Mr. CARSON. In the Columbia River area, there is more than onefifth, in the two States. I should say that in the area directly back of Portland, there is about one-tenth of it. In the Coos Bay area down there, there are 200 billion feet. That is in southwestern Oregon, in a different group. That is on the side of the mountains, at the end of the Willamette Valley. I should say that one-tenth of the standing timber of the United States is in that Portland area, and that about one-fourth of the standing timber in the United States is in that Columbia River area, within the two States.

The CHAIRMAN. The country from Astoria to Portland is very mountainous, is it not, following the Columbia River?

Mr. CARSON. No, sir; I would not say that.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any agricultural lands there?

Mr. CARSON. Yes, sir; Clatsop County is a very rich agricultural county, and can be easily further developed.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is all the timber you were referring to? Mr. CARSON. I was referring to two areas in which we have large stands of timber.

The CHAIRMAN. You have the lower lands to use for agriculture. Mr. MOTT. He means that timber grows principally in the moun

tains.

The CHAIRMAN. My recollection is that from Astoria to Portland, you go through a mountainour and timbered country.

Mr. CARSON. I assume you went up by water.

The CHAIRMAN. No; by highway.

Mr. CARSON. They must have brought you through pretty fast, because in Columbia and Clatsop Counties there are some very fine agricultural lands. They also have a great deal of timber.

Mr. MOTT. What portion of our State is owned by the Federal Government?

Mr. CARSON. Over half of it.

Mr. MOTT. And included in that portion are how much of the timbered lands?

Mr. CARSON. I am making a guess, but I know it is fairly accurate, when I say that three-fourths of the standing timber of Oregon belongs to the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. Over half of the land of Oregon is public land?
Mr. MOTT. Fifty-four percent of it is owned by the Federal Gov-

ernment.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, it has been withdrawn from entry.
Mr. MoTT. Yes.

Mr. CARSON. You will remember that under the act of 1906 or 1907 the Secretary of Agriculture was ordered to classi, the public. lands of the United States. Later on that was done, and Congress passed an act under which the findings of the Secretary of Agriculture became the law. That is to say, when he made a classification of land not fitted chiefly for agricultural purposes, it was the same as if Congress itself had passed an act specifically mentioning the townships or sections.

The Department of Agriculture has refused to permit people to go in the middle of those great forests, even if the land is very good, on the theory that it is hazarduous in many ways to the timber to allow any one to go into the heart of the forests and homestead land. Therefore, they simply say that it is not fit chiefly for agricultural purposes

Of course, that ends it so far as the settler is concerned. I think that is a very wise policy, and I do not think they should allow people to go in there, in the midst of the forest.

Mr. PHILLIPS. How much of the land the Government owns is forest and how much is not?

Mr. CARSON. If we take the western part of the State, I should say that 90 percent of it is forest land.

Mr. PHILLIPS. You say the Government owns 54 percent of the land? What is the character of the other portion owned by the Government?

Mr. CARSON. I am going to confine myself to the 54 percent. Of that land, I should say that 75 percent is forest.

Mr. PHILLIPS. What does the Government do with that land? Do they simply keep it as a forest reserve?

Mr. CARSON. They sell some timber. When they find that timber has reached a stage where it would become overripe, they sell it. Mr. PHILLIPS. They make a careful selection of the timber.

Mr. CARSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. PHILLIPS. What do they do with the other 25 percent of Government-owned land?

Mr. CARSON. That would be mostly semiarid land, in the eastern part of the State.

The CHAIRMAN. It is grazing land.

Mr. CARSON. Yes, sir. In the western section, you have the Umpqua, Siuslaw, Mount Hood, and all those different national forests owned by the United States.

Mr. PHILLIPS. You say 75 percent of the Government-owned land is forested, and I want to know what the Government does with the other 25 percent.

Mr. CARSON. They rent it out for grazing. The timbered land is in the western section of the State, and the eastern section of the State is semiarid. I may be wrong in my estimate as to the proportion that is in forest and the part that is in the grazing section. The western section is the more important, and I am sure that 75 percent of the Government holdings is in forest lands.

The CHAIRMAN. The western section of the State is the section that you can reach from the coast, and that is the only part that is thickly populated.

Mr. CARSON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. East of the Cascades, you have arid lands or dry lands.

Mr. CARSON. Yes, sir. As a basis of comparison, there are just half as many people in the second Oregon district as there are in the city of Portland. The population there is very much smaller. I do not believe it will exceed 175,000.

The CHAIRMAN. How far is Bonneville Dam above Portland?

Mr. CARSON. Forty miles. The Government is installing sea locks, so that ocean-going vessels can go 90 miles further inland than Portland, through The Dalles and Salida Rapids. This project is one that is worth defending, and I would not want an enemy to drop a depth bomb on those works.

Mr. PHILLIPS. What Department of the Government operates those Government-owned lands?

Mr. CARSON. The Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Morт. The Interior Department has charge of some of them. They have charge of the pasture lands and of the revested forest lands. We have 3,000,000 acres of timbered land in western Oregon that were owned by the predecessor of the Southern Pacific Railroad, which it acquired under a Government grant for putting a railroad through that country. The railroad violated some conditions of the grant, and, as a result, those lands have been taken off the tax rolls. The Government revested the land in itself, which means unless we receive proper Federal reimbursement, a loss of $480,000 a year in taxes.

Mr. McGRATH. Have the people in the Civilian Conservation Camps through the forest area in western Oregon been able to take care of the underbrush so as to prevent fires?

Mr. CARSON. They have helped a lot, but it would take a million men thousands of days to take the underbrush out of all those forests. They have built trails and they have built facilities whereby the men in the Forest Service in fighting fires can go from one place to another more readily. They have done a splendid job in that regard.

Mr. McGRATH. Would it be an easy matter to set those forests on fire by airplane bombs operating over those large valuable forest areas? Mr. CARSON. They could with incendiary bombs dropped at the right time. There is no question about that, especially if the wind conditions were favorable to fire. It would be the simplest thing in the world. That is something that we fear more than anything else in Oregon, because those forest fires destroy trees requiring a hundred years to grow.

Mr. MCGRATH. Enemy planes could cause that destruction.

Mr. CARSON. There is no question about that, and they would endanger many cities in Oregon. That would be one of our worries in the city of Portland.

Mr. McGRATH. I just bring that point out. It is a very important thing that you should have some protection from an invading fleet of planes coming from any other section into that area. That is another good reason why the Tongue Point project should be very seriously considered.

Mr. CARSON. We think so. I think you have brought out a more important point there than I have brought out. Certainly forest fires could be started very easily in that way.

Mr. MOTT. If such a thing should occur as the destruction of the forests by an incendiary bomb dropped from an airplane, what part of the State's industrial pay roll would be destroyed?

Mr. CARSON. Over half of it.

Mr. MILLARD. Did you hear the statement about Coos Bay?

Mr. CARSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. MILLARD. Would it embarrass you to give an opinion as to whether that is a more available place for this base than Tongue Point?

Mr. CARSON. No, sir; Tongue Point is a better location, because there are more people living in that area. It would be desirable to have one at Coos Bay also; but this is more important, because, in the end, it is the people we will have to protect.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is nothing further, we thank you for your

statement.

Mr. MOTT. At this point, I would like to read a telegram that I

hearings last year. This telegram is addressed to me by Mr. Merle R. Chessman and reads as follows:

Note from hearing reports King and Austin testified proposed base not fit in with Navy's defense plans and that Tongue Point not on Navy's development list. This at variance with King's testimony last year, when he said Columbia River first priority after three primary bases. Refer to hearing pages 2487 to 2490. Note also Coos Bay stated preferable to Columbia. This is new and merely indicates how fast Department shifts ground. Reports say they testified there are 50 points on coast as needful of protection as Portland, which is slander on Columbia River. Magnuson quoted as saying he is opposed to bill, and today Seattle Chamber asks for million dollars for development Sand Point. This follows Tacoma Chamber's request for abandoning Vancouver and moving troops to Fort Lewis. Good luck and best wishes.

In order to clear up what may have appeared to some to be a little confusing yesterday, I would like to read a brief portion of the record to which Mr. Chessman's telegram refers and which I summarized in my statement yesterday, beginning on page 2487. This is from the examination of Admiral King [reading]:

Mr. DARROW. As I have listened to the testimony, this question comes to my mind as to the action that should be taken by the committee. It is not so much the question whether Tongue Point is the best location for a shore air base, to my mind, but is an aviation field there essential from the Navy standpoint for national defense in practically the mouth of the Columbia River? In your judgment, would that be a wise thing for us to do, whether at Tongue Point or some other site in the mouth of the Columbia River?

Admiral KING. I think I am ready to say that once the three primary air bases on the west coast are established that the region in the mouth of the Columbia River, or covering the mouth of the Columbia River, has the next call. But I would like to say that that is my personal, although also my professional, opinion. Mr. DARROW. I think it was in 1923 I personally visited that section, and the chairman has referred to that visit also. At that time the great question as to the development of the Pacific coast was "Shall we develop a base at Alameda?" And we went up the coast and visited places of this kind, and, as I recall it, Tongue Point was then also being discussed. The point I want to get at if I can is the desirability now from a national standpoint of establishing a base somewhere around the mouth of the Columbia River to protect that great inland empire that has been described to us.

Admiral KING. I endeavored to answer that. I think I have answered that question.

Mr. DARROW. In other words, that would be the next thing, according to your view.

Admiral KING. That is my personal, and likewise my professional, opinion. The CHAIRMAN. Then as Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics, you are telling the committee that after we have established the three primary air bases on the Pacific coast, one at San Diego, one at Seattle-at Sand Point-and you have only one more to establish, which you recommend in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay-after those have been established, the next aviation activity that you recommend and which is of national use and of high importance is the development of a base in the vicinity of the mouth of the Columbia River? Admiral KING. In the continental United States.

The CHAIRMAN. You say you have already sent up a bill here in regard to the other primary base on San Francisco Bay?

Admiral KING. Congressman Carter has introduced a bill which was referred to the Navy Department and is on its way back to the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. With recommendations attached?

Mr. DARROW. Approved by the Navy Department?

Admiral KING. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Why should not we add Tongue Point to that and accomplish what you want in one bill?

Mr. MCFARLANE. On that point I understand from your remarks that there might be some additional development at Hawaii, as well as Alaska, before you would recommend this.

Admiral KING. That was the tenor of the testimony that I gave yesterday, and I have not changed in that.

The CHAIRMAN. He said "continental United States."

Mr. MCFARLANE. I understand, but these other matters would come ahead of it if and when. I think those matters ought to be taken into consideration.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no more doubt in my mind since the Admiral has said that if we get the primary bases established, then as far as the continental United States is concerned, the next aviation base that should be developed is in the vicinity of the Columbia River. I am not pinning him down to any particular base. He is not confining himself to any particular place. He said in the vicinity of the Columbia River. That covers a wide latitude.

So that, in order to make the record perfectly clear, is Admiral King's direct statement. I read that for the information of the new members.

The CHAIRMAN. The situation is this: We have passed the necessary bill for the development of an air base in San Francisco, at Alameda. Now, in that connection we have got a bill here that I think is going right along with all this development. The War Department turned over to the Navy a portion of land down there in the vicinity of Alameda, known as Benton Field; and we authorized an expenditure of about $15,000,000 for Alameda.

Now, I want to ask the committee to take up for hearing when we finish this hearing, this bill for this air base on San Francisco Bay. It might be possible to develop Benton Field a great deal cheaper than the cost contemplated to build up Alameda, because at Alameda you have got to dredge and build up or make about 1,700 acres of land, and you might save $1,500,000 or more by developing something at Benton Field; and then we will not be hurting the Budget, because we will have sufficient money for these two projects; and they will be within the $15,000,000.

Mr. MOTT. This is Mr. Carter's revised bill?

The CHAIRMAN. No; this is one the Department sent to the committee.

Mr. MOTT. Well, this covers the same thing. As I understand it, this takes in a little more and a little different territory.

The CHAIRMAN. It takes in all the naval needs, and we will not have to spend $14,000,000 or $15,000,000 to develop it; and we may be able to save a great deal of money by developing the Benton Field, instead of having such a large development at Alameda; and therefore we can develop both the Alameda and Benton Field bases within the $15,000,000 authorized for Alameda.

Mr. McGRATH. May I ask at this time, Mr. Chairman, what is the acreage in Benton Field?

The CHAIRMAN. I do not know. In dollars and cents, it has already been reduced $500,000.

Mr. MCGRATH. It is my understanding that the Alameda field would not make a good field, unless Benton Field was donated by the Army?

The CHAIRMAN. No, that did not enter into it; because the Army owns Benton Field; and that dwelt exclusively with dredging about 900 acres of land and making a field with only about 100 acres of ready-made land.

Mr. McGRATH. Could we find out if Benton Field is large enough for the purposes?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we will take that bill up and consider it as soon as we get through with this one.

Admiral, the committee will be glad if you will make a statement