Senator CAMERON. Then you would be in favor of some commission of that kind, either a commission or a court?

Mr. JOHNS. I would. There was no objection to the commission, and in fact, as you are aware from the support that you received from Arizona, we were absolutely in favor of the Phipps bill. The board of appeals provided in the Phipps bill was a step and a long step in the proper direction. We are sorry, of course, that that bill was defeated in the House. We thank the gentlemen of the Senate for passing the bill through the Senate.

Mr. BOWDEN. Now, going further into this bill, what other criticism have you to make?

Senator CAMERON. I might state that this bill will likely come up before the Senate, and we would like to get all of the criticism we can while we are in the West.

Mr. JOHNS. The principal objection in regard to this part of the country is this, that "where such action will promote the purposes of the grazing district or facilitate its administration, the Secretary be, and hereby is, authorized, in his discretion, to accept on behalf of the United States any lands within the exterior boundaries of the grazing district as a gift or in exchange therefor may patent not to exceed an equal value of reserved or unreserved grazing land." Under that clause the railroad can give all of its lands or sell all of its lands or barter all of its lands-all of the railroad lands in the State can be bartered to the Secretary of the Interior and be exempt for all purposes of taxation. This is a very serious matter in counties like Navajo, Apache, and Mohave. More than half of the assessment in Mohave County, more than two-thirds, is railroad assessment. Under this bill all of the railroad land can be exempted from taxation at the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior. Senator CAMERON. As it is now they pay taxes on it? Mr. JOHNS. As it is now it is taxed.

Mr. BOWDEN. Of course, the purpose of that provision is, isn't it, Mr. Johns, that where there is privately owned land within a certain area, and it would be more feasible to exchange that land for others in order to consolidate holdings, the Secretary of the Interior may be authorized to do so?

Mr. JOHNS. I understand.

Mr. BOWDEN. That is the lieu provision?

Mr. JOHNS. That may be the purpose, but I am talking about the

effect of it.

Mr. BOWDEN. Well, do you think the railroad would exchange its land without getting land in return?

Mr. JOHNS. I think they would be very glad to exchange a lot of land that they have all of the way from Coconino to Topoc that is worthless. You take the land around Loveland and below Yucca, between Yucca and the river, I think they would be glad to give it to anybody who would take it and pay the taxes.

Mr. BOWDEN. And in this way you would lose taxes? If this provision goes through, that the State of Arizona will lose taxes, and that is your criticism?

Mr. JOHNS. Yes; and it would be very dangerous also to the lessees of the railroad land to do this, or for improvements, etc., on

the railroad lands to-day. Railroad leases only run from year to

year.

Mr. BOWDEN. Annual leases?

Mr. JOHNS. Annual leases. They are annual leases and they are very dangerous leases, so that you can readily see how a man would be placed.

Mr. BOWDEN. As a matter of practice they usually run on to the same lessee for years and years, don't they?

Mr. JOHNS. Well, we find very little difficultiy in that way. This is no reflection on the railroad in talking about this bill. We get along very nicely with the railroad. We get along better with them than-I believe Colonel Greeley objects to the word "bureau "—with some bureau in Washington.

Mr. BOWDEN. You do not approve of that lieu provision in the act? Mr. JOHNS. Well, personally I do not approve of the act at all. Mr. BOWDEN. What other criticism have you to offer?

Mr. JOHNS. Well, there are a number of them that I haven't ready.

Senator ASHURST. Your criticism reminds me of a criticism I heard lately. The bill is very bad in some respects and a great deal worse in others.

Mr. JOHNS. I think so; yes. Now, then, in regard to homesteading. I find something in the homestead bill-640-acre homestead bill that has not been-apparently the workings has not been very satisfactory. Strange as it may seem, there are a great many objections. Now, we find another feature, and I will give you an illustration of it: There was a section of land, a very large section that is on the correction line-that is, about 1,187 acres in the sectionwhich is a very large section, and been selected by the State for a number of years, five to seven years, and it has been leased by the State during that time and leases will not pay. Now, the other day a mineral surveyor-United States mineral surveyor-went up, and a man had located a claim on this particular large section, and it was a key section in which a fence had to be built in order to secure the lease and make it profitable. Now, the very fact of that location having been made, you see, took this key section, 1,187 acres. out of the allotment.

Senator CAMERON. That was State land?

Mr. JOHNS. That was a State selection and, of course, a patent was not issued to the State, owing to the fact that it was classed as mineral land. Personally I don't believe there is 10 pounds of mineral-that is, mineral value-on the entire section.

Senator CAMERON. Who designates whether it is mineral land or not?

Mr. JOHNS. The Land Office. The United States mineral surveyor.

Senator CAMERON. By special agent sent out?

Mr. JOHNS. Yes; special agent.

Senator CAMERON. And in this case he designated it as mineral land?

Mr. JOHNS. Well, just as soon as locations were made, any kind of mineral showing on it, apparently, is prima facie evidence that it is mineral, and consequently the patent stopped. Now, then, here is the point I am getting at in this bill. I suppose that until patent

issues in these grazing sections or on any filing that is made under this bill that the control until the patent is issued from Washington-that the Secretary of the Interior still has control over that man's land, nowithstanding the fact that he has a grazing homestead or any other right that he may have.

Mr. BOWDEN. You refer now to the 640 acres?

Mr. JOHNS. Six hundred and forty acres; yes.

Mr. BOWDEN. Of course, you get the surface rights only.

Mr. JOHNS. Yes; but it takes quite a little trouble to operate and the conditions are somewhat stringent on grazing homesteads. Whether or not a larger grazing homestead patent would be workable here, we are not prepared to say, because we don't know, but the 640 acre act is of very little benefit-it has not accomplished any good.

Mr. BOWDEN. Of course, the Land Office reports that it has patented under 640-acre homesteads, say, 4,000,000 acres of land, and apparently it has been some good, because so much has been patented. It is true that there is not much land left that we can bring under the act, but it has served its purpose. Now, what comment do you wish to make upon their criticism of the act and its working out? Mr. JOHNS. Well, don't you think-May I ask a question? Don't you think that it has been such a failure that probably two-thirds of the land has already been surrendered and the filings have been given up and forgotten? A lot of good land, for instance, in New Mexico a lot of good grazing land has been plowed up-take all along the line of the Belin cut-off, one of the finest ranges adjacent to the Panhandle has been entirely destroyed, no question about it, as a range, and now nothing will grow but weeds.

Mr. BOWDEN. I was trying to get your view.

Mr. JOHNS. Thank you. I am very good in that.

Mr. BOWDEN. Now, you think, then, that the effect of the 640-acre homestead act has been to encourage people in agricultural pursuits where agricultural pursuits should have never been started, and it has had a very detrimental effect upon the livestock industry in that it has broken up ranges that should never have been broken up? Mr. JOHNS. Yes; and further than that, a great many sections have been filed upon and temporarily held for the purpose of making some livestock owner who was interested in using the range pay an extortionate price for the section.

Mr. BOWDEN. Do you know that from your own knowledge?
Mr. JOHNS. I do.

Mr. BOWDEN. Have you any comment to make upon the provisions relative to the separation of ownership of the surface and of the subsoil?

Mr. JOHNS. No; none at all.

Mr. BOWDEN. Have you any comment to make upon that act relative to the improvements necessary or expenditure on improvements necessary to get patent?

Mr. JOHNS. No. That is all right.

Mr. BOWDEN. A dollar and a quarter an acre.

Mr. JOHNS. Yes; that is all right.

Mr. BOWDEN. Is there very much land left in the State of Arizona, if any, that could economically be homesteaded under the provisions of this act?

Mr. JOHNS. I don't know of any.

Mr. BOWDEN. Would you recommend an act providing for sufficient area upon which a homesteader, say, could graze 300 head of cattle, not basing it on an acre, you see, but basing it upon the carrying capacity of the land homesteaded?

Mr. JOHNS. Well, that is rather a hypothetical question. No such areas in the State. I know of no areas of that character.

Mr. BOWDEN. I will explain that question. Say four sections or say that you could take sufficient upon which to run a number of cattle enough to make the homesteader a living-maybe 10 in some places-maybe five in others, but set the amount on the number of head of livestock?

Mr. JOHNS. We haven't any land of that character in the State of Arizona.

Senator CAMERON. There is none left?

Mr. JOHNS. There is none left. We haven't any land, and I believe the forest-I believe that I am right in stating that in the forest about 70 acres are allowed-something like that-I believe I am right about 70 acres is the acreage that is allowed for one animal; that is, for cattle, and consequently we can't say how much land.

Mr. BOWDEN. Give them 15 sections then.

Mr. JOHNS. Well, then, what are you going to do with the user of the range to-day? There is no vacant land.

Mr. BOWDEN. Now you are getting at the crux of the homestead problem. Let me ask you this question: Do you think it is wise to recommend a law providing for the homesteading of a country that is partially developed and which has been and is in use?

Mr. JOHNS. Well, possibly it would be wise to consider that, but what I am saying now-I am trying to cover the majority opinion of the Wool Growers' Association. We haven't considered that question. Personally, why, I am rather inclined to think that that would be a very reasonable law, but I haven't any authority to speak for the association.

Senator ASHURST. May I interrupt here? Then, the grazing homestead law has broken down because 640 acres would not graze over 10 cattle?

Mr. JOHNS. That is the general opinion, Senator.

Senator ASHURST. I think that has been the experience in our State.

Senator CAMERON. In other words, Mr. Johns, there isn't any use, as far as you can see, in considering any enlargement of the homestead law for the reason that there is no more range to be taken up? In other words, there is no land that could be homesteaded? Mr. JOHNS. That is correct.

Mr. BOWDEN. Now, you prefer, of course, the turning over of all the public domain to the State. Would you recommend that there be reserved any mineral rights to the Federal Government or turn the whole thing over?

Mr. JOHNS. Most assuredly. I think the laws we have to-day regarding mineral rights are all right. Most assuredly.

Mr. BOWDEN. If the Government turned over the land to the State, should the Government reserve to itself the right to oil or

coal, or should it turn it all over to the State and let the State get the income from it?

Mr. JOHNS. Under our public land code in Arizona to-day those things are all reserved-under our public land code as it is to-day. Mr. BOWDEN. And you think that it would be well, then, for the Government to pass title of everything in the land-that is, both surface rights and subsoil rights to the State of Arizona-instead of retaining some of it to itself?

Mr. JOHNS. I would not go that far. I think the mineral laws and the mining laws of the United States have worked very well, and I think that those same laws should still be preserved.

Mr. BOWDEN. And the United States would keep the mineral in the land?

Mr. JOHNS. Most assuredly.

Mr. BOWDEN. But turn to the State the surface area?

Mr. JOHNS. The surface use of the land.

Mr. BOWDEN. Would you apply this turning-over policy to the forest reserves, as well as to the unreserved public domain?

Mr. JOHNS. Well, I am not a permittee on the forest and consequently I can't speak with authority, but I believe that the Forest Service is in a way now to work out the problems of the permittees more satisfactorily than heretofore. I believe the visit of Colonel Greeley, speaking for the association, has been productive of a great deal of good. I think that he now understands a great many of our problems in a way that he probably did not before, although he was very conversant. I have met Colonel Greeley before on other occasions. He is not a stranger and we have, personally, a very high regard for Colonel Greeley and we have no objection to the reforms and other regulations that we believe he will put into effect.

Mr. BOWDEN. You had rather have the Forest to deal with than that the Federal Government turn it over to the State?

Mr. JOHNS. Well, we haven't got that far. Yes; for the time being. The time may come, if it is successful-if the turning over of the public domain to the States would be successful, and then that question could be considered. The great objection, and I believe I am right in saying that, without any animus in the world, to the regulation of the public domain to-day is the unsatisfactory manner to the stockmen in which the reserve regulations seemed to work.

Mr. BOWDEN. Now, in turning over this public domain, should the Federal Government place a limitation on the power of the State to alternate the land or to rent that land or should it turn it over without any limitation and let the State do with it as it wishes or sees fit? After the Government has turned over the land to the States, should it pass a statute that they can't sell it for less than $3 an acre or they can't, for instance, lease it for less than a certain sum; in other words, placing a limitation upon the power of the State? Are those limitations, in your judgment, called for or should the land be trurned over without any limitation?

Mr. JOHNS. I think it should be turned over without any limitations for the reason that the State has been able to sell but very little of its land at $3 per acre, as provided in the enabling act, and a great deal of the leased land has remained unpaid, because the 3 cents per