Senator ASHURST. That is it exactly.

Mr. FAVOUR. That is, a man's time and his living expenses and his family go on just the same. The only difference is so far as the forest is concerned, if a man has got 500 head of cattle he would pay $500 a year during the past years, and if he had 300 head he would pay $300. There would be a reduction of $200, but an elevation in his income of almost 50 per cent.

Senator ASHURST. That is all I have to ask now.

Mr. BOWDEN. Taking up the remaining public domain, what recommendation do you make relative to what should be done with it? Mr. FAVOUR. I think that the remaining public domain should be

Mr. BOWDEN. First, should it be turned over to the States?

Mr. FAVOUR. I would not know to whom it should be turned over, but if there was some regulation-now, we have a situation in this State-they had in Idaho-wherein the States have seen fit to pass what is known as a sheep trespass act-that is, where the public domain-unappropriated public domain has been used by cattlemen so as to establish a so-called cattle range, sheep and goats may not come in. In some instances the cattle range is well defined. It is well known. Other places it is on the border line. That has resulted in conflict, litigation, and prosecutions between the men running sheep and goats on the one hand and cattle on the other on the public domain. In this county I suppose we have from 6 to 20 of those a year. It unsettles conditions. It tends to conflict between interests, animosities between citizens, and if there was some control of that so that a certain area might be determined whether it was cattle range or a joint cattle and sheep range or a sheep range, it would tend to, I believe, eliminate a considerable difficulty. Now, in the second place, the public domain, as it is free, does not encourage the average stockman to make developments which are practically necessary in the handling of any herd of cattle or herd of sheepthat is, a man does not want to go out and develop a tank, we will say, that will cost him twenty-five hundred dollars when somebody will come along and jump that tank and make a homestead entry on it and he will have a conflict. I would make this point: That if we were going to develop the same system that has been developed on the. forest, however, better let it stay where it is now.

Mr. BOWDEN. Unregulated and uncontrolled?

Mr. FAVOUR. Unregulated and uncontrolled.

Mr. BOWDEN. You referred a few minutes ago to the Sinnott bill. Mr. FAVOUR. That was the bill.

Mr. BOWDEN. It provided for the leasing of the public domain, the rental to be determined by the rainfall in any given area.

Mr. FAVOUR. I have forgotten what the determining factor was. Mr. BOWDEN. There was a bill introduced by Congressman Kent, of California, in 1916. Do you recall that bill?

Mr. FAVOUR. I am not familiar with it. I am sure that the Sinnott bill, however, was approved by the Arizona Cattle Growers' Association, I believe. It was discussed I know at some of the conventions and I am quite sure it was approved.

Senator ASHURST. I think the livestock associations sent to their Senators and Representatives resolutions indorsing the Sinnott bill. Mr. FAVOUR. Yes; I recall it being discussed.

Mr. BOWDEN. Now, are you familiar with the bill that was presented to Congress at the last session by the Department of the Interior and which had the indorsement of the Department of Agriculture?

Mr. FAVOUR. What was the name of the bill?

Mr. BOWDEN. The bill was never named. It was just a joint department bill.

Mr. FAVOUR. Unless there were some features that were perhaps called to my attention

Mr. BOWDEN. The bill provided for the creation of grazing districts and the leasing of lands in such grazing districts, preference being given to the previous users thereof and no limitation on the area of the lease, and that the Department of the Interior should regulate the grazing; further, that the President was given power by proclamation to take lands from the forests and put them into these grazing districts, which lands were chiefly valuable for grazing purposes. Getting back to this problem, do you believe that if such grazing districts were created that it would be advisable to take considerable areas out of the forests and put them in the grazing districts?

Mr. FAVOUR. Well, I don't know as it would make any difference, according to my notion of the thing, if the cost of administration on the forests or on the public domain were as they should be. What difference would it make whether it would be in the forest or out of the forest?

Mr. BOWDEN. Of course, you would be subject to forest restrictions; that is, the idea of the grazing districts would be to use the land for grazing and you would not have other factors to consider, such as timber regulations.

Mr. FAVOUR. Yes; but they would be making a distinction, which in fact and truth do not exist in certain lands. On one side of the line would be subject to a great many restrictions and on the other side we would say was subject to a law of Congress and, as a matter of fact, the two sides are the same in many instances.

Mr. BOWDEN. I am saying take your lands which are primarily grazing lands out of the forests and put them in these districts and then you would not have the restrictions. Furthermore, it is the intent, I believe, of the Department of the Interior to lease these lands; that is, by the acre-give a stockman a lease for a considerable number of acres and base the charge on a per acre basis, much the same as your State leasing system, for 10-year periods.

Mr. FAVOUR. It would work very satisfactory, I think, in the State of Arizona.

Mr. BOWDEN. You would recommend that system, wouldn't you? Mr. FAVOUR. I know it has worked very well in the State of Arizona on State land.

Mr. BOWDEN. The State leasing system has worked satisfactorily? Mr. FAVOUR. I think so.

Mr. BOWDEN. Except for perhaps some difficulties relative to the rate to be charged for such land?

Mr. FAVOUR. I never heard of any quarrel about the rate that the State was charging. The chief controversy comes up in the matter of who is entitled to the land, and there we have a well prescribed

and regulated procedure by which the people can go into hearings and before boards, and they have appeals before impartial boards, and, when it is all through, I think that the litigants are satisfied that they have received justice.

Mr. BOWDEN. Would you favor the creation of some such machinery in the even that the public lands would be placed in the grazing districts?

Mr. FAVOUR. Oh, I think there should be.

Mr. BOWDEN. Some machinery which you could have here to determine the rights? Then, in other words making this, would you recognize the fact that the lands had been used for a number of years and that, because of their previous use by those parties, they should receive some preference?

Mr. FAVOUR. Oh, I think absolutely.

Mr. BOWDEN. So-called equities as you say.

Mr. FAVOUR. I think so; yes. The pioneer has built up this country, the man who is grazing your land with his band of cattle is a pioneer of to-day. Mr. Barnes is clearly wrong when he states that whatever was due to the pioneer has been paid off. It has not been paid off. It never will be paid off. I think that we in the West recognize that fact. You take this Pioneers Home over here on the hill, that is a continuing recognition of what Arizona owes to the pioneer, and the man who is out running his cattle is a pioneer to-day.

Senator CAMERON. Mr. Favour, do you know of any cattleman in or about Prescott or in Yavapai County or, I will make it broader than that, in the State of Arizona, that has made any money out of cattle the last two or three years?

Mr. FAVOUR. No. There are no such men in these parts, and I don't know of a single man but what is worse off to-day than he was four years ago. I have an example that I would like to give to you

men.

Senator CAMERON. We would be glad to have it.

Mr. FAVOUR. This is an actual fact, and I would challenge anybody to come here and show an outfit that is run any cheaper than this outfit. I happen to know about this particular case because the loan was made through my office. This is a man of about 50 years old, and he is a single man. On March 7 of 1921 he borrowed $7,000 to refund a mortgage on his outfit. He has worked the last 15 years or more trying to pay this thing. The $7,000 represented the balance he owed on the original purchase price of the cattle. That was on March 7, 1921. He now owes $8,098.59, with interest. Now, his interest is at 8 per cent. He could not pay 10, and it was reduced to 8. Now, the items of expense for the year 1924 are as follows: Grazing fees, $326.25; taxes, $137.61. It has cost him for his two round-ups, he working himself, and what he had to pay for grub, $106.17. He bought cottonseed cake-$175 worth-to carry him through the winter, making a total expense of what he laid out on his outfit of $744.99.

Senator CAMERON. No wage charge in there? He has not charged

wages?

Mr. FAVOUR. No wage. Now, for his own personal living expenses and all the money he spent for clothing and everything for

the year was $222.38, and that is practically the history of his outfit during the past years with the exception of this item of cottonseed cake last year, which was an additional expense, and he had to have this to carry him through the winter. That is about the way he has been running. His own expense has been about $250.

Senator CAMERON. A year?

Mr. FAVOUR. A year; and yet after four years he finds himself $1.098.59 loser. Now, it might be said that-well, he is building up an outfit, he is making his money in his outfit. That is not so, for the reason as follows: In 1919 he branded 120 calves; in 120 he branded 78 calves; in 1921, 70; 1922, 108; 1923, 126; last year, 1924, less than a hundred; so it goes up and down. It remains practically the same, and there is a case where there has been actual figures kept on the outfit. This is not guesswork. These are figures and that man has a permit of 300--a little over 300 head.

Senator ASHURST. He is living on less than a dollar a day, working the eight-hour system, eight hours in the morning and eight hours in the afternoon.

Mr. FAVOUR. Works all the time.

Senator ASHURST. And at the end of a certain period he emerges with a debt larger than when he started out?

Mr. FAVOUR. He owns a leather jacket and I have never seen him with anything except a pair of blue overalls on and, if I were to mention his name, I am satisfied that the forest officials in this room would say that he is one of the best cattlemen in these parts. That answers your question, Senator. I think Senator Cameron asked the question was any cattleman making money? That is a condition that we find.

Senator CAMERON. Mr. Favour, that would be a fair comparison with the other cattlemen, wouldn't it?

Mr. FAVOUR. Well, I think so. I think that if you took any one of these cattlemen you would find that during the past years, if they were able to have kept books, they would show in the red a substantial amount of money and would have increased year by year. That is true, because I can cite you to two large mercantile stores, one on the Santa Fe Railroad on the north and one here in this county that are in very straightened circumstances because they have extended so much credit to the cattlemen-they have kept him and he has been unable to pay them.

Mr. BOWDEN. In determining forest fees should recognition be given to permittees because of the fact you may say they pioneered this country?

Mr. FAVOUR. No; I don't say that recognition should be given to them because they pioneered this country but why should the man who can't make money on his outfit-has not been making money on his outfit-if Senator Cameron will in his own mind go over the cattlemen that were in this country years and years ago and over a great many years how many of them have made very much money? Senator CAMERON. Practically none.

Mr. FAVOUR. Practically none. Now, then, why should the Government make 66% per cent profit on its business at the expense of the cattleman?

Mr. BOWDEN. Your contention is this, that in determining Forest fees you should consider in that determination the money made in the business?

Mr. FAVOUR. Well, they are commercializing the forage and charg ing what it is worth to the cattleman. My answer to that is that they are pursuing a wrong theory based on false premises, because the cattleman is not making the money.

Mr. BOWDEN. Now, then, looking at it this way, the contention is that the Government has certain lands that it owns.

Mr. FAVOUR. Yes.

Mr. BOWDEN. Now, it is going to permit livestock men to use those lands?

Mr. FAVOUR. Yes.

Mr. BOWDEN. It wants to get the full value of those lands.

Mr. FAVOUR. It never has been the history of the Government in regard to its public domain that it made money out of it.

Mr. BOWDEN. Just advancing this last contention, now, how are we going to determine what those lands will bring on the market? Now, in determining that say we will take as a basis what private lands bring and we will determine the carrying capacity of the range and then we compare that land with comparable private lands and use the rental basis of those private lands as the basis

upon which we determine the grazing fees. Now, what criticism have you of that system?

Mr. FAVOUR. Well, I believe it is fundamentally wrong, for this reason: When the Government years ago found itself in possession of great areas of public domain, they did not seek to go into the land business. They said to Mr. Citizen, you go and homestead 160 acres in Nebraska and you can have that. They had no idea of charging him what the land was worth. He went and homesteaded it and he developed it. Now, because that developed ranch or that developed farm was worth money they did not say to the next fellow that wanted to get a farm, we have got to charge you for this farm because this farm is worth money. In other words, the Government, as I take it, from the time of its inception has been following the policy to develop citizens rather than to create dollars for itself, and that is one of the premises which I think they are pledged on.

Mr. BOWDEN. In other words, the Government should treat the stockman as it treated the homesteaders?

Mr. FAVOUR. I think the Government would if it were not for the forest developing this war among themselves.

Mr. BOWDEN. Now, take the private owner of land. The private owner would lease his land for what he could get out of it.

Mr. FAVOUR. Sure.

Mr. BOWDEN. And whether or not the lessee made money would not be his consideration? The question is what can I get out of my land. Now, should the Government act as a private owner of land or not?

Mr. FAVOUR. I don't think so.

Mr. BOWDEN. Under the Forest Service and their present policy the Government is acting toward its forest lands as a private owner does toward his lands.

Mr. FAVOUR. Absolutely.