committee's efforts and the action on the part of the Secretary of the Interior in letting the thing stand at this time.

Mr. BOWDEN. Then to tear down now would be to tear down what soon would be built again?

Mr. BOICE. Yes, sir; and it comes at a time when the financial burden of the labor of tearing it down would be pretty hard on the cattlemen.

Senator CAMERON. In other words, you are very much in favor of the drift-fence proposition?

Mr. BOICE. We are very much in favor of it staying like it is until the question is settled.

Senator CAMERON. In other words, you want it to stand in status quo?

Mr. BOICE. Absolutely.

Senator CAMERON. Thank you, Mr. Boice. Is Mr. P. M. Clark, of the Consolidated National Bank of Tucson, in the room? Mr. P. M. CLARK. Yes, sir.

Senator CAMERON. Will you please come forward, Mr. Clark? Mr. BOWDEN. What would be the effect on the credit of users of public lands if they were given a definite tenure thereon for a period of years?

Mr. CLARK. Why that would have a very helpful effect. It would in substance create a stability.

Mr. BOWDEN. You are familiar with the terms of the forest permit?

Mr. CLARK. Yes; I happen to be a permittee.

Mr. BOWDEN. From a banking standpoint which, in your judgment, would be the most preferable, a permit system or a leasing system, leasing area by acres?

Mr. CLARK. From a banking standpoint?

Mr. BOWDEN. A credit standpoint, we might put it.

Mr. CLARK. Well, if we had long-term permits, I would not say there is much difference. For instance, if you had a 10-year permit with a designated number of cattle on a 10-year lease, or a desig nated number of acres, it would be six of one and half a dozen of the other. Both would answer the same purpose.

Mr. BOWDEN. The flexibility in the number of livestock that may be grazed has an effect upon the credit, does it not?

Mr. CLARK. Yes; for the simple reason that you might have a thousand head this year

Mr. BOWDEN. And be reduced next year?

Mr. CLARK. And have that number decreased next year, and you would have to liquidate.

Mr. BOWDEN. Would you recommend the making of more fixed terms in the forest permit for that reason?

Mr. CLARK. I would; I am heartily in accord with what Mr. Boice stated this morning with reference to that 10-year permit for that reason.

Mr. BOWDEN. Under the 10-year permit the forest may reduce the number of livestock that are permitted to be grazed?

Mr. CLARK. I don't think they can reduce your preference.
Mr. BOWDEN. Yes, they can.

Mr. CLARK. Can they?

Mr. BOWDEN. For redistribution they may reduce only 10 per cent, but for protection of the range they may reduce it any number they wish. That is very flexible. The question is, should it be as flexible as that or should there be a compromise between the interests of the forest and the interests of the user, with the result that you would have a limitation and restriction on the amount of the reduction. I would like to get your views on that.

Mr. CLARK. I understant from that that they can reduce you below your preference?

Mr. BOWDEN. Oh, yes.

Mr. CLARK. I did not understand it that way. Well, I would say that that reduction should be limited.

Mr. BOWDEN. A 20 per cent limit?

Mr. CLARK. Some limit agreed on-10 per cent or 20 per cent. And then that resolves itself down to the same question, that the man using this range should have some voice in what that limit should be. You asked Mr. Boice a question this morning about the difference in grazing fees in 1916 and now.

Mr. BOWDEN. Yes.

Mr. CLARK. That they were either too low then or are too high now. In 1916, grazing fees were between 75 cents and $1. Yearling steers were worth $35 to $40 a head. Now, if this new fee, new appraisal, goes into effect, which will increase in some instances the grazing fee, there is an increase in fee and a decrease in what this fee results in, because yearling steers are not worth half of what they were in 1916. This is a most inopportune time to even think of an increase. And further, I want to state that as far as the cancellation of the fees for the balance of the year 1925 is concerned, I venture to say that 70 per cent of the cattlemen in this country that are using the forest reserve, whether it rains or not, can not pay their fee this year. It is not a question of asking for something that they do not care to pay. It is an impossibility.

Mr. BOWDEN. If they had to pay the fee, they would be paying a fee for something they were not getting. Forage is not worth anything now?

Mr. CLARK. Well, I look at it this way: Right now they are not paying. The first half has been refunded. If it rains in July, and We hope it will, they will have some forage, but even if they have forage they won't be able to pay. In most instances those that have. paid the bank put up the money. Another thing, I would recommend that those people that have been unable in the past to meet their forest fees, that their permit be not canceled on that account. Give them a chance to come back. What I mean is this: If they were delinquent for 1924 or 1923, if they don't pay up in a certain time they are liable to have their permit canceled. In some instances the people who have these permits worked for years to earn a preference, and they will all have to be wiped out.

Mr. BOWDEN. If this permit could not be taken away from a man without a board independent of the department passing upon the merits of the cancellation, would the credit conditions of the permittee be improved?

Mr. CLARK. If it could not be taken away?

Mr. BOWDEN. Taken away from him unless some board had passed upon the merits of the cancellation.

Mr. CLARK. I would think it would.

Mr. BOWDEN. It would have considerable stability, wouldn't it? Mr. CLARK. Yes; anything that has a tendency to add stability to the grazing of cattle upon which banks have loans will add to the credit.

Mr. BOWDEN. There is something arbitrary in departmental decisions?

Mr. CLARK. With reference to that?

Mr. BOWDEN. Yes. Do you think so?

Mr. CLARK. Oh, I don't know. Yes; I would say I think there is. Mr. BOWDEN. Do you think that the grazing fees for 1926 should be reduced or raised?

Mr. CLARK. Well, conditions will answer that question better than I could.

Mr. BOWDEN. Even though you get rains; say you do get rains the remainder of the year, you are not out of the slump, are you, in any manner?

Mr. CLARK. No; we are not. But prices might be a little better. These permittees might be in a position to pay their grazing fees. I don't think you should go beyond this season. I think that we will have to watch developments and see how things turn out.

Mr. BOWDEN. Do you favor the policy of the forest department in basing the fee to be charged upon the commercial value of the forage?

Mr. CLARK. I think that is the only way you can base it.

Mr. BOWDEN. Have you any comments to make on Mr. Rachford's appraisal?

Mr. CLARK. Well, in some individual cases, I have. My only comment on it is this: That the cattleman, using a particular unit, should have had some voice in the value of that forage, but as a whole I just could not comment on that.

Mr. BOWDEN. Of course, you have not got the increase in fees here that exists in other Western States?

Mr. CLARK. Yes; I have. In my own personal case I have been increased to $1.37.

Mr. BOWDEN. From what?

Mr. CLARK. From $1.

Mr. BOWDEN. From your knowledge of values of ranch properties, do you presume that the increase in forest fees will have any effect on property values of improved ranches off the forest?

Mr. CLARK. Yes; it will. It will be a detriment to that property.
Mr. BOWDEN. To what extent would you apply your answer?
Mr. CLARK. How do you mean, to what extent?

Mr. BOWDEN. How serious is that? Would you be more specific, or would you rather not?

Mr. CLARK. I would rather not just say how far it would go. The individual cases would be different. Some would be affected more than others.

Mr. BOWDEN. As to ranches using the forest, part of their value is based on the forest grazing permit carrying a fairly low rental; is that not true?

Mr. CLARK. That is, the value of the land?

Mr. BOWDEN. Private land.

Mr. CLARK. Adjacent to the forest; that is, dependent upon the forest for grazing?

Mr. BOWDEN. Is part of the value of that private property based on the consideration that you have a grazing permit on a national forest at a low cost?

Mr. CLARK. Absolutely.

Mr. BOWDEN. That is quite general in some parts of the country, especially in the Northwest.

Mr. CLARK. That is property that you own adjacent to the forest, if you have no access to that forest, that property would not be valuable at all.

Mr. BOWDEN. And part of its value is built upon the fact that there is a low grazing cost. Now, you raise the grazing cost, as you will in some places, from 150 to 200 per cent, isn't that going to react upon the property values of that ranch?

Mr. CLARK. It is going to decrease it.

Mr. BOWDEN. To a very considerable extent?

Mr. CLARK. Yes.

Mr. BOWDEN. In the event that forest fees are to be raised, would you recommend a gradual increase?

Mr. CLARK. I think that is the way they intend to raise them, isn't it?

Mr. BOWDEN. Well, they are not to be raised until 1927 now.
Mr. CLARK. That is going to be gradual from then on?
Mr. BOWDEN. Well, if the Rachford appraisal is approved.

Mr. CLARK. Well, the way I understood it is that the reductions would take effect immediately and the increases would be gradual. Is that correct?

Mr. BOWDEN. If the Rachford appraisal goes into effect, it won't be gradual; it will be rapid. But that certainly ought to be done, from a creditors' standpoint, hadn't it?

Mr. CLARK. Oh, yes; anything that will help out the cattlemen's situation should be done.

Mr. BOWDEN. Would it affect the financial relationship between the forest permittee and his creditor if the fiscal year were changed from April 1 to July 1?

Mr. CLARK. I don't think it would. I think that either one way or the other would work all right.

Senator CAMERON. Mr. Clark, we thank you very much, indeed. Now, is Mr. Kinney present?

Mr. KINNEY. Yes, sir.

Senator CAMERON. Will you please come forward?

J. C. KINNEY (of Tucson, Ariz.). I live in Tucson, Ariz.

Senator CAMERON. Mr. Kinney, you are one of the large stockmen of this section of the country, I understand, and we would like to have your views on the present situation and all the information you can give us.

Mr. KINNEY. Well, I don't know just hardly where to start. I haven't given this matter any thought.

Senator ASHURST. Would you rather we would question you?
Mr. KINNEY. I think so.

Senator ASHURST. You would rather be questioned than to make a statement?

Mr. KINNEY. I haven't anything definitely planned as a state

ment.

Senator CAMERON. Have you any cattle on the forest reserve or have you any permit from the forest reserve?

Mr. KINNEY. Not at this time.

Senator CAMERON. Are your cattle grazing on public domain or on private land?

Mr. KINNEY. Partly on public domain, very little.

Senator ASHURST. A little louder, Mr. Kinney, please.

Mr. KINNEY. Very little on public domain.

Senator CAMERON. How long have you been in the cattle business down in this section of the country?

Mr. KINNEY. Eleven years.

Senator CAMERON. Do you find that the present condition as to range cattle, or the cattle industry in general, is worse than it has been at any other time since you have been here?

Mr. KINNEY. Yes, sir; wrose than any other time since I have been in business, thirty odd years. I have been in business in different States-Montana, New Mexico, Texas. This is the worst I have ever seen.

Senator CAMERON. Practically the worst in the history of the cattle industry, isn't it?

Mr. KINNEY. I think so.

Senator ASHURST. Mr. Kinney, you say you have some land under lease, and you are occupying and grazing on some public domain. Mr. KINNEY. Some public domain; yes, sir.

Senator ASHURST. Have you any views on proposed legislation to lease the public domain?

Mr. KINNEY. Well, in my judgment, that is one of the most important questions in regard to grazing at this time. That is, that part of the counrty that is affected by the public domain.

Senator ASHURST. Do you favor legislation that would lease the public domain, giving preference rights to those who have already (stablished ranges?

Mr. KINNEY. Yes, sir.

Senator ASHURST. You favor such legislation?

Mr. KINNEY. Yes; I favor such legislation, equitable rights. Senator ASHURST. Yes; that is, giving those persons and interests that have already established ranges and ranch rights, giving them the preference rights, to make leases and get the land first.

Mr. KINNEY. Yes.

Senator ASHURST. Do you think that the day of the open range is about gone?

Mr. KINNEY. Oh, yes; it should have been gone 25 years ago. Senator ASHURST. You think the time of open ranges passed 25year ago?

Mr. KINNEY. Yes; I think it was always gone.

Senator ASHURST. Owing to the character of this particular country, you think?

Mr. KINNEY. Any country. There has been more trouble over public domain than over any other question I know of. That has been the biggest fight-more bitterness, more lives lost over public domain than over any other thing.

Senator CAMERON. In addition to lives being lost, it has generated much bitterness among neighbors? Mr. KINNEY. Yes, sir.