GRAZING FEES — GUAEANTY PRICE ON WHEAT. 7 



is to urge that a committee be appointed to go out and inspect the 

 forests themselves, and then, if the matter is further pressed, that we 

 be given an opportunity of bringing here representative stockmen 

 from all the forests, in order that they may be heard before the mat- 

 ter is definitely determined. 



I feel warranted in saying that if there is no other way of arrang- 

 ing for the expenses of the committee that our association will under- 

 take to pay the expenses, if you are willing to accept the offer. How- 

 ever, I hope that Congress will authorize such a committee to go out 

 and arrange for the payment of their expenses. 



There is a broader aspect to this advance in grazing than may 

 seem on the surface. We all know that there has been a general in- 

 flation of values of all commodities, and that has permeated the value 

 of grazing. When the forests were turned over to the Agricultural 

 Department in 1905 there was no fee assessed. A charge was made 

 in 1906, rather nominal, I might say, and that was objected to by 

 the stockmen on the false theory that they had probably an actual 

 right to the use of the forests without any payment. Since then 

 there have been three or four advances, even previous to the 100 per 

 cent increase. All of this has been reflected in the cost of grazing 

 on the Indian reservations and on the privately owned lands; and I 

 believe that a further increase in the fees on the forest reserves 

 would be promptly reflected in the cost of grazing on these other 

 lands. Obviously any increase of this kind must be paid by some 

 one, and undoubtedly the consumer will pay a large part. It must 

 be passed along to the man who buys the feeders raised on the forest 

 reserves or by the consumer, if it be fat cattle. 



While our Government is spending money and efforts trying to 

 increase the production of live stock, it does seem unwise that an 

 extra burden should be placed upon those using the reserves, unless 

 it is absolutely necessary for the Government. 



I have had prepared by the Forest Service the actual figures as to 

 the cost of administration of grazing on the reserves, as compared 

 with the receipts; the cost including the money paid' to the States, 

 and all the administrative expenses both here and on the range, and 

 the grazing shows a profit of over $1,000,000. Of course, according 

 to the balance sheet made up by this committee, there is a deficit 

 on the reserves — there is no deficit, however, but there is a substan- 

 tial profit on the grazing end. I do not believe that I care to burden 

 the committee with a further discussion of this, and will leave it 

 with you with the urgent request and hope that you may see fit to 

 send a committee out to investigate these conditions. 



The Chairman. Mr. Potter is a cattle man, is he not ? 



Mr. ToMLiNSON. Mr. Potter was in the cattle business before he 

 went with the Forest Service in 1901. 



The Chairman. He is an expert on grazing, and is in charge of 

 the work? 



Mr. ToMLiNSON. Yes, sir. Mr. Potter and Mr. W. C. Barnes have 

 been in supreme charge of the grazing, subject to the chief. 



The Chairman. I desire to call your attention to the statement 

 of Mr. Potter which appears on page 65 of the hearings on the 

 agricultural bill for 1921. After discussing the question of the fee 

 charged for grazing in the forest as compared with grazing on the 



