, 1908-01-30
SOME ERRORS OF STATEMENT

that do not exactly match with the
facts. The first error noted is the as.
sumption that Mr.. MondelPs 32O-acre
homestead bill and his second home.
stead bill are one and the same mea'
sure. They are entirely separate bills
and the first is opposed by Secretary
Garfield, while the second has been
approved by him. The second home.
stead bill will aid many Wyoming men
in acquiring a home for themselves,
perhaps, but 1t is not "far.reaching in
its effects. Not one per cent of the
settlers who come in from the east
have ever made q homestead entry be.
fore and those who have are entitled
to a second entry under former acts
of congress. The 32O.acre bill is a mea'
sure that would also give a larger OPP
p%ortunlty to a poor man to get a foot,
hold on the public domain.
Turning to the Burkett bill, Mr.. Bell
attempts to fix the cost of grazing
stock Hereunder. He assumes to
quote Mr.. PinchoJ the national fores-
ter, and says that the grazing lands
would be used by PERMITS and fig
ures entirely on per capita basis. What
does Mr.. Pinchot say: The secretary
of agriculture should have the right
to issue permits either PER ACRE or
per capita, in each district, AS THE
STOCKMEN OF THAT DISTRICT
MAY DESIRE. There has beer much
misunderstanding on this point and I
wan to make 1t clear"
Following this Mr.. Bell quotes the
forester as saying the fee for cattle
and horses would be 81 per head per
annum and for sheep 80 cents per head
per nun He then twists this into
an acreage basis and reaches startling
and u~nwarranted conclusions.
What does Mr.. Pinchot say: Il be-
iieve that the limits should be between
n cent and 5 cents per acre on an
acreage basis, or 80 cents to 81 per
head upon cattle and 10 cents to 80
cents per head upon sheep on a Per
capita basis for the year-long per
mits, with proportionate reductions foI
shorter periods"
1t is an old trick to take maximum
figures and distort them to an unrea-
sonable degree, but we did not believe
Mr.. Bell would resort to such tactics
to bolster up any argument he might
make upon this question. 1t will be
noted from Mr.. Pinchot's letter, to
which Mr.. Bell refers, that he makes
the minimum acreage fee " cent per
acre. In any argument we have the
same right to assume that the mini
mum fee would be charged as Mr.. Bell
has to assume that the maximum fee
would be the rule. In fact, in nearly
every case where the government has
dealings with the people, the minimum
fee is the one charged. But the maxi,
mum fee stated by Mr.. Pinchot is b
cents per acre, while Mr.. Bell assumes
that Mr.. Pinchot stated 10 cents per
acre. Taking y cent per acre, the
charge per section would be $500 per
annum per section, instead of S64, as
stated by Mr.. Bell. And if we take
the maximum fee suggested by Mr..
Pinchot, we only have a charge of $50
per section, or about the average fee
collected by the state of Wyoming for
its leased lands, for which there is a
constant and pressing demand.
But the proof of the pudding is in
the eating. What is the charge for
sheep and cattle in the forest re-
serves? The 1907 schedule of grazing
charges are, for year-around permits:
80 cents per head for cattle, 50 cents
per head for horses and Is cents per
head for sheep. Period of five months
or less, 81 cents per head for cattle,
90 cents per head for horses and
cents PEI head for sheep.
1t is fl ir to presume that the grazing
fee on the open range would be less
than that in the forest reserves, be-
cause the expense OF administration
would be considerably less, and it
must be noted here that President
Roosevelt has repeatedly stated that
the government ought not to make
anything above the expenses of admin