, 1908-01-07

degree beyond the power of words to
express. That such a system would
breed discomfort, develop favoritism
and be as fruitful of injustice as a
%porcupine of quilts, is, 1t seems 10 me,
too patent to require extended proof
If, disregarding the fundamental er.
ror embodied in the Burkett bill, one
peruses its pages with a view of eX.
aiming It in detail, the objections to
II multiply indefinitely. In the first
place 1t is oren to the general criti'
clsm that its language is neither clear
nor explicit; that it is so drafted as to
conceal quite as much as 1t purports
to make plain, and a careful perusal
of the measure the suspicion
that its ambiguity n indirection is
studied. and for a purpose; that the
trainers of the bill had not the cour
age to write in plain language what
they really expected to accomplish un.
der the legislation.
Section 2 of the bill purports to pro
vide for local participation in range
control, and yet the final decision in
every Ease is left with the secretary
of agriculture, If the local committee
does not agree with the federal Off.
cial in charge. While section 3 of the
hill purports to leave lands open to
settlement yet under its provisions
any large stock outfit, by the expen.
diture of n hundred dollars in cor,
rail-. reservoirs. wells, or other i'm,
provements" at intervals over their
range could permanently control the
same and prevent settlement indef.
nitely.
Section 5 evidently contemplates
that there will be very little settle,
ment or development after this system
is established, for it proposes certain
government reserves for school houses.
churches, etc, as though assuming
that with this outstanding of the
western country it will be necessary
for a kindly, paternal government to
make special arrangements for the 10,
cation of our churches and school
houses. and the climax of ali of this
scheme of permanent federal landlord.
ism is contained in the provision Civ
ing us a measly ten per cent of the
monies paid by our people for the
privilege of continuing to live in the
states which they have builded, and
whose industries they have developed
| have referred but briefly to the de
tails of the bill because, as l stated
in the earlier part of my letter, the
theory of the measure is so funda-
mentally wrong that in the very ma.
ture OF things the details must be OBJ.
noxious. But if one is disposed to ex-
anime the bill carefully many other
Objectionable features of detail will be
found. For instance although the brief
of the bill sent out by its sponsors
contained in display type the state,
ment that no change in water laws"
was contemplated the fact remains
that section 5 contains a provision in.
tended to give the national govern,
ment at least concurrent Jurisdiction
with the states over all waters on the
public lands. The legislation there
fore is not only intended to centralize
land control but to further the long
cherished ambition of the bureaus for
control over our water resources.
l do not believe the measure or any
one like it can possibly become a law.
/ think our people will insist that we
shall continue the policy OF gradually
passing the lands into the hands Of
individuals and under which, in the
meantime, the public domain shall be
left free to exploration, settlement
and development. That the conditions
under this system are not in all cases
ideal or entirely satisfactory no one
familiar with them will pretend to
claim. but infinitely worse than any
conditions that have ever existed OF
are likely to exist on the public range
would be the conditions which would
be established by federal range con.
troll. Very truly yours,
F. w. MONDELL.
For the small .um of so oant,