OCR Text |
Show DRY FARMING AND STOCK RAISING HOMESTEADS, 1904-1934 513 seemed to fear it would be excessively costly and would permit experts of the Department of Agricutlture to exercise too much influence in their states. In Fergus-son's opinion New Mexico's future depended on the adoption of his measure, and he thought it would be equally helpful to the growth of other parts of the West. The land would pass out of Federal ownership and be placed on the tax roll.40 In the light of the fact that New Mexico seems to have profited little if any from the Stock Raising Homestead Act of 1916, Congressman Fergusson's position is not altogether easy to understand. Leasing or Homestead Controversy The Committee on Public Lands had a second bill under consideration at the same time as it was hearing testimony on Fergus-son's 640-acre stock raising homestead bill. William Kent, a member of the House from California who was an ardent conservationist and a cattleman, introduced a measure to authorize the establishment of grazing districts on the public lands under the control of the Secretary of Agriculture. Kent's bill had been drafted with the help of Daniel F. Houston, Secretary of Agriculture, and Henry Graves of the Forest Service. The Service had already acquired considerable experience by establishing grazing controls for the rangelands within the forest reservations and had begun to win the respect of stockmen for its work. It was now proposed to give the Department authority to establish grazing districts on the public lands outside the forests and to issue permits to stockmen to use the land on a fee basis. Permits were to be limited to 10 years, with preference given to homesteaders; permittees were to be allowed to fence their allotments and 40 Committee on Public Lands, Hearings on Grazing Homesteads and the Regulation of Grazing on the Public Lands, 1914, pp. 350-435, with numerous supporting letters, esp., 357, 374. were to pay fees of not less than one half and not more than 4 cents an acre. Twenty-five percent of the fees collected was to be paid to the state in which they were collected. The measure tried to protect the rights of homesteaders to take up and settle upon land suitable for farming within the grazing districts. Local administrative boards consisting of stockmen using the lands were to be set up to administer each district and to decide what lands within them might be suitable for homesteading. Dr. B. T. Galloway, the Acting Secretary of Agriculture, pointed out to the House Committee on Public Lands that the Department's Bureau of Animal Industry had experts on animal diseases, the Bureau of Plant Industry had studied the value of different types of grasses, the Biological Survey was at work on predators, and the Forest Service was experienced in leasing range lands and had the necessary staff and know-how to undertake a program of managing the public domain ranges. The bulk of the testimony presented to the committee was favorable to leasing or to the application of the national forest methods of controlling the range through permits. Representatives of livestock associations testified that though they had some grievances with the national forest range management, they conceded that it was superior to the uncontrolled range of the public domain. It was brought out that a vote of members of the American National Livestock Association on the Kent bill showed 396 members favorable and 32 against. The slight impact the view of the cattlemen had upon the House Committee of 1914 is not easy to reconcile with the opinion, long widely held, of the political influence of both the sheepmen and cattlemen. Nor is it easy to explain why the stockmen appeared so well disposed to the Forest Service in 1914 and later were so antagonistic to it. The members of the |