Arizona republican., 1908-10-11

local laws. and good results are ob- taincd along the line of protection from theft and disease But terri torial law can not reach the question of protecting a range from unfair cl- croachment. nor prevent it from being overStocked. And these evils are above all others the most serious from q view point of public welfare. The pub lie welfare demands the very highest degree of productiveness. Overstocl- ing a range means the destruction of its productive efficiency-a set back from which it takes years to recover. Such regulations as might prevent this abuse must be in the nature of federal regulation. because the title of the land rests in the United States, and therefore the federal government only can place a limit upon its use for grazing purposes. It is most essential to the future welfare of the grazing industry that laws providing for a wise system Of regulation should be passed at an early date. The unre- stricted use of the public domain by all corners affords no incentive for inn provcmeht. The present occupants do no feel disposed to develop water for stock purposes, nor conserve the feed. nor seed the range to more productive grasses SO long as they are unable in dividUally to obtain exclusive enjoy ment of the results of such cxpendi- lures. It is therefore desirable that ecvry man who is permitted to Fraze stock on the public domain. be given a lease or grazing permit defining and limiting his reasonable portion, and that he be allowed to fence it, develop water seed the land to better grass. conserve the feed, or otherwise render it more productive without fear of be- ing encroachcd upon by others. The range should be used, but not abused. The man who uses it should be told how many acres he shall use. how many head he shall be allowed to grazc on a given area, and be given to understand that he must improve it's carrying capacity before he will be al lowed to increase the number of head, and that if he violates the law his grazing permit or lease will be an nullcd
 Like all questions of public interest. we find our citizens arrayed on both sides of the question, some advocating federal regulation. while others are violently opposed to it. It seems only far that when a man opposes a con- structive measure, his motive for do- ing so should be scrutinized and brought to light When policy is submitted to public opinion. which of fers to the individual stock grower l
  enjoy without encrOachment on the ! part of others and which he would | be at liberty to improve and render | more productive and profitable, and | he rejects such an offer, the question | very pertinently presents itself why? | Why does he not want to have a law 1 passed which will afford him an op- | portunity to lease and improve his l range and be protected from the en- | CrOachment of others? It is not be- cause the same law which would pro- tect him from encroachment and give | him some exclusive rights which oth- | CTS must respect, would also protect | the other fellow in turn? Is it not | because he who opposes this policy is at present apprOpriating more of the 1 public domain to his own use than an individual is reasonably entitled to. and more than he would probably be allowed to use under any logical and just system of federal regulation? Is it not because he desires to be without restraint so that he may lead his flocks here and there over the public domain disreSarding the welfare of others and making it difficult, if not impossible. for homes to be maintain ed in the path of travel? Is it not be- cause system of public protection of any kind means that his greed and avarice must be restricted SO that oth- CTS may live and so that the sum to- tai of the prosperity of a community may not be subordinated to his selfish ends?
 Possibly this may be too severe an