The CHAIRMAN. In other words, between a maximum and a minimum penalty you may use the one that seems to conform to your idea of justice?

Mr. BARNES. Well, the judge does that when we violate the traffic law. He charges one man $100 and another one $10, according to the character of the offense.

Colonel GREELEY. Our only solution for this problem of the administrative regulations of violations Senator-which we recognize is a real problem, dealing with that fairly and equitably-our only solution of that is to provide for an appeal procedure. We recognize that the forest supervisor may be mislead by local situations and possibly by personal prejudice, and so we provide for an appeal to someone above him, who should be removed from any influences that the supervisor may be under. In the same way we provide for an appeal above the district forester, even up to the Secretary, who is the highest authority we have.

That appeal procedure has, in my judgment, worked very well on the whole in adjusting equitably the class of cases that may be subject to improper handling upon the ground.

At one time we had an appeals officer under the Secretary, entirely disconnected from the Forest Service, who reviewed with entire impartiality all of the appeals which came up to the secretary. This appeal procedure, as it seems to me, is the proper outlet or safety valve to prevent misuse of official authority and power.

Senator CAMERON. In other words, you think you have the thing pretty well in hand at the present time under the system you are now working under?

Colonel GREELEY. I think so.

The CHAIRMAN. In the matter of appeal, have you adopted any fixed rules of evidence, for the presentation of evidence in cases, or are they largely ex parte hearings?

Colonel GREELEY. There has been no formal code adopted dealing with rules of evidence. Our cases on appeal to the Secretary are uniformly reviewed by the Solicitor of the Department, and he may ask for the submission of additional evidence, or for the proper certification of evidence if he feels what he has is not satisfactory. He stands to the Secretary as his legal advisor in acting on appeals, and would handle any matter as to sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence.

The CHAIRMAN. But there have been no fixed rules adopted? Colonel GREELEY. No; there have been no fixed rules adopted. It has been kept rather informal.

Mr. WILL C. BARNES (assistant forester in charge of branch of grazing). Colonel Greeley, we do have a rough outline of procedure. We say to a man who wishes to appeal from the supervisor. If you do not desire to accept his decision you should notify him accordingly and he will send the papers to the district forester, together with your letter, and you will be given opportunity to file any additional information with the district forester for his review. This goes all the way up, and each party has a chance to review the papers and add any additional statements to the case for the information of the next man higher up. This applies both to the permittee and the forest officers.

Senator CAMERON. At the same time it is all done in the same department.

Mr. BARNES. Yes, sir.

Mr. BOWDEN. Is there any formal hearing on these appeals?
Mr. BARNES. Yes, sir.

Mr. BOWDEN. Are the accusers subject to cross-examination?
Mr. BARNES. Oh, yes; if there is any need of it.

Colonel GREELEY. They can be represented by attorneys if they wish.

Mr. BOWDEN. Do you bring your authorized agent, or whoever is the accuser, and give a chance to cross-examine?

Mr. BARNES. Sometimes; yes, sir.

Mr. BOWDEN. The accused does not have that as a matter of right. Mr. BARNES. No. That would rest with the reviewing officer. Colonel GREELEY. If I were sitting on an appeal from a district forester, and the appellee showed me good reason why the man initiating the case should be brought to the hearing so as to be crossexamined, I would bring him in. It rests with the reviewing officer.

The CHAIRMAN. Colonel Greeley, would it be possible, without interfering with the efficiency of the administrative officers, to set up an outside tribunal where disputes as to infractions of the rules and regulations could be tried and settled?

Colonel GREELEY. Do you mean such a tribunal as was provided for in the Phipps bill?

The CHAIRMAN. I had that in mind, but not exactly that tribunal. I would say some such tribunal as that.

Colonel GREELEY. The main difficulty with that procedure would be the delay it would impose in handling current business, making range allotments, and carrying through the season's program on the ground.

The CHAIRMAN. It would be cumbersome?

Colonel GREELEY. Yes; it would be cumbersome. I think, broadly speaking, the principle of the right of appeal to an impartial reviewing body is correct. But I do not think that that reviewing body should be superior to the Secretary of Agriculture. I think that it should be advisory to the Secretary of Agriculture. I do not think you ought to supercede the responsibility of the head of the department, and his administrative function in running the business of his department. A board of appeals, or a board of review, made up along the line of the Phipps bill and functioning as an agent of the Secretary of Agriculture, would probably be a desirable thing. The CHAIRMAN. You are aware that the last Congress saw fit to set up a board of appeals to which appeals from the Internal Revenue Bureau may be taken. That board is entirely outside of the department.

Colonel GREELEY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. We might have something on that order in mind rather than take the one specifically provided for in the Phipps bill to which you referred, or some other body.

Colonel GREELEY. All right. You see, Mr. Chairman, you are dealing here with administration. You are not dealing with matters of law. If you were dealing with matters of law the cases would get into the courts, but you are dealing with matters of administration.

Senator CAMERON. Under the regulations?

Colonel GREELEY. Under the regulations of the Secretary.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course your rules and regulations really become the law.

Colonel GREELEY. What I mean is, that you are dealing ordinarily with matters that you can not carry to a court. There is no way to get them before a court; they are not justiciable. They are administrative actions. When an appeal is made on one of these cases it deals with an administrative decision. A supervisor decides that he will allot a certain range to Mr. A rather than Mr. B, and Mr. B appeals. There is nothing about that that is of a legal character to be decided by a court. It is an administrative decision. That is true of all of these appeals. Since they are administrative decisions it seems to me the final responsibility should rest with the administrative head of the department.

Mr. BOWDEN. Where the permittee has committed a trespass or has violated the provisions of his permit, that raises a judicial question, does it not?

Colonel GREELEY. It might.

Mr. BOWDEN. And that type of proceeding could be brought into the Federal courts?

Colonel GREELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BOWDEN. Matters relating to the issuance of permits are probably executive matters and involving problems of administra

tion!

Colonel GREELEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BOWDEN. The operation under those permits is probably a matter that lends itself to litigation.

Colonel GREELEY. Yes. There are certain classes of these cases that might be litigated. But I was thinking of the great bulk of appeals that come up. They are purely administrative matters.

The CHAIRMAN. Colonel Greeley, do you think that grazing in the public domain and the forest ranges that is, presuming that we are going to adopt the policy of leasing or allotting the remaining public domain-should be administered by the same departments of the Government? In other words, do you think that they are So correlated that they should be administered by the same depart

ment?

Colonel GREELEY. Yes, sir; I do. I think that we should develop in the Government one staff of grazing experts and let that staff handle all the grazing on Government lands. Furthermore, as to grazing I think it would be very advantageous to have the unreserved public lands and the national forests handled together, so that you will have real uniformity of policy between the two. In many cases it would be advantageous if the Forest Service could correlate the grazing use of the national forests and the grazing uses of the unreserved lands near them. It would also be an unfortunate thing to have one bureau headed in one direction of policy and another bureau headed in another direction when you are Gealing with a common problem and a common resource. It would be preferable as a matter of Government organization to have them

handled together.

43213-25-PT 1-13

The CHAIRMAN. In your opinion, would it be wise on the part of Congress to enact a law legalizing the occupancy of grazing areas by the permittees over a term of years as provided for in your 10year permits or any particular length of time that you might allot, in order that there might be no question as to their having a legal right?

Colonel GREELEY. I think it would be desirable to pass a law authorizing the executive agency to issue permits up to periods of 10 years.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, then, you would legalize it yourself?
Colonel GREELEY. It would furnish a legal basis for it.

The CHAIRMAN. You would establish a legal relationship between the permittee and the department?

Colonel GREELEY. Yes, sir. I would not handle it except through some administrative agency. It should be a part of the work handled by some designated executive agency.

Mr. BARNES. Were you talking about public domain or forests? The CHAIRMAN. Both. I was contemplating a dual occupancy. Mr. BARNES. Of course, that will come.

Colonel GREELEY. As far as the national forests are concerned, we can do that without legislation, because of the very broad construction given to our powers by the Federal courts. But I see no reason why it would not be desirable to express the policy of Congress and confirm it in that way by legislation as to the national forests as well as the unreserved lands.

The CHAIRMAN. What I had in mind was the advisability of perpetuating those rights. The difficulty, as we all know in bureaucratic government, is that it is a passing government. It is administered to-day by one person and to-morrow by another.

Colonel GREELEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. It is conceivable that that might make a great difference. Have you gentlemen anything further that you wish to present to the committee to-day?

Colonel GREELEY. I believe not.

Mr. BARNES. I have not.

Mr. RACHFORD. I have not.

The CHAIRMAN. The hour is getting late, and the committee will stand adjourned subject to the call of the Chair. But I do want to thank you on behalf of the committee for coming here and giving us this information.

Senator CAMERON. And remaining so long without lunch.

(Whereupon, at 1.40 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned subject to call of the Chair.)

X

NATIONAL FORESTS AND THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 1925

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC LANDS AND SURVEYS,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10.30 o'clock a. m., in the hearing room of the committee in the Capitol, Senator Robert N. Stanfield (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The subcommittee will come to order. Mr. Cammerer, will you kindly give your name and official position to the reporter?

STATEMENT OF MR. ARNO B. CAMMERER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. CAMMERER. My name is Arno B. Cammerer. I am Assistant Director of the National Park Service, of the Interior Department, and am residing here.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cammerer, we have prepared a questionnaire for data that we desire from the National Park Service. For the record I will read it:

APRIL 23, 1925.

MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: Pursuant to S. Res. 347 a subcommittee of the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys of the Senate is now studying the administration of the national parks. To facilitate its work the committee requests that you furnish it the following information on the parks. It is requested that, so far as practicable, the information be given separately for each of the parks:

1. The name of each park, the date of its establishment, and the authority therefor.

2. The location of each park, the area thereof, with the dates and size of each addition made thereto, if any.

3. Appropriations made annually for the maintenance and improvement of each park from the date of its establishment to date.

4. Expenditures in each park by fiscal or calendar year from establishment to date, so classified as to show the purpose of the expenditures.

5. Donations made by year from establishment to date, together with the date thereof; the amount or form thereof and by whom made.

6. Receipts derived from operating each of the parks by year from the establishment thereof to date, classifying the receipts by the source thereof. 7. Description of the method or methods used in operating the various facilities in the parks, such as hotels, restaurants, transportation agencies, etc., from the establishment thereof to date, showing which facilities are owned or operated by the Government and which by private persons. Where facilities are owned or operated by private persons the committee desires to know whether a price is paid for such privileges. Where concessions are given, information is desired as to whether the concessions are exclusive, how the concessions are let, viz, by public bid, by negotiation, etc., and by whose authority.

8. Description of the method or methods pursued in purchasing equipment and supplies for the Park Service showing the authority therefor, by whom purchases are made, and the manner of making, viz, by bid, negotiation, etc.