Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1901-12-04
DIVERGENT VIEWS.

ffS"o vi ahAs AAANNAANSNhf OSSAS
tary of the Interior, and Mr.. Wilson,
Secretary of Agriculture, do not seem
to harmonic as regards the dispo'
sition or use of the remaining public
lands. While both favor government
aid so far as irrigation goes Secre'
tary Wilson very properly holds that
there Is much land that cannot be re.
claimed by the government strong
box. Mr.. Hitchcock, in his report,
says:
THE investigations which have
been carried on demonstrate that,
looking at the matter from all sides,
there is no question now before the
people Of the United States of great.
er Importance than the conservation
of the water supply and the reclama-
ton of the arid lands of the west and
their settlement by men who will &C.
tual'y build homes and create COM
munities. . The remaining pub
lie lands are the heritage of the ma
ton and should be reserved for ac-
tual settlers under the homestead
act. The area to be taken by any one
man should be reduced, so that when
water has been conserved by the gov
eminent the homestead shall. in GER
tain parts of the country, be limited
to so, or even 10, acres"
1t will be noted that he says "the
remaining public lands should be re-
served for actual settlers"
Secretary Wilson, in his report,
says probably 400, 000.O 900 acres of
the public domain has no agricultur.
al value except for pasturage." Mr..
Hitchcock evidently thinks that all
of the remaining lands can be re-
claimed by irrigation and made suit
able for farming, even TO the extent
of dividing them up in small tracts.
While Secretary Wilson's view is
nearer the truth he doubtless made
his figures large in order to get a
base for his recommendation that
the grazing lands be leased in such
a way as not to interfere with the
homesteader."
With Secretary Hitchcock, he
thinks the desert land act should be
repealed and the homestead act
modified by requiring cultivation as
well as residence on a homestead"
As regards the repeal of the desert
land act we believe both gentlemen
have been misinformed as to the sen.
timent of the people of the arid reg.
ion. or are inclined to disregard
1t 1t looks very much as though Mr.
Wilson was yielding to the wishes OF
the members of the National Live
Stock association as regards leasing.
In that case the desert land act would
be In the way.
VIZ fail to see how those who have
been contending so strenuously for a
repeal of the land laws can find any
comfort in Secretary Wilson's rec.
concentrations. At the very worst
the lands that are being taken up are
constantly adding to the taxable
wealth Of the state and to the com.
munities in which they lie. Under
government leases the rentals will
go into the United States treasury
and if the choice farming lands have
been taken and the rest are pasture
lands subject to lease, what will be
left to reclaim? No doubt if the fund
derived from leasing is devoted to
the purposes of irrigation it would
help some, but long or renewed leases
would prove more harmful to the
states in which such lands lie, than
would he gained by irrigation. OuI
stockmen who now have free access
to the open range would have to lease
land to protect themselves. No doubt
the whole matter will be up in con.
gress for discussion and some intel
ligent and just conclusions arrived
at. At present there are a great va
riety OF views on the question.