230 



AGRICULTURAL, APPROPRIATION BILL, 1924, 



dustry of the West very greatly. We have had this situation : A large 

 permittee on one of our Arizona forests, who was in the same sort of 

 financial dilliculties that many of them have been through during the 

 last two yeai-s. told our supervisor that in endeavoring to extend his 

 borrowings from Los Angeles banks he had been told that his credit 

 could not be extended until his range was under fence; tliis was 

 because of the experience of western live-stocks banks as to the 

 security of cattle which are grazed on a fenced range as distinguished 

 from those grazed on an open range. 



That man's range is partly in the national forest. He came to us 

 and asked how he could get that national forest range under fence. 

 Wo will probably be able to work out a cooperative arrangement with 

 him under wliich we will furnish the wire and staples and his organiza- 

 tion will furnish the labor and get that range under fence. Our land 

 is bettered by it, his business is bettered by it, and his credit is bet- 

 tered by it. It is a very constructive thing and 1 believe is thoroughly 

 worth while. . 



We can probably get a dollar from the live-stock interests to go into 

 this kind of development for every dollar that the Government puts 

 into it. It is important, however, that these range improvements be 

 owned by the Government. In the development of our grazing, the 

 necessity for adjusting range allotments and the need that occasion- 

 ally happens for cutting do^^'n the large herds of an old user to protect 

 the range or make room for the small herds of a settler, the owner- 

 ship of range improvements by stockmen, on Government land, is an 

 emoarrassing thing. I think our policy should be to do this work 

 with suflicient Government funds so th^it the title to the improvements 

 rests un(|uestionably with the Government, and it is in line witli that 

 policy tiiat I have asked for the increase in this item. 



Mr. Buchanan. Mr. Chairman, you will notice there are some 

 omissions in this item. 



CHANGE OF LANGUAGE. 



Mr. Anderson. You are omitting the two provisos in the section 

 because they are ])ermaneut law ? 



Colonel Greelky. I think it is a useless waste of paper to put them 

 in everv year. 



Mr. iJicHANAN. That is permanent law? 



Mr. Anderson. Yes; we made it permanent law last year. 



The next item appears to be on page 167. 



APPROPRIATION UNDER ACT OK MARCH 1, 1921. 



C(»loncl Ghkelev. The ciiange ])ro])osed in the item a])])caring on 

 l)ag(' 1()7 is an extension of the amount n])])ro])natcd nn( cr the act 

 of March 1, 11)11, tiiat may be ex])cn(led in the District of Columbia. 

 It involves no additional 'a])propriation. The act of March 1, 1911, 

 is th«' basic act uiKh-r which a])i)ro])riations arc not only made for' 

 tiic ])urchase of national forests, but also for coo]HM-at ion with States 

 in (ire jirottiction. Since that act was ])assed a])pi-oi)riations for land 

 ]Hirclia.ses have not increased, but the a])i)roi)riations for cooperative 

 lire protect ion with tlic States have been more than trebled. That 



