Nothing herein shall be construed as prohibiting the egress or ingress of settlers residing within the boundaries of such reservation or from crossing the same to and from their property or homes, and such wagon roads and other improvements may be constructed thereon as may be necessary to reach their homes and to utilize their property rights. Rules and regulations may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. Nor shall anything herein prohibit any person from entering such forest reservation for all proper and lawful purposes, including that of prospecting, locating, and developing the mineral resources thereof, provided that such persons comply with the rules and regulations covering such forest reservations.

Now, the principal rights conferred by that act and the only rights conferred upon the people of the United States by Congress is the right to prospect and the right to go into and, after getting into, to go out of the reservations. As I say, the chief right is to go into and go out, but when you go in you must go in in compliance with the regulations and you must go out in the same way. In other words, this vast portion of the public domain, a large per cent of 11 States of the Union, is governed and administered entirely under regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture. It has always, I think, been the theory of government that the Government is divided into three branchesthree coordinate branches-the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. I think, too, that the chief foundation stone, if I might so say, of this Government is the theory of local self-government. Long prior to the Boston tea party and Bunker Hill the colonists were asserting their rights to local self-government and the descendents of the colonists who settled along the Atlantic coast have always maintained and asserted their right to local self-government. Through the neglect, as I believe, of Congress, we are largely deprived of the right of local self-government. I do not consider that the Secretary of Agriculture should be censured. The responsibility lies with Congress. Congress is charged by the people with the enactment of laws to govern this country. It has neglected in this case to enact such laws and delegated the power delegated to it by the people to a department. Naturally, the department will enact such laws as it sees fit and, as I say, I don't think it is right. Nothing can be questioned or its acts censured, but in this supposed free land of ours we have one department which is assuming and exercising the functions of all three of the coordinate branches of the Government.

Senator ASHURST. You are absolutely right in your statement. What you say is true.

Mr. HAMPTON. I am glad the Senator agrees with me. Now, the Secretary of Agriculture enacts the law under which these forests are administered; he executes that law and, if controversy arises, he adjudicates all matters arising under the law, and from his decision there is no appeal. In many cases controversies arise between the users of the forest and those supervising the use. I have been quite familiar during all of the years of the existence of the Forest Service with the administration of these reserves and I would like to say of the Forest Service that it has been at all times, I think, willing to listen to the users and to consider what they had to say, but they are not bound to give it any weight. They are the sole judges of the law, they administer the law, they decide all questions, and the user has not even the right to be heard.

It is simply a courtesy extended by the service. Now, I contend, that in a Government based on the theories and having the traditions that this Government has, such a condition is intolerable and that Congress should remedy that condition. I have gone somewhat at length into this matter as showing why I am opposed to the creation of other reservations to be administered in like manner. If the remaining public lands in the State of Arizona are withdrawn and set aside as grazing districts, as provided by the bill to which you refer, the total withdrawn areas will constitute 63.6 per cent of the acreage of the State of Arizona. In other words, the Federal Government will have exclusive jurisdiction of 63.6 per cent and the State 36.4 per cent. If we are going to give up practically all of our lands, it seems to me it would be better to go back to a Territorial form of Government, and if the Federal Government is going to control the State, let it pay the expenses of our government. Now, I notice that there has been some controversy or some question as to which department should administer these grazing districts in case they are created. My position is that no further withdrawals should be made, but that the remaining public lands should be turned over to the States. It is, I think, admitted by all conversant with the situation that with the exception of certain districts containing minerals, coal, and oil, the remaining public lands are of little value. In support of that I would like to read from the report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office issued in July, 1924, the last report that is available. In this (p. 11) he states:

From available information, I am convinced that the lands adapted to the purpose intended by this act (referring to stock-grazing homestead law) have now been largely appropriated, leaving only lands that can not in small bodies of 640 acres offer any inducement to the benefited homesteader. As said in my last annual report, the stock-grazing homestead law, in its present form, has fulfilled its part in our public-land scheme and should now give way to a broader and more adaptable plan for the utilization of our public grazing lands. I therefore renew my recommendation for legislation that will authorize the Secretary of the Interior to set apart public lands suitable chiefly for grazing purposes and lease the same under regulations and in such bodies as will insure the preservation of the pasturage or the forage values.

Now, the views of the Commissioner of the General Land Office have been supported by the views of the First Assistant Secretary Finney of the Interior Department, charged with the execution of the laws pertaining to public lands. I could go at length into what he has said, but I hardly think that necessary. I believe it will be admitted by all conversant with the situation that, with the exception of coal, oil, and other minerals contained in some of the lands, the remaining lands have little or no value, except for grazing purposes. The public lands no longer offer homes to people. The homes are

gone.

Senator CAMERON. Mr. Hampton, right here I would like to ask you this question: If the present bill or a similar bill should be enacted into law, which department, the Interior or the Agriculture, should, in your opinion, administer the public lands or forest reserves? There seems to be some question on that.

Mr. HAMPTON. Well, may I defer my answer to that until I finish my

Senator CAMERON. Certainly.

Mr. HAMPTON. Now, I think there is some misapprehension in the minds of many of the people as to the status of the various States and their rights in respect to lands that have been withdrawn. It has been the theory of our Government since its foundation, I believe, that the public lands in the various States and Territories belong to the people of the States and Territories where located and that the Federal Government holds these lands in trust for the people, and that as settlement progresses and population increases these lands will be deeded over to the people by the Government-patented to the entrymen under the various laws pertaining to the disposal of the public lands. Now, in all of the older States that has been done. In the old States of Ohio, Illinois, Indiana all of the public landsall of these States at one time were public lands-all of the area of these States was public lands, but the title to all of this land has passed to the people. The land is on the tax rolls and every acre of land in those States contributes its proportion to the support of the State Government. In the States which were settled after the great States known as the Middle West came such States as Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas. Practically all of the lands in those States have passed into the hands of individuals and those lands contribute to the support of the State Government and to the development and the upbuilding of those great Commonwealths. Now, in Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin the situation 50 years ago was very similar to the situation to-day in Arizona.

Those States had great forests, and the land on which these forests were growing was considered of little value except for the timber, but these timber lands were not withdrawn and taken from the people. They were sold to the people under the preemption laws at a dollar and a quarter an acre, and in many cases were patented under the free homestead law, and the great Mesaba iron range in Minnesota, of untold value to-day, was disposed of to the people at a dollar and a quarter an acre in some cases and under the free homestead law in others. It may be said that that was poor policy. Perhaps it was, but under the liberal policy pursued by the Government the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan have become great Commonwealths. During the late war they furnished large numbers of men and they furnished money to prosecute the war. As long as those States exist they will contribute in the way of taxation largely to the support of the Federal Government. Now, take the case of Arizona; 44 per cent of our land has already been withdrawn. As stated, it contributes nothing to the support of the Government. I think that the State is entitled to compensation. It has been asked to make a great sacrifice for the general good. We all realize that the destruction of the forests has a very detrimental effect on the country as a whole. We also realize that the timber supply of this country is getting short and that the timber now existing must be preserved and carefully handled for the use of the whole country. Arizona has been asked to contribute her part, and it has been a large part. It has also been found necessary by the Federal Government to provide for the Indians. The Western States have not disposed of the Indians in the way they were disposed of in the East, but they have been provided with homes-with lands on which they could

make homes. I don't know the exact number of acres that have been reserved for Indians, but I think approximately 50,000,000 acres. Senator ASHURST. You mean in the United States?

Mr. HAMPTON. Yes; in the whole country. Of this Arizona has contributed 17,000,000 acres, or about one-third. Now, that is not for the benefit of this State.

Senator ASHURST. And they only have about one-tenth of the Indians?

Mr. HAMPTON. I don't know but a small percentage of them.
Mr. BOWDEN. Less than that?

Senator ASHURST. Less than that; yes.

Mr. HAMPTON. As I say, these lands, 17,000,000 acres, have not been withdrawn for the benefit of Arizona. They have been withdrawn for the benefit of the Federal Government, which was called upon to provide a home for the Indians. Arizona made a tremendous sacrifice when it gave up 17,000,000 out of its 83,000,000 acres of land for the use of a few thousand Indians. I think Arizona should be compensated. Again, there are many valuable power sites in the State of Arizona, especially along the Colorado River. If the State can dispose of these power sites, I believe that it can realize an annual income sufficient to support the State Government. That may be an exaggerated statement, but I don't think it is. I believe the amount that can be secured is untold.

Senator ASHURST. Would relieve the people of all taxes?

Mr. HAMPTON. All taxation; yes. It would support, as I say, the State government. Well, the State can't dispose of any of those power sites. It can't license the construction of a dam. It can't authorize the construction of a single power plant along the Colorado River or any of the other great rivers of the State. All of the land available for power sites has been withdrawn and set aside by the Federal Government; over a million acres-1,100,000 acres-so that there is nothing left for the State. The State has been asked to surrender its right for the general good of all of these water-power sites, and it has done it. I think it should be compensated in some way. I don't think the State should ask for an appropriate amount by way of compensation, but I do think there is an easy way by which the Federal Government can compensate the State, and that is by turning over to it these comparatively worthless grazing lands.

Under the provisions of the enabling act, the State acquired a very considerable grant, four sections in every township, 2, 16, 32, and 36. It was also given the right to select something over 2,000,000 acres for various purposes, and these lands have been selected and the State is now deriving the revenue from parts of the land by leasing to stockmen. If it had the remaining 13,800,000 acres that is now unwithdrawn unreserved public land it could, by blocking these areas out and leasing to cattle or sheep men, derive quite a revenue from it and in a measure support the State government and in a measure reimburse itself for the immense losses incurred in surrendering all of the lands that have been withdrawn by the Federal Government. It is largely guesswork, of course, but I have estimated that if the forest lands at present under reservation should be restored it would add within 10 years 50 per cent to the population of the State and put on the tax rolls property in the neighborhood of $500,000,000. Now, for the public good-for the gen

eral good of all the people of the United States-those lands have been withdrawn and withheld from the State. It gets practically no benefit and it should be compensated. Now, Senator, I am ready to answer your last question now.

Senator CAMERON. My question was this: If this bill or a similar bill should be enacted into law, which department, the Interior or the Agriculture, should, in your opinion, administer it?

Mr. HAMPTON. I think it should be administered by the Interior Department, and I base this statement on a number of reasons. The Interior Department has been handling public lands for the last approximately hundred years. All of the records, consisting of millions of documents pertaining to public lands, are in the Interior Department. If these lands are withdrawn as proposed, it will be necessary to classify the land and block it up into grazing districts. Now, the Interior Department already has an organization that could take charge of that known as the field service. That organization is very familiar with the remaining public lands, because it has been conducting investigations thereon for the last 40 years, I guess, and if these lands are withdrawn the field service which at present looks after the unreserved public lands could simply be transferred so as to take care of the grazing districts to be created. In my opinion, however, and I hope that Arizona's Senators at least may agree with me, those lands should not be withdrawn. If they can't be turned over to the State, let them continue as they are. It is better to have this land administered as part of the public domain and gradually passing into the hands of the people than to have it forever tied up, according to my view of it. Now, I understand the scope of this investigation is very broad and that the committee would be inclined to hear statements affecting any of the laws pertaining to public lands?

Senator CAMERON. We would be very glad to have any statement from you.

Mr. HAMPTON. Yesterday I noticed that some of the witnesses condemned the so-called stock raising homestead law and said it was a failure. Well, I don't agree with that view of the situation. On the contrary, I think the stock-raising homestead law has served a very useful purpose. Its usefulness may now be greatly impaired, but it has served a useful purpose. Under its provisions any citizen of the various States having grazing lands can enter 640 acres and, while that 640 acres might not be sufficient to support a family, used in connection with other lands which the entryman might own or acquire, it was sufficient, under ordinary conditions, to support a family. Further, in many cases homesteaders had sons and daughters who were 21 years of age, and the whole family immediately took up four or five sections and put it all into one block and fenced it, and they would have a good range-good pasture. My contention and my theory is that the stock-raising homestead law has been very beneficial to the people of the States containing grazing lands, and I further contend that any law which results in the acquisition of title by the people to the public lands is a good law. Absentee ownership and absentee control are not good for any country. I think, and I think history will bear me out in the statement, that the people who own the land, not a few of the people, but the great mass of the

43213-25-PT 4-27