animals, sheep, cattle, and horses. The pasturage of the plains and mountain valleys is of great excellence. But here, again, the conditions under which that industry is prosecuted bear no similitude to those under which the same business is conducted within the "fertile belt," and the same incongruity is found in the application of existing public land laws, when tried by the reasonable wants of those in the stock business, as has been seen to exist in the case of the only lands fit for general farming uses. The quantity of land necessary to the support of a given number of domestic animals on the table-lands is very largely in excess of that required for the profitable pasturage of a like number in the fertile belt. The excellence of the pasturage of the plains and valleys consists in the fact that the grasses, though thin and of slow growth, retain their nutritious qualities throughout the entire year, and in the further fact that, for the present, the range is only limited by the possibility of reaching suitable watering places.

For grazing purposes the limitation of the right of purchase to one quarter section, and that under the impossible condition of cultivation, is to forbid the acquisition of title to pasture lands by citizens "careful of their proofs," and is, in effect, to withhold absolutely from sale that which, in fact, is now the largest remaining class of the public lands.

From the foregoing recitations it will be perceived that I have reached the conclusion that both public and private interests demand that that body of surveyed land within the "central plateau," so called, not embraced in the first bottom of the streams, and commonly known in the region where situated as the mesa lands, ought to be offered at the earliest possible day for cash purchase, and thereafter that portion remaining unsold be subject to private entry at $1.25 per acre. To the extent to which sales could be made the Treasury ought to be replenished from this source Persons desiring to acquire title ought to be relieved from the necessity of making questionable affidavits requisite uuder the homestead and pre-emption laws. Every hinderance to the fullest possible production in this region ought to be removed. The mining industry of the mountains, though in its infancy, demands of food products a large share of all that are raised within the contiguous country. Referring again to the particular matter of the pasture lands, the policy of such sale may be urged as necessary to the good order of the communities where the business is generally prosecuted, as well as on the ground of justice to the class engaged in the pasturage calling. The present policy compels them to use the public lands as their feeding ground, having no better right to their selected range as against another whose purposes or seeming convenience may lead to an attempted occupation of the same ground than they may be able to assert by forcible means. Conflicts and uncertainties necessarily follow upon this state of things, to the detriment alike of order and development. This result must be intensified as the herds increase and desirable localities become monopolized.

Seeing no remedy for these threatening evils so long as the exclusive policy of withholding the public lands from sale is continued, interested parties have suggested a system of leasing by which, for a reasonable rental, designated tracts might be held in individual control for pasturage purposes only; subject, however, to be defeated as to any part of the tract so held by a sale thereof under existing laws. I find, on examination of the "Crown lands occupation act" of New South Wales of 1861, and of the "Crown lands alienation act" of 1868, of the colony of Queensland, that a system of leasing having the features above indicated is applied to the pasturage districts of these colonies. That such a system might be advantageously adopted within our own grazing districts west of the one hundredth meridian is possible. It is not, however, in consonance with the established methods of our land system, and would require legislation to authorize it. I am of the opinion that the immediate necessities of the situation can be better met by an offering of this class of lands at public sale. This can be done to the extent that surveys have progressed, under the provisions of existing law.

I have endeavored generally to indicate that offerings of the public lands west of the one hundredth meridian would not be inimical to the objects of the prevailing policy which has tended to restrict disposals to the homestead and pre-emption laws. The facts will justify the declaration that the policy of restriction has retarded actual settlement in this region, while the record shows that in many localities it has been the fruitful source of fraud-fraud so glaring as to call into exercise the powers of grand juries-not, however, into successful or preventive exercise. Prosecutions for irregularities in obtaining title to the public lands find little sympathy among communities hindered in general and individual progress by being made subject to conditions inappropriate to their surroundings.

I recommend, therefore, without hesitation, as a matter of justice, both to the individual settler and the communities interested, as well as in view of the amount to be secured to the Treasury in reimbursement of the large sums expended for surveys and the general administration of the land system, that the policy of public offerings authorized by law be resumed at an early day as to lands west of the one hundredth meridian embraced in the description of mesa or table lands.

Such a policy, if adopted, would meet with the approval of western settlers and capitalists, as will be seen by referring to the reports of the surveyors general of Utah and Idaho Territories, forming part of this annual report.

I will add, that the wise provisions of our land laws, which give homes to the homeless, are not applicable to the lands in the vast territory named, and few, if any, settlers would be deprived of the opportunity of acquiring homes under the homestead and pre-emption laws if the lands were brought into market and sold at public sale.

The measure of the water is the measure of the land for agricultural purposes, and all, or nearly all, the water which can be diverted from the natural course from the mountains to the plains, for irrigating purposes, by individual enterprise or by small corporate capital, has been so diverted and used.

Large streams, such as the Platte, the Weber, the Bear, the Jordan, and the Humboldt, may be utilized for the irrigation of large tracts of table lands by corporate companies having large capital only.

Neither companies nor individuals will engage in such enterprises until they can procure titles to the lands to be irrigated, which they cannot now do.

There are tracts of table and valley lands in many of the Western Territories, where the cost of irrigating a few acres would approximate the cost of irrigating many thousands of acres, owing to the fact that the greater part of the expense is embraced in constructing the dam and cutting the canal from a point far up the cañon, so as to gain an elevation as high as the surface of the land to be irrigated.

It would be of no benefit to the settler to grant him a homestead or a pre-emption right upon some of these lands, which can only be made useful for agriculture by the expenditure of sums of money so large as to be beyond the means of individual or even the aggregate capital of communities of western settlers.

I would recommend appropriate legislation to carry into effect the views herein expressed.

Pine and other timber lands.

The question of the preservation and renewal of forests in Europe has engaged the attention and best talent of the wisest scientists and greatest statesmen, whose theories on the climatic changes produced by the destruction and renewal of forests have been accepted as facts, and under the enlightened governments of Western Europe are being prac ticably demonstrated to the great advantage of those countries by the restoration and preservation of their forests.

It is not my intention to advance or maintain any theory of climatic change arising from the destruction of forests, but only to deal with the facts of the wicked and wanton waste of the timber on the public lands, and the consequent loss to the Treasury of the United States.

A national calamity is being rapidly and surely brought upon the country by the useless destruction of the forests. Much of this destruction arises from the abuses of the beneficent laws for giving land to the landless. The operation of these laws is salutary when settlements are made under them upon lands fit for a home and for cultivation by the agriculturist; but the policy, if such it may be called, of allowing the pine lands to be settled upon under the pre-emption and homestead laws is a mistaken charity, prolific of great evil. These lands, whether situated on the Atlantic or Gulf coasts of the South, the Lake Superior and

Upper Mississippi regions of the North, or on the mountains of the Territories of the great interior and the Pacific coast, are alike unfit for agriculture and in no manner meet the requirements of a home and continuous residence for the agriculturist; they are valuable only for the timber growing upon them. Settlement upon these lands under the homestead and pre-emption laws is only a pretense, which enables the destruction of the value of the land by cutting off the timber, and when that is done the homestead or pre-emption is abandoned. In all the pine region of Lake Superior and the Upper Mississippi, where vast areas have been settled under the pretense of agriculture under the homestead and preemption laws, scarcely a vestige of agriculture appears. The same is true on the Pacific coast and in the mountain regions of Colorado, Utah, Montana, and Idaho.

It will be perceived that I am not in favor of allowing homestead and pre-emption settlements upon the pine and other timber lands, neither am I in favor of permitting the location of these lands by any of the various land scrip which has been issued under Indian treaties or acts of Congress. There remains, therefore, the more difficult task of recommending what ought to be done either to preserve the forests from waste and for future use, or to realize their value to the National Government if they must be destroyed. In every country in Europe the greater part of the forests formerly belonged to the government, and large revenues were derived from them. This is still the case in France and Germany, and I can see no reason why it ought not to be so in our country. The timber on the land remaining unsold is as much the property of the Government as the money in its Treasury, and far more important to its future prosperity and welfare. If this is so, then why should it not be kept as other Government property, or sold for its value as the demands of the country require it?

In order to accomplish this, a total change of policy and of the laws is required. The law should provide for the sale of these lands only for cash. Provision of law should also be made for the immediate survey and appraisement of each smallest subdivision. The appraisement should be made by experts and the value based upon the amount and accessibility of the timber. The law should further provide for absolute confiscation of all timber cut upon the public lands, and a fine and imprisonment of the trespassers. No compounding with the offenders should be allowed, as is now the custom. The lands should be subject to private sale for cash only. Some of these provisions would be inoperative, if not unjust, until after the lands are surveyed, appraised, and subject to sale. In most of the mining districts the timber lands are unsurveyed, and the timber necessary for mining purposes has of necessity to be taken from the unsurveyed Government lands. Expert agents should be appointed in all such districts to measure or estimate the amount of timber taken and the value of it, at a reasonable price to be fixed, the amount collected and paid into the Treasury.

It may be said that the expense and loss by dishonest officials would exceed the revenues collected. To this argument I say "No," for the reason that the value of the timber on an acre of good pine land is worth about $3 per 1,000 feet, or about $30 per acre, and for the further reason that, in my opinion, men may be found for agents for this service who are as honest as in other departments of the Government.

If the pine lands were appraised at their full value and depredations prevented, they would sell as fast as the Government would desire to see them denuded of their forests. The timber would be more carefully husbanded in the hands of men whom it had cost a fair price than in the

hands of the lawless trespasser or the bogus homesteader or pre-emptor. It is an anomalous fact that the Government is giving away the rich alluvial soil of Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and Minnesota to any citizen who will plant a few acres of cottonwood or other inferior timber, while under the provisions of the pre-emption and homestead laws it is granting a license to destroy millions of acres of pine forests of almost incalculable value, which should be preserved as a nation's heritage.

I recommend that the attention of Congress be specially called to this subject, and that such legislation be requested as will enable the action in regard to the pine and other timber lands I have suggested. Every day of delay will continue to add largely to the already enormous losses of the Government.

CONSOLIDATION OF THE PRE-EMPTION AND HOMESTEAD LAWS.

This office has for several years past urged upon Congress the propriety, as well as the necessity as a measure of sound public policy, of a repeal of the pre-emption laws, not, however, contemplating an entire obliteration of all of the features of the pre-emption system, but rather having in view the unification of the whole subject of settlement rights by merging the valuable features of the pre-emption with the later homestead system.

During the second session of the Forty-third Congress a bill, (H. R. No. 1760,) prepared in this office, having in view the ends now under discussion, (and which had previously passed the House,) was, at the request of the Hon. William Sprague, chairman of the Committee on Public Lands of the United States Senate, reported on by my predecessor, and the following views expressed :

The reasons which call for a repeal of so much of the pre-emption system as is not preserved in the bill under consideration, among others, are that every beneficial purpose intended to be extended by that system is secured by the homestead law as now existing, save only the feature of settlement on unsurveyed lands, which is carried into this bill. The early policy was one of exclusion, the act of 1807 providing for the use of the military in ejecting any who might venture upon the public lands before purchase.

The end sought at that time seems to have been revenue from sales. Gradually this purpose gave way to the policy of enconraging settlements, first through the pre-emption laws, and at length by the homestead system.

The beneficial provisions of the pre-emption system were, and are, that settlement may be made before survey, and that a credit of from twelve to thirty-three months be given the settler on account of his purchase.

Settlement and cultivation were always kept in view. The homestead law reaches the same ends, but with larger beneficence; for, excepting a small fee and commission, no money payment is required.

The pre-emption law is, therefore, for every beneficial purpose intended by it, an obsolete statute. Its machinery is not necessary in the land system for any honest purpose consistent with the now established policy of holding the public lands for actual settlers only.

Experience has, however, put it beyond all doubt that it furnishes a means of fraud in daily use by which the choicest of the lands are gathered into the hands of a few, to be held for prices far above that fixed upon them by the Government.

It is notorious that under their cover large tracts of coal lands, valleys along streams hich control the values of large tracts of surrounding country, are continually gath

into the hands of a few persons, who are able to employ agents willing to make The pretense of settlement, on which they can justify to themselves the false affidavits requisite to the success of their frauds. Since the discontinuance of the system of offering lands at public sale, the pre-emption system has become, and is now, peculiarly the speculators' law, as contradistinguished from the settlers'.

Under the present state of the law the settler may have the right of choice as a preemptor, and may, in addition, have the homestead privilege. I think it may be questioned if this is not an excess of privilege, which would be obviated by the passage of the amended bill. It is not presumed that this or any measure that might be enacted

will wholly prevent the obtaining by fraudulent means of title to the public lands; but this may be said: that the pending bill contains such provisions as the experience of years has suggested to this office as necessary to the honest and efficient conduct of the public land system, to certainty and simplicity of administration, and to the accomplishment of the recognized purpose of holding the public lands for the benefit of actual and productive use.

That the necessity of such consolidation exists the experience of every year confirms, and I concur in the fullest measure with the recommendations heretofore made by this office having that end in view.

The now well settled policy of holding the public domain for the benefit of actual and productive use, may be aided by the certainty and simplicity incident to a single method of disposal, as contemplated by the proposed legislation.

REVISED STATUTES-PROBABLE ERRORS IN COMPILATION.

In the last annual report of this office the attention of the Department was called to what seem to be errors of compilation in sections 2403 and 2450 Revised Statutes of the United States, whereby changes of the law in important particulars have been brought about, evidently not designed, on the part of Congress.

On the 27th of April last Congress passed an act correcting the error in section 2403, as suggested by this office; but that in section 2450 appears to have been overlooked, hence the necessity of again referring to the matter.

The act approved August 3, 1846, entitled "An act providing for the adjustment of all suspended pre-emption land claims in the several States and Territories," in section 1 reads as follows:

That the Commissioner of the General Land Office be, and he is hereby, authorized and empowered to determine, upon principles of equity and justice, as recognized in courts of equity, and in accordance with general equitable rules and regulations, to be settled by the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, and Commissioner, conjointly, consistently with such principles, all cases of suspended entries now existing in said Land Office, and to adjudge in what cases patents shall issue upon the same.

The act approved March 3, 1849, entitled "An act to establish the Home Department, and to provide for the Treasury Department an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury and a Commissioner of the Customs," in section 3 provided

That the Secretary of the Interior shall perform all the duties in relation to the General Land Office of supervision and appeal now discharged by the Secretary of the Treasury.

By act of June 26, 1856, the act of August 3, 1846, was revived and enlarged.

The Secretary of the Interior has, by authority of said act of March 3, 1849, performed the duties originally delegated by act of August 3, 1846, to the Secretary of the Treasury.

By the Revised Statutes of the United States, page 74, chapter 2, section 441," the Secretary of the Interior is charged with the supervision of public business relating to the public lands."

Section 2450, page 452, Revised Statutes, re-enacts the act of August 3, 1846, so far as constituting the Secretary of the Treasury a member of said board, and under said section 2450 several lists of suspended entries have been acted upon during the past fiscal year by said Secretary of the Treasury.

Under the circumstances, and in view of these several acts, and the fact that the duties thus delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury are of a class over which the Secretary of the Interior is given jurisdiction, and not of the class pertaining to the general business of the