STATEMENT OF MR. M. J. ELSING, OF WARREN, ARIZ. Mr. ELSING. I would like to put in this little pamphlet as being a history of the Bisbee mining district, compiled by the mining committee, Bisbee Chamber of Commerce. Senator ASHURST. No objection. Senator CAMERON. It is hereby ordered that the aforesaid document be filed with subcommittee. Mr. ELSING. I have a very brief report to read as chairman of the mining committee of the Chamber of Commerce of Bisbee : Report of mining committee, Bisbee Chamber of Commerce, June 1, 1925: A question of immediate interest to the Warren mining district is the matter of the patenting of mining claims. In the past few years it has been made impossible to obtain patents to mining lands. Those desiring patents have been subjected to numerous hearings necessitating considerable expenditures for attorney's fees, the calling of witnesses, etc. Such hearings have occupied as much as three full days all over the patentability of ground which has been designated as mineral land and which in some cases has been surrounded on three sides by patented claims. The committee takes the stand that the patentee is offering the United States Government $5 for other purposes, such as for its timber, its water, its view, its grazing, or agricultural possibilities, then there might be good reason for refusing patents; but when land can be proven to be in a mineral district, with mineral possibilities, worth practically nothing for any other undertaking, then the Government should accept $5 per acre and issue patent. If all of the six hundred and odd unpatented mining claims in the Warren mining district were patented the following benefits would result: 1. The nature and character of the ore bodies in this district are such that assessment work is practically worthless as a means of actually developing new ore bodies. The holding of these unpatented claims required $60,000 worth of assessment work each year. If this work is done, $60,000 is practically thrown away each year. Patenting these claims would obviate the necessity of doing this worthless assessment work. 2. By allowing patents to these claims the United States Government would receive $60,000 for the sale of approximately 12,000 acres of land worth practically nothing for any other purpose. 3. The State of Arizona places an assessment valuation of $750 on each patented mining claim. The taxable wealth of this district, therefore, would be increased by $450,000. This committee is unable to state how many claims would be patented if there were a more liberal interpretation of the technicalities of the mining law, but it can state that very few applications for patent will henceforth be made. All of which will be detrimental to the mining industry in this district. On behalf of the mining interests of this district. this committee asks for relief from these burdens. If for nothing else than that the principles laid down in the Rough Rider decision continue to be applied to the issuance of patents in this district. The mining committee of the Bisbee Chamber of Commerce hereby goes on record as indorsing Senate bill 4315 of Sixty-eighth Congress, second session, introduced by Senator Ralph H. Cameron, subject, however, to the following amendment in section 5, line 21, page 3, by eliminating the following words, "not less than $3,200" and inserting instead the words "$5 per acre," and by amending section 8, line 21, page 4, by eliminating the words "not less than $6,400" and inserting instead "$10 per acre." M. J. ELSING, Chairman Mining Committee, Bisbee Chamber of Commerce. JAMES MALLEY, RALPH A. MOTZ, E. H. HAYES, Mining Committee of the Bisbee Chamber of Commerce. Senator ASHURST. The Rough Rider decision was the decision handed down by Secretary Lane, to which Mr. Hoval A. Smith referred? Mr. ELSING. Exactly. Senator ASHURST. And you are asking for the law to be applied according to that liberal rule instead of the narrow rule heretofore applied? Mr. ELSING. Yes, sir. Senator CAMERON. Thank you, Mr. Elsing. STATEMENT OF MR. A. B. RODMAN, OF DOUGLAS, ARIZ. Mr. RODMAN. I just want to say that I am not interested in the cow business but I am interested in wood. I have been shipping wood into Bisbee and Douglas for about 17 years, and due to the fact that there is no duty on wood out of Mexico we have always had a hard time. I helped get up that petition, but I want to make it plain that the only thing we are asking for in that petition is a duty on wood out of Mexico. We are not asking the Forest Service to give us anything, and we don't want them to. We don't even want them to reduce the price of wood, because I think that 50 or 75 cents a cord on wood is very reasonable, and if they give us the wood who is going to pay for administration? They have got to have money from somewhere and I don't see where there is any reason for them giving us the wood or reducing the price, because the price is all right, but I would like to see a duty on wood out of Mexico, because our Government has a lot of wood to sell and it don't seem right to me that the wood should come out of Mexico free of duty when we have the wood going to waste. Senator CAMERON. The only thing that you are asking us to do is to devise some way or means to have a duty put on wood shipped in here from Mexico? Mr. RODMAN. That is all we are asking for, a duty on wood out of Mexico. I was afraid you would get the wrong idea there. While the duty on wood would benefit the wood contractors, it would also benefit the United States Government. Senator CAMERON. All right, thank you. STATEMENT OF MR. WALTER ROCHE, OF BISBEE, ARIZ. Mr. ROCHE. The attitude of the inspectors, as outlined by Mr. Smith, has continued in the Warren district to date. We have to my knowledge several instances in the past few years where inspectors have come into the district and disallowed applications, recommended the disallowance of applications for patent on claims that lay within 2 to 21⁄2 miles of known valuable ore bodies that were paying dividends. When the hearings were had the inspectors, upon being asked the direct question, "Is this land valuable for agriculture?" or "Is this land valuable for water rights?" or "Is it valuable for timber?" or "Is it valuable for anything?" answered, "No; it has no value," or "It is only valuable for prospecting." In many instances claims were ideally situated geologically. The formations within the claims themselves were ideal. We had men, such as Mr. Shattuck, Mr. Smith, Mr. Elsing, Mr. Johnson, chief mining en gineer of the C. & A., and others who have been on the claims, state that the conditions were ideal, and yet the Commissioner of the General Land Office has refused to issue patents, simply stating that there hadn't been a valid discovery within the meaning of the law of 1872, giving a straight hard and fast construction to that law, and not as Mr. Smith said following the decision of the Eureka Mining Case, which is one of the leading cases. The Commissioner of the General Land Office in several decisions recently has refused patents on claims so situated. Now this question occurs, as this land is being offered for $5 an acre, which is the highest price asked by the Government for any land in the public domain, it being worthless for timber, water, agriculture, or anything else, what purpose can be served by refusing patents to men who have applied in good faith? It is within a mineral zone; it is in close proximity to known and paying mines, and yet the commissioner has accepted the recommendations of two mining inspectors as against a dozen geologists, practical miners, and men who have mined in the district. Those inspectors, in one instance-in three instances, in the case of five claims, one of the mining inspectors had been in the district only two days and had never been under ground, and didn't know anything about the occurence of ore bodies; the other one had spent approximately a month on the surface and in assessment work, and yet the commissioner in his decision has accepted the word of those two men as against a dozen who have developed the district and had developed millions of dollars in ore. If the conditions were not ideal, if they lay out at some distance, if they were not in close proximity to known and paying mines it might be different. They have gone gainst a record of decisions in their own department, the decision in--I have forgotten the case just now, but where they say that the rule itself is whether a reasonable and prudent man would be justified in spending his time and money in the hopes of producing a valuable mine-what are the sworn geological conditions? What do other miners in the district say as the proximity to known and paying ore bodies? They wash all of this out and say what have you, what is on this claim, have you valuable mineral? It couldn't be discovered for less than a hundred or two hundred thousand dollars. We think that the attitude of the Government should not be that the burden is on us to overcome two men who know nothing about the district; they took the testimony of these two men instead of that of 12 experts, now that is what occurred. Men are abandoning their claims; they haven't any use for them. I know of two cases where the men say they are not going to do their assessment work; they say what is the use, we can not get patent. In some instances men have borrowed money to pay the $5 an acre to the Government. If that wasn't showing good faith nothing else could, and yet they have turned them down. Senator CAMERON. There is no agricultural land in that district? Mr. ROCHE. No. Senator CAMERON. No grazing land? Mr. ROCHE. In the main, no. Very little, practically no grazing land of any value at all. In one or two places on the south and west side of the hills there is probably a strip or two, but generally it is of no value, and the mineral examiners so testified that it had no 43213-25 PT 4 -5 value. What purpose can be served by refusing patents unless the Government is intending to go in there and mine the ground itself! Senator CAMERON. Thank you very much. I wish to state that we thank you all for giving us this information. The committee will derive much benefit from it. The committee will adjourn to meet at 10.30 o'clock to-morrow morning in Tucson. (Whereupon, at 6.15 o'clock p. m., the subcommittee adjourned to meet at 10.30 o'clock a. m. to-morrow, Friday, June 5, 1925, at Tucson, Ariz.) NATIONAL FORESTS AND THE PUBLIC DOMAIN FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 1925 UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND SURVEYS, Tucson, Ariz. The subcommittee met pursuant to adjournment of June 4, 1925, at 10.30 a. m., at the city hall in Tucson, Ariz., Senator Ralph H. Cameron presiding. Senator CAMERON. The subcommittee will come to order. This is a subcommittee of the Senate Public Lands Committee. We are holding hearings to collect data on any question that pertains to public lands. We have selected Arizona as the first State in which to hold hearings first because we feel that the drouth here is worse than in any other section of the country. One of the most important problems before us is the suspension of forest grazing fees during this period of drouth. We want you to make any statement that you desire, and to give us your ideas and suggestions without any feeling that this will be prejudicial to your interests if you are on the forest reserve. We are here to get at the true situation as nearly as possible, so any suggestions you have to offer will be welcomed by the committee. Mr. H. G. Boice, you are the first to be called before this committee to give your testimony. You will please give your full name, residence, and occupation. Mr. HENRY G. BOICE (of Phoenix). I am a resident of the Salt River Valley, a cattle raiser. Mr. CAMERON. President of the Arizona Cattle Growers' Association? Mr. BOICE. Yes. Senator CAMERON. Now, Mr. Boice, we will let you state in your own way and in your own time-and take plenty of time-just what the situation is, as you see it. Mr. BOICE. In the first place, on behalf of the Cattle Growers' Association and those cattlemen whom I know and who will not be here in person, I would like to express our appreciation to the Senate committee for sending this subcommittee out into this country to look into conditions here. We appreciate highly this opportunity to present the facts to the Senate in the hopes that the recommended legislation will be of benefit to the sock-raising industry. |