men come in and they don't know any more about the cow business than if they have never seen a cow. Well, they have got their ideas, of course, and it makes it a hardship, but I don't see how they could work it any other way some places here only a community. Speaking of sheep, I have been raised a cow man and I have owend sheep and I have owned cattle, and I know what the old cow man tells you, but he hasn't had the experience. My milk cows run there by a bunch of sheep. They give lots of milk, 4 or 5 gallons, and those sheep will eat stuff that the cow does not eat. There is no question about it, and the range will support more of both than it will of either. There is no question. about it. A deer does not eat grass. A goat will eat both, but not much. He had rather have the weed. Sheep will eat either one and do well. There is no question about the sheep, he will eat both, but he prefers the weed, but on ranges where they have had sheep for years the weeds are gone. Where they have had cattle for years. the weeds is this high [indicating] and that is based on actual experience. I prefer to run both on this range here and we had sheep about six years. I have had a little buch of sheep for 15 years, and those sheep eat things that the cow does not. There is no question about it but what they would have better results where they had their range and the cow men could have both. We have a man here who ought to know something about it. He has had experience, for he runs both. I had my sheep down home the last year and I had my cattle, and they all grazed together and the sheep has eaten one thing and the cow another. That is actual experience. I naturally prefer both. If I had a pasture of my own, I would run both and