THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



13 



A CASE FOR MR. PINCHOT. 



I could, from my files of correspondence, present 

 to you more than 100 cases of flagrant abuse of the 

 rights of homesteaders, miners and prospectors, by the 

 Forest Service, but time forbids, and besides they would 

 be waived aside as unauthorized acts of subordinates. 

 I will, therefore, content myself with presenting one 

 only, but it is one for which the head of the service is 

 directly responsible, and is of unusual importance, and 

 far reaching consequences, not only to the individual 

 wronged, but to every citizen of a forest state, and I ask 

 Mr. Pinchot or his proxy here to defend the action 

 before this Convention if he can. 



I am authorized to speak for the man concerned. 



September 10th, 1906, A. J. Porter, a respectable 

 citizen of Colorado, applied for a homestead in the 

 White river Colorado forest. Mr. Pinchot wrote him 

 that he would have it examined but there would be some 

 "necessary delay." In January, 1908, sixteen months 

 afterwards, he was advised by the "Acting Forester" that 

 examination had been made (by a ranger), and in the 

 letter it is stated : 



"This land is open park, covered with mountain 

 bunch grass, and owing to the shortness of the growing 

 season, is ony valuable for grazing. It is not the 

 policy of the Forest Service to classify grazing land as 

 chiefly valuable for agriculture. I regret to inform you 

 therefore that your application must be rejected." 



The applicant is a reliable man and says that the 

 altitude is about 8,000 feet; that timothy, oats, wheat 

 and barley will grow there, and as many of you no doubt 

 know, such crops are successfully grown at that altitude 

 on hundreds of farms in Colorado. I know the ground, 

 and that his statement is true. 



He also says that there is a large area there without 

 a tree, and with water available, which would all be 

 settled on at once if people were allowed to do so, but 

 his application was rejected without a hearing or an 

 opportunity to produce witnesses to show that the forest 

 ranger on whose judgment, or lack of judgment, Pinchot 

 acted, was mistaken. 



Ever since the first IT. S. Land Laws were passed, 

 grazing has been recognized as a branch of agriculture. 



In a circular issued many years ago by the General 

 Land Office, in relation to homesteads, is the following : 



"In grazing districts, stock raising and dairy pro- 

 duction are so nearly akin to agricultural pursuits as to 

 justify the issuance of patents upon proof of permanent 

 settlement and the use of the land for such purposes." 



In August, 1906, just before this application was 

 filed, the General Land Office issued a new circular, in 

 which it is said : . 



"Lands covered by homestead entry may be used for 

 grazing purposes if they are more valuable for pasture 

 than for cultivation of crops. When lands of this char- 

 acter are used in good faith for pasturage, actual grazing 

 will be accepted in lieu of actual cultivation." 



. Thus more emphatically, if possible, showing that 

 grazing is deemed an agricultural pursuit. 



In the Forest Use Book of 1907, under "Agricul- 

 ture," is the following: 



"Homestead claimants are required to live upon and 

 cultivate or graze lands embraced in their claims." 



This was in force when the letter was written re- 

 jecting the claim, and Mr. Pinchot not only undertook 



to reverse the policy of the land laws, but actually vio- 

 lated the regulations promulgated by himself ! 



In the new Use Book, however, taking effect July 

 1, 1908, the words "or graze" are omitted from the above 

 sentence, showing the rejection of the claim was in pur- 

 suance of a new policy to be hereafter enforced in 

 National forests. 



Is there any officer, other than Mr. Pinchot, who 

 would thus assume to change the policy of the land laws 

 according to his fancy ? Yet Mr. Pinchot says this suits 

 the majority of the people, and also says in his Eed 

 Book that: 



"A national forest does not in the least shut out 

 real settlement. It encourages it." 



Again it says : 



"What happens to the homeseeker? When a Na- 

 tional forest is created, the homemaker is not interfered 

 with in the least." 



Oh. no, he is not interfered with when he has to 

 wait sixteen months to know whether he can get his 

 claim approved, during which time he cannot even pitch 

 a tent or cut a fence pole. And I now ask you and Mr. 

 Pinchot if these Eed Book pretenses are true or false ? 



But this is not the whole story. Ever since our 

 public lands were opened for entry, one, whose applica- 

 tion to enter was protested, was given opportunity to 

 produce witnesses and have a hearing to determine his 

 rights, and the right of appeal if decided adversely to 

 him. The same procedure still obtains in all other con- 

 troversies concerning human rights, except in Mr. Pin- 

 chot's tribunal, where the fundamental principles of 

 common sense, common law and common justice are 

 disregarded and a subordinate's decision is final and 

 without appeal. The Lord help the homesteader who 

 must rely for "encouragement" on the Forest Service 

 and on the editors of some Kepublican papers for aid in 

 maintaining his rights. 



This case, however, presents a much more serious 

 question than the mere attitude of such newspapers, or 

 an injustice to one homesteader. If this ruling that 

 grazing is not agriculture, and an applicant can have 

 no opportunity to prove his contention that grain crops 

 will grow on his claim is to stand, it explains his failure 

 to include reclamation of lands suitable for agriculture 

 in forest reserves as a part of his plan to relieve the 

 coming shortage of food, and it not only "retards" 

 development in the West, but practically ends homestead 

 entries on forest reservations. 



This is C9nsidered by many as more important to 

 western forest states than the election of a governor or a 

 president, and our members of Congress should see to it 

 that siich a policy is not allowed to stand. 



That there be no question of doubt, I have here the 

 original of these two letters, and they may be read by 

 any one desiring to do so. 



I doubt very much if this radical and indefensible 

 change of policy has ever been brought to the notice of, 

 or directly approved by Secretary Wilson. 



It has been stated that Mr. Pinchot is not coming 

 to this meeting, having been appointed on the Committee 

 on "Country Life," which is to report and advise our 

 farmers how to lead a simple life and enjoy themselves. 

 I suppose Mr. Pinchot, having been born and lived 

 in a city, will find it easy to recommend that these 

 farmers quit cutting hay and raising potatoes, and buy 

 an automobile, ride out to a country chib and play 

 tennis. 



