ceptionally attractive tourist route, we will have desolate strips of thoroughly messed up land bordering the highway right-of-way.

There is already a considerable amount of privately owned land along this highway. Much of it is used for business purposes such as gas stations, restaurants, tourist camps, stores, and so forth. There is undoubtedly enough room on private land to take care of the public needs. The Forest Service plan provides, therefore, that the national forest land will be kept free of commercial uses so that travelers on the road may enjoy some natural scenery. It is evident that this plan will be completely ineffective if the mining claims go to patent under the present mining laws.

Still another serious interference with proper land management arises through the objection of some mining claimants to the construction of public roads across their claims. This situation is not encountered very frequently, but on the other hand, it is far from being unusual. There seems to be no question but that mining claims should not be allowed to block access to and the orderly development of other Government-owned land,

There is an exceptionally beautiful lake in one of the national forests of region 6 which is very popular with youth character-building organizations such as Boy and Girl Scouts, YMCA, and so forth. The national forest land bordering the lake has been set aside primarily for the use of these organizations for camping purposes. Public camp and picnic grounds are elso established, but summer home and other use by individuals in contrast to use by organizations and the general public is not being allowed. This is because there is not room for all of these uses, and the more important ones must therefore be given priority. This program has met with quite general public approval. It could be completely ruined if minerals, especially those subject to placer claims, were discovered in this area. The ground could be torn up, the roadsides denuded, the timber cut, summer homes, taverns, and other commercial ventures established, and so forth.

Also, when claims go to patent, the claimants get title to all of the timber remaining on the land. In many cases, even on the east side of the Cascades where the timber stands per acre are comparatively light, this timber will be worth much more than the pumice. On the west side of the Cascades in the heavier stands of Douglas fir, the timber may be worth as much as $2,000 per acre. On such land under some circumstances the present laws would permit the owners of a 160-acre association claim to acquire title to better than a quarter million dollars worth of timber for an expenditure of around $1,000. With stakes that high, is it any wonder that efforts are constantly being made to take advantage of the Government through the loopholes offered by the mining laws?

Pumice exists up in the Wenatchee territory also. There, water and soil erosion control are tremendously important because of the orchards. Fishing, hunting, and camping are also popular revenueproducing activities. Uncontrolled mining of pumice in that country, with its resulting tearing up of the ground and removal of the timber and vegetative ground cover, could do irreparable damage to the economy of the entire region.

Gold placer claims have been located on section after section of national forest land along the Crater Lake National Park approach road

between Medford and the park boundary. This too is a beautiful road passing through splendid stands of timber. Commercial developments, summer homes, and other occupancies of the national forest land visible from the highway are being held to the minimum necessary to provide adequately for the public. Timber cutting is limited to dead and dying trees. Examinations have been made by three qualified mineral examiners, none of whom were able to find any mineral values. The claims are, therefore, being contested by the Government, but they are a constant threat to our plans to protect this highway and to properly manage the timber which borders it.

I have talked largely about placer claims because right now they are giving more trouble in the national forests of Oregon and Washington than are the lode claims. However, in general, the failures of the mining laws to adequately protect the public interests are the same for lode claims as those I have mentioned for placer claims. Those failures are the things that need correcting. The Forest Service is anxious that the mineral values of national forest lands be discovered and developed, but does not believe that minerals should take precedence over everything else-regardless of the quantity and quality of the other values involved. It is, of course, realized that in some cases the mineral values are high enough to overshadow all others. Where this is true, the timber production possibilities of the land must be sacrificed. Unfortunately, however, under the present laws it all too frequently happens that the much larger timber or other values are the ones which are sacrificed to the much smaller mineral values. Proper management of national forests is just not possible as long as that condition exists. Thank you.

Mr. LEONARD NETZORG (acting chairman). Another facet of the mining-law problems as they relate to public land administration will be presented by E. Morgan Pryse.

STATEMENT OF E. MORGAN PRYSE, REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, WITH HEADQUARTERS IN PORTLAND, OREG.

Mr. PRYSE. Mr. Chairman, Mr. White, gentlemen, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the discussions we have had this morning and this afternoon and I'm sure everyone here is interested in developing this great resource for the greatest good to the greatest number in the long run.

Speaking as the representative of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in this region, I wish to first point out and emphasize two important matters which cannot be overlooked in any consideration of mining operations on Indian lands. First, Indian lands are privately owned lands and in no manner should be confused with the public domain. True, the legal title to such lands is held by the United States in trust for the Indians under treaties with the Indians, but this title is held only for the benefit and occupancy use of the Indians. It's a vested property right recognized by, as I say, the solemn treaties and compacts, either in Indians as individuals or Indians in tribal ownership. This right has been recognized many times by many courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, and this right, of course, cannot be extinguished without due process of law.

Secondly, mining enterprises on Indian individually owned tracts or on lands owned by a tribe are carried out under special legislation and special rules promulgated thereunder by the Secretary of the Interior. I will not burden you with the details and citations of the various congressional acts and departmental regulations which are available to all in our office in Portland.

Under existing law and regulations of the Department of the Interior, the consent of the Indians, either as individuals, where individual holdings are concerned, or by the tribal governing bodies, where tribal lands are concerned, is a prerequisite to mining operations. Please do not get the impression that the undertaking of mining operations on Indian owned lands is one involving apparently insurmountable difficulties. For many years, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has administered mining operations on Indian owned lands and so far as I am aware there have been no unusual complaints as to such laws and regulations being unduly restrictive. With but few exceptions the regulations cover all reservations. The only exception in this region, however, is the Spokane Reservation located in this area. As you all probably are aware, oil, gas and coal deposits valued at hundreds of millions of dollars have been extracted from lands in Oklahoma owned by Osage Indians and those of the Five Civilized Tribes. Here in the Pacific Northwest, mining operations on Indian owned lands have not been as spectacular or extensive. Nevertheless, the Indian owned lands in this region insofar as mining operations are concerned have an equal standing with lands of the public domain in the development of our national economy.

For example, at the present time extensive and emportant deposits of phosphate are being mined on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation in Idaho. Thousands of tons of unprocessed phosphate ore have been shipped by the Federal Government to Japan to assist in the refertilization of the overcultivated lands of that once recognized world power. Thousands of other tons processed in Idaho are being used to enrich our own agricultural areas. Aside from the strategically important Idaho phosphate operations, mining activities on Indian lands in this region, in the States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada and California, are of a relatively minor nature at the present time. The potentialities however are great.

Under present law and regulations, permits to prospect for minerals including oil and gas can be obtained by application to the Superintendent of the Indian Agency exercising jurisdiction over the particular lands involved. Thereafter the regulations provide for the negotiation and execution of leases concerning the extraction of the discovered minerals. These leases of course provide for appropriate rentals and royalty payments as well as for the expeditious extraction of the discovered minerals. To this extent the modus operandi for prospecting for and extraction of minerals on Indian owned lands differs from that covering the public domain.

The primary concern of those interested in extraction of minerals from Indian owned lands is the obtaining of the consent of the owners, whether individuals or an Indian tribe. When this consent has been obtained negotiation and execution of a lease with appropriate provisions for rental and royalty payments is more or less routine, inasmuch as our regulations are specific with regard to such matters.

Please bear in mind that the institution and development of a mining enterprise on Indian-owned lands in reality is no different than the development of a similar enterprise on privately owned lands, that is to say, lands owned by non-Indians. The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indians are in a position to assist and expedite in every manner possible the exploration and extraction of minerals from lands owned by individual Indians or tribes and our present law and regulations have that objective in mind. As I stated a moment ago, these laws and regulations are not unduly restrictive and insofar as administration of the affairs of the Indians in this region is concerned I am of the opinion that the present laws and regulations are adequate to permit full and complete exploration, development, and extraction of minerals from Indian-owned lands in this region. In fact, the only change in the general regulations in recent years consisted in an amendment increasing the size of the area covered by leases for the extraction of specific kinds of minerals.

To the best of my knowledge the individual Indians and tribes within this region are anxious and desirous of cooperating in the perfection of our national economy. I am not aware of any Indian or tribe having objected to the exploration for and extraction of minerals from Indian-owned lands. We of the Portland regional office of the Bureau of Indians Affairs are here for the purpose of assisting in the development of our national economy, and as I stated a minute ago, initiation of operations consists merely of application to the superintendent of the agency having jurisdiction over the Indian lands in question for a permit to prospect. In actuality this is the same procedure which a mining operator would follow in connection with the exploration and extraction of discovered minerals from lands owned in fee by a non-Indian.

If there should be some questions in your mind regarding operation on Indian reservations I'd be very glad to discuss it with you later on. I've certainly enjoyed this meeting, Mr. Chairman; it gives a man an opportunity to meet old friends. I just happened to recognize a previous speaker, Mr. Wolfe, whom I have not seen since we were students at the University of Montana 33 years ago.

Mr. GOLDY. That's very interesting, since you are from the same city. I'd like to call now for a statement from Mr. Edward Woozley. STATEMENT OF EDWARD WOOZLEY, STATE LAND COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, BOISE, IDAHO

Mr. WooZLEY. Mr. Chairman, Mr. White, gentlemen: It's a privilege to be invited here today to take part in this discussion with you and to present the angles involved in public-land administration.

The State of Idaho has no conflict with the Federal Government in any way, but we do find that some of our policies and laws don't make for good land administration, and it may be that we can bring some of those to the surface this afternoon. Just as a brief résumé, in 1890 when our State was admitted we were granted every section 16 and 36 unless otherwise appropriated, and where it was otherwise appropriated we were to get lieu lands in place of the 16 and 36. We were to have mineral rights unless any part of the 16 and 36 was considered mineral in character by the Secretary of the Interior, so we didn't

lose other rights, we simply abandoned that land and chose other land. That all depended on the survey or the date of admission, whichever was the latest. If the survey were not made until a later date, we did not get the land until it was surveyed.

Other than the 16 and 36 there were certain other grants; 90,000 acres for the use and support of an agricultural college; 100,000 acres for the establishment and maintenance of a scientific school; 100,000 acres for State normal schools; 50,000 acres for the State hospital at Blackfoot; 50,000 acres for the penitentiary; 150,000 acres for other State charitable, education, penal, and reformatory institutions; 96,000 acres for the University of Idaho at Moscow, and 32,000 acres for public buildings. Now, these latter lands other than 16 and 36, known as public-school lands, were clear listed, and an examination was made by a Federal inspector before we were given the clear lists on these lands, so if they were determined to be mineral in character the State did not get the lands; they had to choose others.

In 1927 a law was passed which intended to give the State all the mineral rights not then claimed on State lands, and that is one of the points that's been a little confusing since that time. Another thing that has come up today and is continually plaguing us as the State land board is river beds. As you know, the State was granted the beds of navigable streams in a sovereign capacity for the good of all the people when the State was admitted. In 1937 the State legislature gave the land board authority to lease the beds of navigable rivers between the high-water lines for mineral purposes only. That doesn't give us the right to go to the medial line, in my opinion; it says the high-water line, and that is as far as we will go. We have not made many dredging leases on navigable streams since the present land board went in.

As you know, the State reserved the mineral rights on its lands since 1923. On anything sold prior to 1923, the rights went with the land, and we now find ourselves with some deed holders, some contract holders, some lessees having the surface rights, and the State having the subsurface rights. We have perfected some of the laws in respect to this duplication of responsibility. We now have in our gas and oil laws a bond which must be furnished for the protection of the surface owner. We are also requiring bonds on our quartz, placer, and phosphate leases.

Now, we don't have any auctions on our State mineral leases. That is the only form of a lease that is not auctioned, but that's governed by priority, and only recently, in fact, on the 6th of this month, the President signed a bill passed by Congress and which our Idaho delegation were very instrumental in getting through Congress for the good of the State, we believe, an amendment to our admission act permitting us to lease oil and gas leases for 10 years and as long thereafter as oil and gas is being produced. In the past we were only permitted 5-year leases on school lands, which was not conducive to getting any seismograph or physical work on the lands. Another thing we accomplished is to allow more than one section to be leased to one person, firm, or corporation. This permits us to utilize our lands with Federal lands, with school lands, and private lands.

We feel our oil and gas lands are in pretty good shape to encourage development. We have location rights on our State lands; a person may file a claim on a 20-acre tract which permits him to dis