| OCR Text |
Show Page 2 UTAH FARM BUREAU mm January 1968 NEWS Published each month by the Utah Form Bureau Federation at Salt Lake City, Utah. Editorial and Business Office, 629 East Fourth South, Salt Lake City, Utah. POSTMASTER; Please address PO Form 3579 to PO Box 11668, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111. Subscription price of twenty-fiv- e cents per year to members is in cluded in membership fee. Entered as second class matter March 24, 1948 at the Post Office at Salt Lake City, Utah under act of March 3, 1879. UTAH FARM BUREAU FEDERATION OFFICIALS Elmo W. Hamilton, Riverton, Utah S. Jay Child, Clearfield, Utah Mrs. Willis Whitbeck, Bennion, Utah V. Allen Olsen Kenneth J. Rice President Vice President Chairman, Farm Bureau Women Executive Secretary Editor BY: ALLAN Bf KLINE; DIRECTORS Alden Barton Mark Nichols Dr. W. H. Bennett Glenn T. Baird, Jr Dr. D. Wynne Thorne Salt Salt K. Lake City Lake City been treating with the . In previous articles Nve ha elements in the. history, of mankind which contributed to.-..the development of human freedom. One must not omit 1 the contribution made byjlie ircontmics of the free market J 'Va to this story, : V ; 'r1 In 1776, Adam Smith published his Wealth of Nations His thesis wasthat; if eryone, follows his. own interests I the pubhefwin reap maximurn benefits. Marxists doalotj this phflosophy and take a lot of credit S of for dividing the roldtfiO&t most of the wealth would not ;; have been Logan Logan Logan . t DIRECTORS Mrs. Willis Whitbeck, Farm Bureau Women; Mrs. Paul Nelson, Farm Bureau Women; Ken Ashby, Farm Bureau Young People; Frank Harris, Beaver; A. Alton Hoffman, Cache; Lloyd Olsen, Cache; Ferris Allen, North Box Elder; William C. Douse, Carbon; S. Joy Child, Davis; Carl VanTassel, Duchesne; Kenneth Brasher, Emery; Lowell Henrie, Garfield Richard Nelson, Iron; Roy Bowles, Juab; Graydon Robinson, Kane; Leo Robins, Millard; Mark Thackeray, Morgan; Ambrose Dalton, Piute; Roy Hoffman, Rich; Elmo Hamilton, Salt Lake; Arion Erekson, Salt Lake; Elmer Sander, Salt Lake; Ashton Harris, San Juait Lee Barton, Sanpete; Gerald Johnson, Sevier; D. O. Roberts, Summit; Jack Brown, Tooele; Roland Merkley, Uintah; Don T. Allan, Utah; Eldon Money, Utal Glade Gillman, Utah; Emer Wilson, Wasatch; Don F. Schmutz, Washington; Hugh King, Wayne; William C. Holmes; Weber; Carl Fawers, Weber; Lorin Hardy, Weber; John P. Holmgren, South Box Elder; Goy Pettingill, Utah Horticultural Society; John Roghaar, Intermountain Farmers Assn.; Virgil H. Peterson, Utah Sugar Beet Growers Assn.; Tom Lowe, Utah Canning Crops Assn.; Joe I. Jocobs, Producers Livestock Marketing Assn.; J. R. Garrett, Norbest Turkey Growers Assn; M. E. Carroll, Country Mutual Life. i pooh-pobhint- The American Farm Bureau Federation has urged the Public Land Law Review Commission to recommend that Congress make more effective use of the experience and capabilities of the nations farmers and ranchers in the administration of federal lands. In a statement presented at the Commissions meeting in Washington, D. C.y on January 12, Charles B. Shuman, president of the nation's largest general farm organization, said that among agricultural people whose livestock graze the public ranges are some of the nations most capable range managers and conservationists. Shuman was accompanied at Sommerville, president of the Colorado FB and a member of the AFBF Board of I . multi-sta- te meetings of these Western states at Denver, Colorado; many smaller multi-stat- e and state conferences; a number of county meetings; plus conferences with specialists on Land Grant College staffs. Through these meetings, we have described the areas of concern expressed by ranchers and farmers and have attempted to surface the grassroots thinking of those close to the public land issues. State Farm Bureau officials. County Farm Bureau presidents, and Farm Bureau members have appeared as witnesses before the Commission at the Salt Lake City, Fresno, Billings, Albuquerque, and Spokane meetings. Representatives of the organization have been in attendance at all meetings of the Commission except in Alaska and at Boston. This statement has been reviewed by the Western region State Farm Bureau presidents and state secretaries and by the Board of Directors of the American Farm Bureau. Land ownership Transferring public land to private ownership was a distinctive concept of land policy developed in this country, quite contrary to old world land policy. This wisdom and vision laid the foundation for the great growth of our country. The United States has become the most productive country in the world, and the citizens of this nation among the best clothed and fed people in all history. We view with concern what appears to be a reversal of this historical policy as citizens find it increasingly difficult to purchase federal lands, or exchange private lands for public lands. Large acreages of land are moving from private to public ownership. . Land ownership recommendations The existing unreserved public lands are largely what were left after the better lands were taken into private ownership. We believe there are at this time federally-owned lands which should move into private ownership. We offer the following recommendations in this policy area: (1) The Congress should reassert that private ownership is the basic policy of this nation. (2) Transfer those federal lands needed for local and state government purposes to the appropriate public agency. (3) Lands suitable for private ownership be made available for disposal on terms and conditions that maintain local values and r- - ognize basic land uses. We suggest two classes of land be given priority for disposal: all isolated and small tracts of federal lands; lands previously privately owned such as those acquired under the Bankhead Jones Act, or known generally as L.U. or Grass Lands. (4) To determine which lands may be suitable for final disposal, we recommend when a firm offer to purchase is received, the following criteria be applied: (a) Will the proposed use recognize the vital uses of the lands and conserve, develop, and improve Rs resources? (b) Will the proposed use improve the local economy? The sale of public lands should protect investments of dependent properties. To attain these objectives the price paid by the purchaser should: (1) Compensate the current users for financial loss due to cancellation of grazing permits on ffie public range. (2) Compensate users for improvements made on the public range. (3) Compensate users for of mum makes recommendations to U.S. land law commission and by Clifford G. Mclntire and Leonard Johnson, director and assistant director of the Federations natural resources department. Here is a summary of die statement presented to the Commission: The American Farm Bureau Federation deeply appreciates this opportunity to present views relative to the vital public lands now held in federal ownership in our country to the Public Land Law Review Commission. These views are based upon 1968 policies developed by the voting delegates representing the 1,753,532 member families of County Farm Bureaus. Farm Bureau has taken an active interest in issues that relate to public land over a period of four decades. In the preparation of this statement. Farm Bureau membership has been involved in the sixteen Western states which have substantial acreages of public lands. These states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma. In this sixteen-stat- e area reside 307,617 Farm Bureau families. The concepts found in this statement are the results of two - . FB Directors, : ; de- crease in value of private lands, equipment, and facilities caused by the loss of permitted grazing on the public land. Federal land acquisition We call to the Commissions attention the problems created by acquisition of private lands by federal agencies. We believe these problems are related and have a bearing on the problems which this Commission is directed to study. The federal government now owns 34 percent of the total land area in the nation. The federal agencies continue acquisitions of private land at the average rate of approximately 900,000 acres per year. These land losses reduce the property tax base which causes local and county governments to become less sc' age of invention and machines.. The steam engme replaced wind and ;water power nnd for the could produce its needs without the sWeat of., slaves. ; No small credit should go to the. invention of the print-- , ! ing press.1 Printing made it possible for science, knowledge ". and thinking to build on itself and for knowledge to be dis' V seminated easily. Particularly what philosophers wrote and taughtabout the nature of man caused great dissatisfaction with the ab-- : solute monarchies and with the kind of authority which had controlled the thinking of the common man for centuries. Men questioned authority and rebelled against' its use of power over them. After our Revolution in America we had a constitutional convention. The delegates had a job on their hands. They had no central government to speak of. There was just a Congress that was all. It had almost no powers at all. Who did the folks in America select to man this constitutional convention? They picked the most able, the most brilliant, the best informed men of their time to sit in the convention. They didnt get the unsuccessful, they didnt choose the masses, they didnt even try to get a n of everybody. They got the best. Records of the convention reveal that these men knew what they, were talking about. They had read history. They "took note of the fact that for most of history man had not been free. They faced a tough proposition to find a system which would establish a working authority under which men could enjoy the maximum of freedom! a more perThey sought to establish order, yet t fect union. They wanted to overcome the tariffs and strife between states and develop useful trade. They recognized that there must be some power to tax to run the government. There must be some authority. But to hkve liberty the degree of authority must be restrained and controlled. How did they do it? The Congress was made the principal instrument of the national government. It was given all the authority to formulate laws. They established an executive, who was to administer national policy. And a national court. they set up the court By this division of power, they sought to avoid any possible excess of power in anyone. They also diffused the powers among the states and the localities. They reserved to the states and to the people a lot of powers they didnt grant to the central government at all. The arguments pursued in doing these things show a great depth of understanding, a depth of feeling and a clarity of logic not readily duplicated by any run of the mine group then or now. The ninth and tenth amendments are part of this proposition of restraining the central government. The ninth says that the mention of any rights of the people in the constitution is not to be taken away nor to weaken any other rights of the people. The tenth amendment says that those powers not delegated by the Constitution to the United States and not forbidden by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. We have some members of the Supreme Court who should read that again. Its still the Constitution of the United States and it s fairly clear English written by people who knew the language. We dont have to apologize for what these people did. Lord Acton, the British historian, said it made possible the most prosperous nation m the world, the most powerful, with the most intelligent and the most free people in the world. cross-sectio- to-ge- , : |
