some sections and they have now declared it mineral land, and it reverts back to the Government, and what we are to do with it now I don't know.

Senator CAMERON. How much has there been of that?

Mr. ADAMS. Well, it has probably interfered with two sections of my land. It is surrounded by other State lands and fenced. No one has questioned it so far.

Senator CAMERON. That has not interfered with you, has it?

Mr. ADAMS. No; it doesn't interfere with the cattleman or the grazing properties so long as the Government permits us to have it fenced.

Senator CAMERON. Is there any objection to fencing mineral claims?

Mr. ADAMS. I don't know; some say there is and some say there is not. We would like to have it leased and definitely decided who it belongs to and what rights we have.

Mr. BOWDEN. Then you would be in favor of the incorporation in the lease of a provision providing that in the event the lands were classified as mineral that the surface rights would continue as they were prior to the classification, subject to the right of exploration for minerals?

Mr. ADAMS. Yes; I would be perfectly willing to have that same provision that is provided for in the patents relative to the 640-acre stock grazing act. It is the uncertainty of it as to whether we have a right to have that under fence, it being in our pastures and Government land it might be at some time that we would be requested to take our fences down. Since we have leased the land in good faith, it was declared State land and we leased it as such land, and before they got the patent we were allowed to go ahead and fence it and then it was declared mineral land and some of it is right in the middle of our holdings. We have no objection to the mineral right.

Senator CAMERON. You have no objection to the mining, in fact you are glad to see it go on?

Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir.

Senator ASHURST. Now, Mr. Adams, as to these fences fencing a part of the public domain, they were put there many, many years ago?

Mr. ADAMS. Not mine, I didn't fence any public domain, it has been declared State lands.

Senator ASHURST. But respecting other public domain that is fenced?

Mr. ADAMS. There was some, yes.

Senator ASHURST. Now owing to the depressed condition of the market and owing to the most severe drought in recorded history, if the stockmen were required now to remove those fences, would it not be an unbearably heavy burden?

Mr. ADAMS. I don't see how they could do it.

Senator CAMERON. I might state here that just a couple of days before I left Washington I called on the Secretary of the Interior in regard to this question we have now before the committee. I have had numerous letters and telegrams from stockmen who have what we call drift fences upon the public domain. I was pleased to

43213-25 —PT 4 -3

receive a letter from the Secretary of the Interior, dated May 29, 1925, addressed to the Chairman of the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, United States Senate. The letter is as follows:

The act of February 25, 1885 (23 Stat. 321), prohibits the inclosure of the public lands, making construction and maintenance of such inclosures a criminal offense, subject to punishment by fine or imprisonment.

There are many such inclosures in Arizona and New Mexico, and during the war the Government decided, on account of the condition of the livestock industry, and as a war measure, to allow them to remain.

Subsequently, on representation of Senators and Representatives from the States named as to drought, low price of cattle, and the injury which it was claimed would result to the livestock industry, action looking to the removal of the inclosures was deferred until March 4, 1925. In the meantime, the department had prepared and submitted to Congress a bill authorizing the leasing of grazing areas on the public domain, which would have permitted the maintenance of needful inclosures by the Government's leassees on leased areas. The bill was not acted upon by Congress.

Subsequently to March 4, 1925, I was again advised by members of Congress from the States of Arizona and New Mexico, and by people interested in the livestock industry, that owing to unprecedented and continued drought, the removal of the inclosures at this time would be ruinous to the industry. No action has been taken by this department since that time, the matter resting in status quo.

Under these circumstances and in view of the fact that your committee is investigating the public domain, national forests, and other reservations, and questions relating there to, including that of grazing, I am submitting the matter to your attention and requesting your advice as to what this department should do under the circumstances.

Sincerely yours,

HUBERT WORK, Secretary.

Senator CAMERON. Now that is a letter written by the Secretary, as stated, on May 29, 1925, which leaves it practically up to this committee to make recommendations on the action to be taken in this matter. The committee is trying to get this information on this matter and to see wherein it will be beneficial to the cattlemen to allow drift fences to remain.

Senator ASHURST. I think you can well say in addition, that the contemplated court actions, criminal and civil, will not be taken, but will be suspended.

Senator CAMERON. I understand from this letter written by the Secretary of the Interior that he will suspend all action until this committee has made its report to Congress. That is my understanding and I think it is correct.

Senator ASHURST. I am glad you made that statement because a number of gentlemen, not especially in this county but in other counties of the State, are very much concerned and they apprehend that they may be sued or arrested and I think that will give them some assurance of relief until this committee makes a report.

Senator CAMERON. This is to serve notice on people on the public domain who have fences thereon that there will be no action taken concerning such at present.

Mr. ADAMS. That would apply to these fellows that have taken leases from the State and afterwards some sections were declared mineral?

Senator ASHURST. Undoubtedly.

Mr. BOWDEN. You favor the policy of leasing the public domain? Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir; I do.

Mr. BOWDEN. Do you favor the policy of selling isolated tracts of public domain?

Mr. ADAMS. Yes.

Mr. BOWDEN. Or leasing it?

Mr. ADAMS. I favor selling it.

Mr. BOWDEN. In those sales should any preference be given to any one in your judgment?

Mr. ADAMS. Well, the way the State lands are handled is a very

good way, I think.

Mr. BOWDEN. Previous users of the land should have a preference on the purchase of it?

Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir.

Senator CAMERON. That will be all. Thank you very much. Mr. FRANK MOORE. One of the answers that I gave this morning, that in regard to the leasing of the land that I recommended be leased by the acre or by the head, after hearing the arguments and after giving it more thought than I have before I rather favor the leasing by the acre on account of getting the individual more

control of it.

Senator ASHURST. The stenographer will be authorized to change your answer accordingly.

Mr. S. F. MEGUIRE. Mr. Adams just brought up the matter of the cancellation by the Government of selections made by the State. I have over in Pinal County two sections that I leased from the State several years ago, which I proceeded to fence with other lands that were leased from the State. About two years ago I received notice from the State land department to the effect that one of my leases for section thirty-six had been canceled for the reason that it had been reported to them that it was Government land and had

been withdrawn.

Senator ASHURST. Thirty-six being a school section, it was Gov

ernment land.

Mr. MEGUIRE. So I went to Phoenix about it, went to the land office, and we didn't get anything other than to find out I could contest the decision if I wanted to. There are some four or five old holes on that section of land approximately in the middle of it on which no work has been done for 30 years. It is not well grassed. I found that it would cost me probably four or five hundred dollars to contest it. All the grass that would grow on it for 10 years would not be worth the amount I would spend for the contest. There are ineral showings there. Then, last year I received notice that section 2 had been canceled for the same reason. I have had this for about seven years. That was canceled. They are both fenced. You know how they lie, just cornering each other, almost a mile in between them. I did not proceed to take down my fence. I fenced them in good faith after I leased them from the State. Both the fences are up. If I had to remove the fence I would have to tear down several miles of fence and reconstruct it. I could not do that short of seven or eight hundred dollars and I would have to throw all the lower end of the pasture out on the public domain. Even the State land would be of no use to me because it has no water on it. There is one old mining shaft in the lower end of it. It is about 150 feet in solid rock and has no water. I am going to suggest that something might be done toward having a hearing before these leases are canceled. I was told that the Federal Government would withdraw or cancel one of these State selections upon the

simple letter of a prospector to the effect that that was mineral land. The State land department told me that positively all in the world anybody had to do is to write a letter and say that a certain section of land was more valuable for mineral than for anything else and the Government would cancel it and take it back. Whether that is true or not I don't know.

Senator CAMERON. I think that is incorrect. I don't think the Government under any circumstances would take any action of that nature until they first sent one of their field inspectors or mineral examiners on the ground and made an investigation.

Mr. MEGUIRE. Well, whether or not that is true no one ever said a word to me. If there was a field man who came on the ground he didn't come to the ranch, and the first notice I had of either of these cancellations was that it had been canceled, the State land department sent me a notice that it had been canceled and returned the unearned portion of the lease money I had paid them.

Senator CAMERON. You were not notified to tear down your fence?

Mr. MEGUIRE. No: I wasn't notified to tear down my fence. Of course it became public domain when they were canceled, and the next move would have been that I would have had to have torn down my fences if you gentlemen had not intervened in this case, and it would have worked a great hardship. Now I can not see anything wrong in incorporating in any legislation for the public lands that the cattlemen might lease the surface rights or anything of that sort. It would not interfere with me at all to have that mine operated there. In fact, I furnished them with water because there is a man now doing assessment work some 4 or 5 miles away, and he hauls water from my wells. I have loaned them wagons, barrels, and tools.

Senator CAMERON. In other words, you have rather encouraged the mining?

Mr. MEGUIRE. I always encourage it all the time.

Senator ASHURST. In view of this letter from the honorable Secretary of the Interior you do not apprehend any trouble now about being required to remove the fence?

up.

Mr. MEGUIRE. Not at all.

Senator CAMERON. We are very glad indeed to have you bring this Is there anyone else present who would like to make a state

ment?

STATEMENT OF W. A, JENKINS, OF DOUGLAS, ARIZ.

Mr. JENKINS. I have a resolution here signed by a good number of permittees on the national forest in the Chiricahua Mountains and Apache which I wish to read and hand in to be made a part of the record:

DOUGLAS, ARIZ., June 4, 1925.

To the Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Public Lands and Surveys: We, the undersigned cattlemen, permittees and citizens of the Chiricahua Mountains of the Coronado National Forest of Arizona, do by this means ask the honorable Senators to submit the following as a matter that will greatly benefit the said section and said national forest:

That a duty shall be imposed by the United States Government on all wood, as cordwood used for fire purposes, to the amount of $2 per cord, that comes from the Republic of Mexico and other countries.

It is a known fact that the present free passage of wood from Mexico has practically stopped the sale of wood by American citizens from this national forest, as it is impossible for said citizens to pay the Government for the wood; pay a reasonable salary to woodcutters and other expenses incurred by the marketing of our wood and compete with the Mexican wood that is cut free from Mexican forests by low-salaried laborers and pass free of duty to our country. It is a known fact that by the cutting of down timber, scrub growth, and dead timbers from our national forest it gives grass an opportunity to grow, clears our forests from débris, and thus saves our forests from the extra fire hazards.

We think it very important that such a duty be imposed, so as to save our forests, increase our grass by having contractors to cut this down timber and brush, so the grass can grow, and also protect the many already downhearted cowmen who are in financial straits. We earnestly ask your full investigation of this. C. C. Kimble, Apache, Ariz.; E. L. Wright, Apache, Ariz.; F. C. Kimble, Apache, Ariz.; J. W. Richart, Apache, Ariz.; Gus Kimble, Apache, Ariz.; Mary Wright, Apache, Ariz.; A. B. Rodman, Apache, Ariz.; R. O. Boss, Apache, Ariz.; Ross Sloan, Apache, Ariz.; Will Glenn, Douglas, Ariz.; L. R. Richart, Apache, Ariz.

Mr. JENKINS. Now, we know that out on this national forest in the Chiricahua Mountains there live a great many homesteaders contiguous to the mountains, and these homesteaders heretofore have gone up in the mountains and got contracts to cut this wood, and they could market this wood and save their incidental expenses while homesteading their land and take care of their families and send their children to school, but under the present condition, as I read in the report, and the resolution is signed by these gentlemen and citizens, they can not compete with those Mexicans with wood that has been sent in free. They cut wood from the Mexican forest free and ship it in free from duty, and we have day after day wagonload after wagonload come into this country. I recall an incident a short while ago. At Camp Harry J. Jones the commissary department asked for bids on a thousand cords of wood. Well, we people in the Chiricahua Mountains offered to furnish this wood at a certain price, which was a very nominal price, but owing to the conditions which exist, as I have explained, the wood was brought out of Mexico and sold cheaper. Now, we know that if this wood, down wood and brush, is cut from these forests that it will relieve us of an extra fire hazard, because almost all of the fires start in the foothills of the mountains and climb up until it gets to the merchantable timber, and it starts in the foothills in the down brush and scrub timber, practically all fires. We know from our own reasoning that if a man owns the land he will naturally clear off the débris and downfallen timber and stuff that is detrimental to his land and by this means take care of it. Heretofore this has been cut from the forests by wood contractors with contracts let by the forest supervisors and the rangers. We have Mr. Schofield on our forest there and he can give you the data of the amount of wood available that can be cut and that is marketable, and the conditions that exist in the mountains there of which I speak.

Senator CAMERON. What price per cord do you pay the forest? Mr. JENKINS. The minimum price is 25 and 50 cents, mostly 25

cents.

Senator CAMERON. That is for down timber?