where I got the impression that I did about Mr. Albright's statement, may I complete the discussion by reading two paragraphs also into the record. These are the two paragraphs that gave me the impression I came away from the meeting with:

If we could work out legislation that would set forth clearly the limits of administrative power to withdraw mineral lands, to circumscribe exploration, to control production, to seize products except in war emergencies, to restrict growth of a mining enterprise or otherwise to impose restrictions not now applicable to mining operations under the lode and placer laws on our private land, I beileve an extension of the leasing system might be a very good thing and might solve many of the problems we are discussing.

Then in conclusion he states:

I predict that with the formation of a sound national mineral policy the leasing system will be extended, and under wise and fair administration with fullest recognition of the hazards of mining enterprise, the necessity for strong incentives to the prospector, and the vital need for more minerals of every kind, the leasing system will emerge from its present doghouse position and measure fully up to its inherent potentialities.

I am reading this in order to explain where I got the impression that Mr. Albright had recommended the extension of the leasing system there. The fact is, though, that we of the Bureau of Land Management and in the Department of the Interior are not recommending the solution of this problem by extension of the leasing system. What we are doing is trying to seek an agreement from you of amendment to the mining laws.

Congressman WHITE. You read it "circumscribe exploration." Just what interpretation do you place upon that statement?

Mr. GOLDY. I presume, and it's always difficult to comment on what somebody else meant when he said something, but what I presume what Mr. Albright meant were the present limitations in the leasing system on the amount of acreage that a person could do his prospecting on.

Mr. CALLAHAN. I think that's what he meant, because that's been one of his problems.

Congressman WHITE. Does that close the door, in the interpretation of the gentleman from Idaho, in going forth and prospecting and digging for ore? Just what do you mean?

Mr. CALLAHAN. I haven't said anything about it. Congressman WHITE. Well, I just would like to have your pretation.

inter

Mr. CALLAHAN. Of what Mr. Albright said? Your interpretation is as good as mine. I know Mr. Albright, and I suppose you do; Mr. Albright's experience in mining has been in potash.

Congressman WHITE. I know quite a few Government officials that adhere to the leasing law, but that don't mean I adhere to it or subscribe to it.

Mr. CALLAHAN. No; I don't either. You and I are in agreement on that. As far as our representation here today, largely from the Coeur d'Alenes and eastern Washington, our experience here in the mining industry has not been one that would lead us to believe that fraudulent claims are being filed, but that they are being filed for legitimate mining purposes; that's what has developed this great area in the Coeur d'Alenes which is the eighth largest mining area in the world. We don't have those problems here. They have such

problems in certain areas which are localized. We don't like to commit ourselves on something we don't know anything about; we can't do it and we won't do it, therefore I have made the suggestion that we do give further consideration to the problem. I think as far as Mr. Sam Willitson is concerned, if I had made such a statement I would say I was sadly misquoted.

Mr. LIBBY. I attended that meeting. It is my conviction that Sam said 90 percent of the claims are invalid; not filed for mining purposes. Congressman WHITE. What's the statement. How much did you say were not filed for mining purposes?

Mr. LIBBY. Not my statement; I'm quoting what I remember that Mr. Willitson said at the meeting.

Congressman WHITE. For the purpose of the record, tell us who Mr. Willitson was.

Mr. LIBBY. S. H. Willitson.

Congressman WHITE. Is he a mining man?

Mr. LIBBY. He's vice president and general manager of the Cordera Mining Co. in Nevada, which is a quicksilver mining company. Congressman WHITE. I want to ask Mr. Callahan a question. Mr. CALLAHAN. All right.

Congressman WHITE. Had the surface and subsurface rights been separated when they opened up the Hercules Mine or any of the mines in the Burke Canyon, what would have been the effect on the development of the mines, where they had to build cribs to hold in their tailings and build mills, utilizing the surface; what would have been the effect if they had no control of the surface?

Mr. CALLAHAN. I don't know why you want to ask me that question. You were around here in those days; I wasn't. I've been in the Coeur d'Alenes only 30 years. I don't know anything about it, and I'm not advocating the thing that you're suggesting that I do advocate. In fact, I have very definitely and finally said "No" to it. I can't go any further than that.

Mr. GOLDY. May we hear now from some of the nonmining representatives with respect to this problem?

Mr. FOLTS. Mr. Chairman, I have listened for 2 days; there's a problem in my mind I can't grasp. I would like to ask the mining industry, Is it their desire to separate mining use from mining abuse? Sometimes in the last 2 days I have felt they did, and other times I have felt they didn't.

Mr. CALLAHAN. That answer is very definite; we want them separated absolutely; we don't want mining abuse.

Mr. FOLTS. I happen to be the only member of an organization you assigned on this advisory committee of conservation. Mr. Don Clarke from Washington State has said that the game people are solidly behind these recommendations of the advisory committee on conservation, which represent many, many people. I notice the Sierra Group itself is an organization of 14,000 people. It may be, I am not sure, because I presume that they didn't make these recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior without pretty careful scrutiny, it may be, however, that they are in error, and certainly one of the purposes of this meeting should be that if so important a statement as these that are made here are in error, that they should be expressed for our benefit, and for mine, or any of the other game men, that if

these are in error they should be exposed, and certainly a flat no to the statement of separation of mining of the surface and below surface does not give us that explanation that we can advise these people on, say that you've been misinformed, so it seems to me, you'll notice it comes under the operation on patent lands so as not to interfere with public purposes.

Now, those public purposes, the stipulation there is that these lands shall be multiple purpose, and included therein, as we have, game and conservation, so all the resources including soils, vegetative cover and water are so concerned, and in this we think that America has come to the stage in population it is no longer possible to pursue unrestrained private initiative and to not work in harmony with your fellow men. Certainly, with all due credit to Mr. Callahan, the mining industry is going to say a flat "no", this is a lot of people to say a flat "no" to, thousands somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 people are represented by their chief representatives, and to say "no" on the separation brings us into bitter conflict; those are the things we try to iron out in such meetings as this, and I would like to have a why, if America has to have harmony with people working together, why they can say no, we've not going to allow for public use or public purpose. I would like to have the mining industry tell me why we can't make those adjustments which are necessary for all people to live in harmony.

Mr. CALLAHAN. I'm directly called upon to answer that question. I did not say "no." I said if that question is offered to us here without any alternative or suggestion as to how this is to be done, I said our answer would have to be "no"; I didn't say it was "no." We want information; we want to know what the plan is, we want to know what it is proposed to do, because we stand by the fact that in the beginning of the location of the mining claims the timber, for instance, and the use of the surface, that was the incentive for the location of the mining claim, because it was necessary to the proper production. That being true, we are not going at this time to say without further information, without a plan which is more than merely the right to have game or fish or anything else, we are not going to say "yes," and in between there there's nothing been suggested.

Mr. FOLTS. May I add one more sentence? Mr. Callahan, then, what you want, you want further time for the purpose of protection of use and not for the protection of abuse?

Mr. CALLAHAN. Absolutely right.

Congressman WHITE. Now, Mr. Folts, do you know that it's the settled policy of the Government when a man locates a mining claim he has the right to locate one or more claims and a mill site that goes with his claim; now, if you separate the surface and the subsurface, what do you think a man would do for a mill site? That's a set policy and it's part of the law of the land at this time. You want to abrogate that and have the man just use the subsurface. What would he do for building, and a mill site? There's very few mines that don't require a mill; how would he conduct his milling operations?

Mr. FOLTS. Mr. Chairman, and Congressman, I think I answered that when I asked for a definition from Mr. Callahan that they were interested in the rights of use, but not the rights of abuse.

Congressman WHITE. What others use would a man make of a mill site if he didn't use the surface?