Weekly independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 1887-1914, 1900-03-16
EoR AND AGAINST LEASING.

The Arizona Range News thus
summarizes the main arguments fol
and against the proposed leasing oil
the grazing lands:
PoR LEASING.
/. 1t is claimed that the enactment
OF a lease law will effectually settle
the bitter controversy los existing
between the sheepmen and the cat
tlemeD, since the cattlemen would be
enabled to protect their ranges by
fencing them.
2. Such a law would greatly re-
strict stock stealing, since under its
operation any unauthorized person
fodn1 in another mans pasture
could be treated as II t~respasser.
;. The expense of looking after
cattle would be much less than under
the'old range system.
4. The proprietor o. pasture by
restricting his herd to a proper size
could with average seasons effect a
steady improvement in the carrying
capacity OF his range.
). He could also afford to purchase
and use paFeb.en or very high grade
bulls, because he would be assured
Of reaping the full benefit OF such in
vestment.
g. He could, IL he desired. borrow
money on his cattle, il they were in
inc,osed pastures. Eastern bankers
are averse to loaning money on cattle
running loose On tile range.
AGAINST LEASING.
l. A very little figuring will Jon.
vince the unpreiudiced mind that FOR
the small cattlemep those haying les.
than 80 or iGJ head, the expense vi
fencing would be at soiute!y prohibi'
tive. The oft srowed policy Of the
government regarding public lands /
to encourage poor men 20 appropriate
quarter sections and make thereon
homes for their families. Ilas geuer-
al land Office has cUUntenancsd the
taking up OF claims In the arid dis.
trict by men who you'd starTe to
death were they deprived OK tie priv
ilsse Of ranging their snail herds on
adiaeeLt public grazing lands. TO
annui this privilege without giving at
least a years notice, would not be
simply a breach OF faith: it would
amount to c~onfscation Of property.
This single objection In u opinion
more than couDter balances all the ar
guments that can be urged by the
other side.
=. Advocates Of the leasing pnyi-
leRe maintain that it will not inter
fere with the homestead privilege.
Won't l.? or what value, pray,
would a.quarter section OF arid land he
il surrounded by a pasture belonging
to somebody else! At present some
big cattlemen make life so disagree
able for homesteaders that few are to
incur their displeasure by filing on
lands within the limits claimed by
the former, and the situation OF a
hester under the lease law would be
Infinitely worse than il is now. The
claim referred to,v!z, that the change
would not iDjuriously affect the in
terests OF home seekers is contrary to
fact.
3. Not only would the original
cost OF fencing be prohnbitive i'll the
case Of the small farmer, but the All
nual tax o fences wonld be a heavy
burden. The concensus OF opinion ia
that wire fence OF a character to hold
cattle costs slOO per mile. 4 stock
nan who might be 80 fortunate rs to
lease n township, square areas being
adopted for economical fencing,
would have "a miles of fence costing
S24W dollars, while the tax on that at
81 DO on the hundred would amount
to Sl02, and the stockman would have
to add TO this the rental Of the lands
and the tax on the cattle.
A.. Efforts to devise ways and
means whereby TO harmonic conflict.
ing claims and overlapping ranges
and to enclose pastures at u cost
within the means oi owners develop
many obstacles. Tho idea OF fencing
narrow pastures running back from
contiguous water irontages to "A dis
lance OF forty or fifty miles is simply
preposterous. Tho land inclosed
would not be worth the fencing.
Southern Arizona is full OF country
roads that cannot be closed aud they
would cut tho pastures into email
and Ill shaped pastures which stock
fnnr A1,.l.l - r. 4