The Roswell daily record. [volume] (Roswell, N.M.) 1903-current, 1906-05-08

1 40IU4tLS Ed1<oHuktiNA oOAG Slr lACA
Ito the department, but on January 20
is06. they were rejected by the. Sc
cretary of the interior for the same
reasons as those assigned in the
prior opinion of Assistant Attorney
General Campbell.
All this will more fully appear in
the correspondence which is hereto
attached.
be regretted that the opinion of the
department was o asked before, in
stead of after, the permits were grant
ed. II it had been much of the diff
culties that have resulted and the
very embarrassing position in which
the institutions n those who Sc
cured the permits are now placed
would have been avoided.
The situation at the present time
is that this large area of land is
now what may be called territorial
public domain" and will have t o be
thrown pen to the public for its
free use in the same way tina is the
federal domain. An income from per
mits, or from leases, of between $15,
900 and 500, 900 per annumN for the
lost. Many of the lands were select
ed, no doubt, because it was believ-
ed hat they e of such a quality
and so situated that they might ul-
timate1y be leased in small bodies
of $40 acres or sold in tracts of 100
can not be denied, that many of the
lands were selected for the reason
that there were persons Oh associa-
tons ready to pay a fair rate per
acre on them for p~asturage permits.
1t was believed, and is undoubtedly
true. that by sc selecting them the
Institutions would receive from their
respective allotments of land a
speedier and isurer income than if
it was attempted to select the lands
in small tracts of $40 acres.
1t is true that the pasturage per
mits had incorporated in them a
clause to the effect that they were
made expressly subject to any ac-
ton that may be taken thereon by
the congress of the United States
or the secretary of the interior or
the commissioner of the general and
Office" but it is perhaps not remark
able that those to whom the permits
were granted believed that since no
adverse action was taken they were
secure in their rights on the land
for the term of the permits at least,
and that they acted accordingly. Near
ly all of the parties to whom these
and made improvements on it. The
improvements are mostly in the way
stock and are usually on small
tracts of owned 1and within the fenc-
ed pasture of pasturage permit lands.
II all the fences are removed the
only difference will be that range
stock will freely Craze in the vicin-
ity of these watering places instead
of the stock Of the individual or as
ISOLATION who holds the ~pasturage per
nit and who has fenced the land. The
territorial institutions, instead of de-
an income of from 3 to 5 cents
an acre from the land, will receive
the land itself will constantly deter
iorate for grazing purposes because
it will be public range. and in Will
be to n interest of no one in par
ticular to preserve the grass from
year to year, as it now the case.
Some of these lands could. undoubt
eddy, be sold from time to time in
160-acre tracts OF leased in $40 acre
tracts but the majority of them haV-
ing been selected purely for graz
ing lands, the principal object any
one. might have in buying or leas-
ing so small a tract would be that
he wanted 1t for a house or for wa
ter, in order to use the contiguous
lands for grazing his cattle or sheep.
! believe that a very large pro-
portion of these 100000 acres of land
can not within any reasonable time
be used for anything except grazing.
The time when they can be sold In
any quantity in small tracts for agri-
cultural is cry remote in
deed. I therefore am decidedly of the
opinion that to secure such legisla-
ton in the national congress as will
result in permission to lease them
in large tracts would be very desir-
able. The bill Oh. r. 11492) which
you refer to me is calculated to do
this, but l am inclined to believe
that the proper way to do it IS by
amending h federal act OF June Il.