, 1907-04-25
MATTER OF
The RANGE
DISCUSSES QUESTION
IN PHASES APPERTAINlkG
TO APPLICATION HERE.
:. L. Laughlin Of Rock River Opposes
Some Features of the Proposed
1922 fEHH HaH $50
Rurkett Bill and commends This
Paper In Its Reply to Article from
Newcastle News-JournaI.

To the Editor of The Republican.
l wish to thank you for your reply
in the What do they mean?' article
in the Newcastle News7Journal.
l believe you have fairly expressed
the sentiment and desire Of the men
who attended the late stock growers
meeting at Cheyenne.
We are inclined to commend the
course of Congressman Mondell in his
fight against the inauguration of a
system such as the Burkett bill sug.
gests, for in this freest of the free
lands, where the people believe that
government is for the benefit Of tne
people and not the people for the bene-
fit Of the government, such a system
is %intolerable. And as the people be-
gin to understand the motives OF the
advocates Of this system. they realize
more and more it's undesirability.
There is very little fear now that we
will ever see such a system in vogue
in Wyoming.
Part Of Preamble Endorsed.
Seven or eight Of the whereases in
Producing the Burkett bill are all right,
especially the fourth, which says:
Whereas, to safeguard their business
interests and improve both the quail
ity of the stock and condition of the
range, it is necessary in many local.
ties for stockmen to secure the right
Of exclusive use Of the range by fenc-
ing Just nov there is a cry of lamen-
tation heard all over this fair land,
not uttered by the owners OF great
fiocks and herds, perhaps, who posi-
bly, a afford to lose the money 1t will
take to %untence, but by the multitude
of ranchmen with families to support,
land those who hope to haye) who
have spent the earnings of almost halt
a life time in barbed wire and pitch.
pine posts, and have labored and sweat.
ed, many of them carrying heavy bales
of wire up rocky cliffs, where a goat
could scarcely climb, to inclose a sum
mer pasture to prevent their cattle
straying, and, what was of more i'm,
.portance, to keep the dreaded sheep
from driving their cattle away by eat
ing and %trampling out everything In
sight," which is always the case in
every free" (?) range country.
Annuilment by Reinforcement.
And now, after treating the law as
a dead letter by non-enforcement, the
people being thus led to believe the
law never would be enforced, and after
twenty-five years or more of this seem
ing encouragement, in tryin to pro.
tect themselves, during which time
they have been building up their
ranches, making greater and greater
preparations in the way of hay and
shelter for taking care of the dumb
animals during the Indictment winter
storm, they are commanded to destroy
the fruit of their years Of toll, and
many of them think they hear the 81
lent command, Move out"
Did any of these advocates Of the
mo fence"--the free range"1-the
"let-it-alone" policy-ever stop to hg.
ure the awful cost Of this taking down
of the fences?
Suppose these ranchmen were today
spending as much money and effort In
planting grain seed as they are com
PEELED to spend in destroying their
property, what would the results be
next fall as compared with this loss to
the state?
State Suffers Also.
When a devastating hail storm
sweeps over a neighbor's grain field,
battering the grain into the ground
our sympathies are extended to the un
fortunate neighbor. He is the greatest
loser. But the state has lost that much
wealth also. 1t will be many years
before the state Of Wyoming RECEIVERS
from the loss of misapplied funds and
effort employed in taking down the
illegal fences in A. D. 1907. Do we
mean by this to find fault with the ad.
ministration for enforcing the law?
Not at al, for in these times Of indif.
ference, it's refreshing to have the
old law enforced, even if it does hurt.
But We find some difficulty in excusing