The Billings gazette. [volume] (Billings, Mont.) 1896-1919, 1901-02-15
FREE RANGING THREATENED.

FREE RANGING THREATENED.
The Gazette has received a printed
copy of senate bill No. 80, introduced
by Myer of Carbon county, entitled
can act prescribing the method of as
sessment, collection and division of
taxes received from any livestock
brought into the state, or moved from
one county to another for grazing
purposes, and fixing the penalty and
forfeiture for violation Hereunder
The bill has some commendable
features and which if enacted into a
law separate and alone would probably
receive the endorsement of a majority
of the stockmen of the state. But be-
ing incorporated as a part of a bill
that contains features Objectionable to
every cattle owner who ranges and
owns stock in Montana they must
share in the condemnation which at
taches to the bill as a whole. Very
few if any cattlemen would object to
a lawtaxing foreign owned stock
driven into the state for grazing pur-
poses only during a portion of each
year. In fact, many favor such a
law, believing that men owning stock
in other states should pay for the ben
Gifts they derive by feeding in this
state a short time each year. In ad-
dition they hold that such a law
would protect and conserve Montana
ranges for Montana men who make
their homes in the state and pay taxes
into it's treasury.
The features of the bill to which OBJ
lection is raised are embodied in Sec
tions eight, nine and ten. They remove
the right of free ranges now enjoyed
by stockmen of the state. Section
nine in particular is destructive of
that right and apparently is inserted
in the bill for the particular benefit of
the county represented by Senator
Myer. He must have learned hat an
occasional lot of stock owned and taxed
in an adjoining or distant county Of
the state wanders across the lines de-
filming the limitations Of Carbon county
and he demands that their owners pay
for the grass they eat while feeding in
that county. This probably would
please Senator Myer and some of his
neighbors who may own stock, but
it would not lessen the objection that
attaches to his proposed law.
To BEGIN with, such a law would
prove cumbersome and entail extra
labor and expense upon each county
attempting to avail itself of it's bene-
fits. In return the extra amount Of
revenue derived would in a majority
of cases be found entirely dispropor-
tionate to the extra cost and annoy
ance. The trouble and effort required
to compute the proportion of the taxes
due respective counties under the law
would be so great that but few would
care to undertake their collection.
This in itself would prevent enforce
ment of the law in a majority of
cases.
The most serious objection, how
ever, is that the law would destroy
what remains of the free ranges in
the state. Through settlement, pur-
chase of land and the acquision of i'm
mense tracts by operation of the forest
reserve lien scrip act the free ranges of
the state have become so circum-
scribed in extent that no laws should
find place on the statutes of the state
still further abridging the right and
privilege Of grazing stock wherever
~unoccupied range can still be found.
The only law required is that now in
effect and with it's enforcement fear
need not be entertained that livestock
of any kind is fattening in natures
barn that does not pay it's proportion
of taxes. AS long as public lands con.
tinue to form a part of the domains OF
the state they should remain open tc
the stock of any and all counties Of
the state, SO long as taxes are paid
upon it in one county, be that the
county in which it is owned OF in the
one where it's permanent range is sup
posed to be-.
: No doubt Mrs. Nation is in earnest
when she says she intends to smash