illimitable distances. Gradually this idea of distance disappears, the magnificent work of nature seems to draw nearer and nearer, reduced apparently by an unseen miscrope to the refinement of a delicate cameo. Each view becomes a refined miniature, framed by another more fascinating, the whole presenting an impressive picture, never to be forgotten. ACCESSIBILITY. Perhaps the most attractive feature of the plan to create this park, viewed from both the National and the State standpoints, is the accessibility of the area. In considering the probable success of this proposed park, I have kept constantly in mind the enormous population of the eastern part of the United States, which would derive benefit from it, its nearness to the large centers of population, and the low transportation charges in effect during the season in which it would be most visited. Estes Park can be reached from Chicago in about 30 hours and from Denver by automobile in about 3 hours. These factors will lead to a large amount of travel into the park from outside the State and undoubtedly will result in its assuming a much more national character than any of the existing parks. Denver being the center of practically all the railroad systems west of Mississippi River, the number of visitors that may be expected annually in the proposed park will add enormous revenues to the State of Colorado and will make this one of its most productive sections. There has been a marked increase within the last few years in the annual number of visitors to Estes Park and vicinity. It is estimated that this number has increased from 1,800 to 30,000 within a comparatively short time and, with the added attraction of the national park, it seems safe to predict that within a decade or two 100,000 or more people from all sections of the United States will visit this area each year. From a purely commercial standpoint, then, the proposed national park should certainly appeal to the people of the State of Colorado. Moreover, every citizen of Colorado realizes full well the value of the entire State as a health resort, and, reputed for their hospitality as they are, I am sure that none of them would wish, from selfish motives, to prevent the enjoyment of the benefits of his State by the greatest number of people of the whole country; but the State does need the help of the National Government in this, and I know of no way in which this assistance can be better rendered than in the establishment and maintenance of a national park. There is even now in the Estes Park one good hotel, the Stanley, which probably cost in the neighborhood of $500,000, and numerous smaller ones, which seem to indicate clearly the confidence of the public in the permanency of the attractions of this mountain park. Little, if anything, further need be said in favor of the passage of this bill. All opposition to the extension of the Rocky Mountain National Park has been eliminated by confining the areas to those proposed within the boundaries described in the bill as amended. This is not a new proposition in any sense, but only a small enlargement of a park established by Congress January 26, 1915. No agricultural or mineral lands are included in the proposed extension. The Forest Service is very glad to be able to turn over the small areas that have heretofore been under its jurisdiction to the administration of the Interior Department. The committee, therefore, after having given this matter very careful and thorough consideration, earnestly recommend the passage of this bill. O 64TH CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 1st Session. PATENTS FOR CERTAIN LANDS TO TOWN OF MYTON, UTAH. APRIL 7, 1916.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. Mr. MAYS, from the Committee on the Public Lands, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany S. 35.] The Committee on the Public Lands, to which was referred the bill (S. 35) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue patents for certain lands to the town of Myton, Utah, having considered same, beg leave to report it to the House with the recommendation that it do pass. The Uintah Indian Reservation was opened to entry under the homestead and town-site laws by the act of March 3, 1905 (33 Stat., 1069), the act providing that the net proceeds of the sale of such land should be credited to the Indians of the Uintah Reservation. Under this act the President, on July 31 and August 14, 1905, issued a proclamation (34 Stat., 3139, 3143) by which he reserved to the town site of Myton, Utah, the following lands: Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, SW. † of the NE. ; S. of the NW. ; W. SE. 1, and the SW. 1, sec. 25; and lots 1, 2, SE. of the NE., and the E. of the SE., sec. 26, T. 3 S., R. 2 W., and the SW. of the SW. (or lot 4), sec. 19; NW. of the NW., sec. 29, and the N., sec. 30, T. 3 S., R. 1 W., Uintah special meridian. Of these lands the lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, the SW. NE. and the S. the NW. 1, sec. 25; lots 1, 2, the SE. the NE. 1, sec. 26, were platted into lots and blocks, the remainder being reserved for subdivision until the growth of the town should demand such subdivision. Two of the blocks in such subdivision were designated in the plat as "school reserve." The land thus subdivided has nearly all been disposed of at this time. In January, 1908, the Department of the Interior set aside and reserved all that portion of unsubdivided block No. 1 lying west of the Duchesne River for a public common, and in May of the same year HR-64-1-vol 2- -21 the Department of the Interior reserved and set aside for public-park purposes all those portions of unsubdivided blocks 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, lying east and north of the Duchesne River; and in 1911 the department set aside for cemetery purposes the S. the NW. † in said section 30. This bill proposes to authorize the Department of the Interior to issue patents to the town of Myton to the lands above described for the purposes set forth, and to further authorize the Department of the Interior to issue patents to the SW. the SW. of said section 19, to be used as a site for a pumping station and the patenting of the N. the NW., section 30, to be used as a reservoir and other purposes incidental to the distribution of water to the citizens of Myton. The Department of the Interior has recommended the passage of this bill, and the report of the Acting Secretary is printed herewith DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Hon. SCOTT FERRIS, MY DEAR MR. FERRIS: I am in receipt of your request of March 13, 1916, for a report on S. 35, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue patents for certain lands to the town of Myton, Utah, and in response thereto I have the honor to submit the following: The land described is in the Uintah Indian Reservation, Utah, and was opened to entry under the acts of May 27, 1902 (32 Stat., 263), and March 3, 1905 (33 Stat., 1069), which provided for the disposition of the lands in said reservation under the general provisions of the homestead and town-site laws of the United States. Under said acts, the President, by his proclamations of July 21 and August 14, 1905 (34 Stat., 3139, 3143), reserved for town-site purposes the W. of E. and W. of sec. 25 and the E. of E. of sec. 26, T. 3 S., R. 2 W., and the SW.SW. sec. 19, and N. sec. 30, and NW. sec. 29, T. 3 S., R. 1 W., Uintah special meridian. The W. NE. † and NW. of sec. 25 and the E. NE. of said sec. 26 were surveyed into lots and blocks. January 25, 1908, the Secretary reserved all that portion of the unsubdivided block No. 1 which lies west of the Duchesne River, to be used for a public common. May 6, 1908, the Secretary reserved all those portions of blocks 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 which lie east and north of the Duchesne River, to be used as a public park. June 1, 1911, the department set aside the S. NW. of said section 30 for cemetery purposes. Under the act opening said Indian reservation the proceeds derived from the sale of the lands therein were to be credited to the Indians of the reservation, for which reason it has been held by this department that unless special provision is made by law for the withdrawal of lands for public purposes in Indian lands there is no authority for creating public reserves and patenting them to the municipalities having charge of such reservations. In subdividing that portion of the town site which has been platted blocks 36 and 46 were each designated "school reserve." I am therefore of the opinion that the bill should be amended to require the payment of a purchase price at the rate of at least $1.25 per acre; and when so amended I see no objections to the enactment of the proposed legislation. Cordially, yours, LEAVE OF ABSENCE FOR HOMESTEAD SETTLERS UPON UNSURVEYED LANDS. APRIL 7, 1916.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. Mr. TAYLOR of Colorado, from the Committee on the Public Lands, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany S. 1066.] The Committee on the Public Lands, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1066) authorizing leave of absence to homestead settlers upon unsurveyed lands having had the same under consideration, recommend that it be amended as follows: In line 7, page 1, strike out the words "continuous leave" and strike all of line 8 and the words "not exceeding" in line 9, and insert in lieu thereof the following: "leave of absence in one or two continuous periods not exceeding in the aggregate.' As so amended the committee recommends that the bill do pass. The bill as thus amended reads as follows: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any qualified person who has heretofore or shall hereafter in good faith make settlement upon and improve unsurveyed unreserved unappropriated public lands of the United States with intention, upon survey, of entering same under the homestead laws shall be entitled to a leave of absence in one or two continuous periods not exceeding in the aggregate five months in each year after establishment of residence: Provided, That he shall have plainly marked on the ground the exterior boundaries of the lands claimed and have filed in the local land office notice of the approximate location of the lands settled upon and claimed, of the period of intended absence, and that he shall upon the termination of the absence and his return to the land file notice thereof in the local land office. A bill similar to this was introduced in the House by Mr. Taylor of Colorado, as H. R. 9691, and was referred by your committee to the Interior Department for report on February 1, and the Secretary of the Interior reported thereon as follows: Hon. SCOTT FERRIS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Chairman Committee on the Public Lands, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. FERRIS: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your request for a report on H. R. 9691, to grant an absence privilege during each year to homestead settlers upon the unsurveyed public lands. The bill is identical in its provisions with S. 2316, Sixty-third Congress, as reported to the House of Representatives by your committee March 20, 1914, except that the maximum absence is now fixed at seven months instead of five. We had recommended passage of S. 2316, and the committee's amendment was made, at the suggestion of the Department of Agriculture, in order to remove ambiguity which might have resulted to the detriment of the public interests in the national forests. I repeat here the reasons for my recommendation of the enactment, set forth in my report on S. 2316. By section 3 of the act of May 14, 1880 (21 Stat., 140), settlers upon unsurveyed public lands are allowed a preference right to make entry for the tracts claimed by them within three months after the filing of the plats of survey; their rights relate back to the time of settlement, and they are, consequently, on submission of final proof, allowed credit for residence and cultivation had before the dates of their entries. In a general way these settlers are required to keep up a substantially continuous residence in order to maintain their preference right of entry and in order to entitle themselves to credit for compliance with the homestead laws prior to the dates of their entries. However, there is no statute law as to the extent to which they may absent themselves without forfeiting their preference rights, nor is there such a law to allow them to absent themselves without forfeiting their credit for residence. As stated, the law expressly grants these settlers the right to initiate their homestead claims by settlement, and no good reason appears why they should not be allowed the same periods of absence from the land as are, by the three-year act of June 6, 1912 (37 Stat., 123), allowed to persons who have actually placed their entries of record. However, no reason exists why the settlers should be accorded the privilege of longer absence than is granted persons who have made entries, and the homestead law does not allow credit for a year's residence unless there has been actual stay upon the land for at least seven months thereof. Therefore the word "seven" (relating to absences) should be changed to "five." On the other hand, the act of August 22, 1914 (38 Stat., 704), permits the entrymen to divide the allowable absences in each year into two periods, and I see no reason why the same privilege should not be given to settlers on unsurveyed land. Therefore I recommend the enactment of the bill, provided the allowable absence be limited to five months, but that it be amended before its enactment by striking out "continuous" in line 7, all of line 8, and "period not exceeding seven " in line 9, page 1, and inserting in lieu thereof "leave of absence in one or two continuous periods not exceeding in the aggregate five." Cordially, yours, FRANKLIN K. LANE, Secretary. The bill was thereafter, on February 5, reported to the House by your committee, and on March 6 was passed by the House and sent to the Senate. This action was taken without knowledge of the fact that the Senate had on the 10th of January passed the present bill (S. 1066) and sent it over to the House, the bill apparently having been retained on the Speaker's desk. The Senate bill was not referred by the Senate committee to the Interior Department during this Congress, and for that reason no mention of it was made in the report of the Secretary of the Interior and no official knowledge was had of its passage. However, a similar bill was favorably reported by the Interior Department to the Sixtythird Congress, as is stated by the Secretary. Your committee in addition to the report of the Interior Department filed on bill H. R. 9691, Report No. 126, makes an additional statement in behalf of the measure as follows: The report of the Secretary is very full, and it would seem that little further need be said in support of this measure. There are a large number of homestead settlers upon the unsurveyed public domain, many of whom have been living upon their lands for a great many years without being able to obtain title thereto because of the Government being unable to extend the survey to such lands. It was shown before your committee that men have been living on lands for 25 years without being able to induce the Government |