Dr. PALMER. Three buffalo were obtained from the Corbin herd and donated to the society.

Senator WARREN. And in this proposed park you would be able to take care of some elk?

Dr. PALMER. Yes; that is one of the first things we hope to take up. Senator WARREN. I do not think you ought to get close-cropping animals in there.

Senator CHAMBERLAIN. Why acquire a new site for bison? Why not put them in some of these already acquired preserves?

Dr. PALMER. That is exactly what we are trying to do. The Wind Cave National Park already belongs to the Government, and we hope to utilize it for this purpose. We do not want to have all the buffalo in two or three places on account of the danger of disease. We have a herd in the Yellowstone Park, which is a little too high in altitude. We have a herd in the Wichita Game Preserve, in Oklahoma, which has been fairly successful, but we have lost one or two from Texas fever. We also have a herd in Montana, which has been highly successful.

Senator WARREN. You are keeping entirely pure-bred animals? Dr. PALMER. Yes, sir. Last December, I think it was, there was an outbreak of hemorrhagic septicemia in the Yellowstone Park herd, which wiped out 22 head in a very short time.

Senator WARREN. I want you to leave your card with me, and if I hear any more of this talk about the park I may want to correspond with you. It has been very bold and obtrusive, the manner in which this has been condemned by certain parties throughout the country. Dr. PALMER. I shall be very glad to answer any critisicms of that

sort.

Senator CHAMBERLAIN. What has become of that herd that Conrad owned up in Montana?

Dr. PALMER. The Conrad herd was the chief source from which we secured our Montana buffalo. The Bison Society obtained 36 animals from the Conrad herd.

Senator WARREN. One question more, Doctor.

What about forage

in the winter in the park? Will the animals be able to survive during snows without putting up some hay in the Wind Cave Park?

Dr. PALMER. I think they will be all right, as we have little or no trouble of this kind on the Montana range, which is higher than the Wind Cave Park.

Senator WARREN. Have you any hay land that you could protect, so that you could put up some hay against severe winters?

Dr. PALMER. Some of these private holdings are ranch lands, which are now used for raising hay to some extent.

Senator WARREN. We are suffering some tremendous losses in the elk, and we will have to improve our methods of caring for them in the winter.

Dr. PALMER. We have been feeding these elk this winter. Let me repeat that the altitude of this park is very much lower than that of the Montana park or the Yellowstone National Park, and we think we will have no difficulty on that score.

The CHAIRMAN. Is this the country that the buffalo frequented away back in times past?

Dr. PALMER. It was in the heart of the buffalo country. One of the finest herds of buffalo in the country was raised in central South

39383-12- -7

Dakota. We believe there is no better place for obtaining fine specimens than there.

I shall just say in closing that the Wind Cave proposition is about one-half the size of the Montana bison range in area. It is lower in altitude. I believe there will be no trouble with feeding. I believe it is admirably adapted for the purpose and will make a great game park in addition to its present attractions.

Senator GUGGENHEIM. Are the climatic conditions first-class there for raising buffalo?

Dr. PALMER. Yes, sir; they are first class.

Senator WARREN. How many do you propose to put in there?

Dr. PALMER. The society originally proposed to put in 15, the same number that the New York Zoological Society furnished for the Wichita Preserve. They now now say they are prepared to put in 25 or 30.

Senator WARREN. As you breed up, how many do you think the place will support? You have not given any expert opinion about what it would support.

Dr. PALMER. I think it will hold several hundred without any question.

Senator GUGGENHEIM. This includes cows as well as bulls for breeding purposes?

Dr. PALMER. Yes, sir. Comparatively few are bulls, however. Senator WARREN. When you speak of bison you include bulls as well as cows?

Dr. PALMER. Certainly.

Senator WARREN. I take it for granted that you will put in the regular percentage for breeding?

Dr. PALMER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Palmer, we are very much obliged to you for your attendance here and the information you have given to the committee.

Dr. PALMER. You are very welcome.

There being no further questions, Dr. Palmer was thereupon excused.

The CHAIRMAN. We have before us now an amendment introduced by Senator Page, which is in substance a provision for experiments in the breeding of horses for military purposes. We have with us to-day Col. Stanley, representing the War Department.

Col. Stanley, if you will give us some information about that particular proposition we will be glad to hear you.

STATEMENT OF LIEUT. COL. D. S. STANLEY, DEPUTY QUARTERMASTER GENERAL, UNITED STATES ARMY, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Col. STANLEY. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, the subject of encouraging the breeding of horses suitable for military purposes throughout the country is considered a most important one by the War Department to-day. In this connection I wish to quote or to invite your attention for a moment to remarks of the Quartermaster General in a hearing before the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives on December 17, 1910, in which he said:

quote

In 1895 I was first appointed to the Quartermaster's Department from the Cavalry. I was assigned to station in St. Louis and assigned to duty purchasing Cavalry and Artillery horses and draft animals. At that time there was an abundance of suitable horses, especially in Missouri, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Kansas. *

*

*

In September, 1898, I was relieved from that duty and had no more connection with it until I returned from the Phillipines in 1903, when I was again assigned to the same duty and purchased horses over the same section of the country. I was surprised to see what a great change had taken place as to the practicability of securing the horses that were suitable for our mounted service.

An officer who has recently been on duty in Kansas City exclusively purchasing Cavalry and Artillery horses for the Army stated in 1910, after a period of four years continuously purchasing animals, as follows:

Of the thousands of horses that pass through these markets (Chicago, East St. Louis, Kansas City) every year, probably 90 per cent fall below the standard one might wish to see established. It is difficult to classify a great many of these horses, particular types not being numerous, and some are mongrels and misfits altogether, hardly worth while sending to the market. In spite of this the demand is great and seems to be increasing, with prices high. Opinions differ as to the causes of the inferiority, but there is no doubt some of it is caused by haphazard, ill-advised, and, in some cases, pernicious breeding. There is not much attempt to breed to types, and in some extreme cases no man of judgment could possibly expect other than a worthless foal. A farmer owns a mare and expects her to produce a foal every year. She may be totally unfit to be bred, but that does not matter. He takes her to a stallion totally unfit to serve, but that does not matter. What is the result? Nothing. But that does not prevent the farmer from doing the same thing the next year.

An officer of the Quartermaster Department in charge of the remount depot at Fort Keogh, Mont., commenting upon the growing scarcity of suitable horses for the Army, remarks in a report of February 8, 1912, received by the department, as follows:

Since this depot was established in July, 1909, over 67,000 horses (mostly light horses) have been sold at the sales yard in Miles City, Mont.

From this great number of horses this depot has had its pick, and we have purchased 2,300 to date from all sources.

It is predicted by the best-informed stockmen of this vicinity that two years more will so exhaust the range supply in the Northwestern States that the Miles City sales yards will be closed.

The supply of horses for the Army in ordinary peace times is about 2,000 a year. It can not therefore be asserted by the department that we are unable to obtain a paltry 2,000 horses a year from the 23,000,000 or more which the last census shows there are in this country. At the same time, if the question be considered from the standpoint of mobilization of the Army or a war measure, the figures become almost appalling.

In that connection it might be said that the campaigns of our Civil War show some of the requirements of horseflesh as follows: There were purchased for the armies of the Federal Government in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1864, 188,718 horses. There were also reported 20,000 horses captured. The Army required 500 horses each day at this stage of the Civil War.

Gen. Sheridan, during his campaign in the Valley of the Shenandoah, used up horseflesh at the rate of 150 a day.

The same proportion of wasted horseflesh can be cited in the Boer War, in all previous wars, in the great campaigns of Napoleon in Russia, and so on.

It might be stated that nearly all foreign Governments, the continental powers of Europe, see the necessity of encouraging the

breeding of horses for military purposes in order to have within their borders sufficient horses for their armies in case of mobilization.

I might say, in this connection, that France, upon mobilization of her army, would require at once 483,000 horses; Germany would require at once 380,000 horses; Great Britain would require 186,000 horses.

While, as I have stated before, the War Department feels that this is a matter of vital importance as a military precaution for the national defense, yet I believe it is also just as important from an economic standpoint to the American breeder and animal husbandman as it is to the authorities who are responsible for the military defense of this country. We believe that if there were to be an overproduction of horses in this country over what is required for the needs of the Army that we will be in a position to invite a foreign market to this country for these horses that will require all the horses that can be raised or supplied and, therefore, that there is no danger of overproduction whatever.

There is no danger from overproduction to-day of the draft horse, because there is an immediate demand for the draft horse; but with the advent of the trolley car, the automobile, better roads and better means of communication by common carriers, railroads, interurban trolleys, and so on, the necessity for the quick moving, fast driving, or riding horse has very largely disappeared. The necessity has not, however, disappeared for the military service. The horse is just as necessary as a means of war to-day as he ever was in the War of the Rebellion or in any previous war; in fact, I might say that if anything he is more necessary.

Senator CHAMBERLAIN. Colonel, do you know how many horses are used in the Army per annum?

Col. STANLEY. About 2,000.

Senator CHAMBERLAIN. For all the services, Artillery, Cavalry, and all?

Col. STANLEY. The total authorized allowance of horses for the Army for Cavalry, Artillery, saddle horses for Signal Corps, Engineers, mountain artillery, mounted scouts, etc., is 18,965. Under the present scheme of buying young horses and bringing them together at remount depots, and there training them and putting them into the service sound and well trained under our own supervision, we believe that the useful life of a horse will be at least 10 years. Statistics taken for a period of 25 years, including the Spanish-American War and previous to that time, show that the average useful life of an Army mount has been 6.4 years. Taking the useful life as 10 years, it would be necessary to supply 10 per cent a year. I may, therefore, say that the average number required yearly by the Army under ordinary conditions, as the Army is now constituted, is about 2,000.

Senator CHAMBERLAIN. How many remount stations have you? Col. STANLEY. We have remount stations at Fort Keogh, Mont., Fort Reno, Okla., and Front Royal, Va.

Senator CHAMBERLAIN. Is breeding done at those stations, or do they simply take the purchased horses to those remount stations? Col. STANLEY. The intention of the remount system has not been to breed horses, and the Quartermaster's Department has not entered upon the subject of breeding horses. We buy the colts as three and four year olds, keep them at the remount station about a year, train them carefully, develop them, and then issue them to the troops.

Senator CHAMBERLAIN. But you are breeding some now, are you not?

Col. STANLEY. We have some stallions at Front Royal, Va. These horses, however, belong to the Department of Agriculture. Under the law, as now written, the annual appropriation act for the Army contains language to the effect that no part of the appropriation for the purchase of horses-Cavalry, Artillery, Engineers shall be used for breeding purposes. I believe it is the intention to omit, and in fact I know that this language has been stricken from the Army appropriation bill as passed by the House of Representatives at this session. Senator GUGGENHEIM. Have you not some stallions at Fort Collins, Colo., at the agricultural station?

Col. STANLEY. No, sir. The Agricultural Department has those. They have no connection with the Army whatsoever. The Agricultural Department has stallions at Fort Collins, Colo.; at Middlebury, Vt., and two stallions at Front Royal, Va., which form a nucleus or starter for the scheme of the Agricultural Department to encourage the breeding of military mounts. Without a cent having been appropriated, they have been able to maintain these two horses to start this project of Army horse breeding.

In that connection I want to say that in Virginia, where this thing has been started in such a small way, it has met with the greatest approval on the part of the breeders and farmers. We have five. times, I might say, more applications for service than the horses we have there can take care of.

The CHAIRMAN. Is the horse adapted to farm purposes a good Cavalry horse?

Čol. STANLEY. Absolutely not. A draft horse-and I have just as much admiration for a draft horse, within his sphere of utility, as any man-I may say, is little more fitted for a military horse than draft ox is. He is too slow; he has not the mobility; he has too much beef; he is utterly unsuited for that purpose.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any particular breed of horses especially adapted to Cavalry purposes?

Col. STANLEY. On that question, Mr. Chairman, there is a very wide range of opinion, and the respective advocates of the various breeds in this country are very jealous of their opinion. The Quartermaster General's office has carefully avoided entering into this discussion, because we know that they are all good, and if we could have any one of them for a mount for our Cavalry we would be immensely pleased.

Senator CHAMBERLAIN. They are paying a great deal of attention to breeding on the Continent, are they not?

Col. STANLEY. A very great deal. Germany, at their large studs at Trakehnen, Graditz, Baberick, and elsewhere, aims to maintain some 2,500 Government stallions of various breeds.

France makes large appropriations annually for encouraging the breeding of horses that are suitable for military purposes.

England has recently taken up the same thing, and their last appropriation was some £50,000, I think.

Austria-Hungary has done it since 1765. Even Russia has found, with their great herds of horses on their steppes, that they have not sufficient horses for military purposes of a suitable type.