The San Francisco call., 1901-11-13
RANGE LEASING.


to a great height against what it supposes lease
l. law will be, to compel stock-owners to pay for
their use of the public domain range. Inasmuch
as when such law was proposed in Texas the big
stock men fought it, and they fought the leasing
policy adopted by the Northern Pacific Railway, and
in each case the plan carried by the support of the
small stock men and actual settlers it would be easy
for us to say that the Posts opposition is influenced
by the big stock men, who don't want to pay for
pasture and under the present lawless rule OF the
free range have the force to exclude the small stock
men entirely. But don't say that, for we don't
believe it. The Post is influenced by partial and in
sufficient view of conditions and entire misappre
hension of what the leasers want
No such law as the Post describes could ever pass
Congress- Indeed, it is doubtful if it would receive
the courtesy of reference to committee. Primarily
it is the irrigators who lease law, in order to
check the present decrease of moisture available to
make fertile land for cultivation The physical re-
suits of free of the arid public domain are the
of the greatest soctude the part of the OBJ
servers Of the conditions which settlement of the
West depends. When it is known that removal of
the protection of moisture in States like New
York is decreasing the fertility of the SOIL so that
that State when almost too late, has been compelled
to put public authority forward to arrest ardty
the arid country west of the hundredth meridian
Such policy is impossible as long as the stock
range is free If free it is oversocked the vegetable
cover of the soil which protects moisture is destroyed
and the desert appears Vast tracts in Arizona New
Mexico, Utah and Eastern Oregon have been de-
stroyed by this process The amount OF stock fed on
the range decreases every year. and the is the
most economical producer of beef, that food is rising
in price to the level of a luxury. What remedy IS
there? None is proposed except that which re-
deemed the grazing country of Australia and has
newed the ranges of Texas. This done by leas-
ing the range, compelling payment for its and
renewing its forage and capacity carry stock. No
law on the subject pass Congress that does not
leave every foot of the public domain open and free
to homestead and mineral entry, protect the entry
by forfetng the lease of any leaseholder who in
terferes with him, and that does not amply and ade
quately protect the present agricultural settler and
freeholder and every stock grower down to the
least.
To say that. such law cannot be drawn is to de-
nounce inferior to the Australians and Texans
and the land men OF the Northern Pacific Railway
All of these did it. and neither settler free
holder nor small stock man would in either case re-
to the free and awless range if he could 1t is
too much the fashion to denounce great public poll
ces that concern the physical conditions of the coun
try Even yet the forest reservations are bitterly at
tackled in many parts of the country, but usually by
who consult some selfish interest opposed to the
public good.
Many public interests demand that the men who
the public domain shall pay for its The
sumers of beef who find it rising steadily in price,
require the restoration of economy in its production
The irrgators have a right to the public do
main as producer of revenue to provide irrigation
works, and to this end to compel its users to pay
rent. The domain belongs to the people few
thousand of them have grown rich by its free Of
cost and in using it free they destroying it for
settlement by turning it into a desert There seems
valid argument against leasing. II the anti-leasers
will concede that law be framed protective OF all
rights and will then look for reasons why this should
not be done, they will be doing public service, for
the public want to know if any reason exists why
such a law shall not pass.