Slike strani
PDF
ePub
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

KNUTE NELSON, Minnesota, Chairman.

SAMUEL W. MCCALL, Massachusetts, Vice-Chairman. FRANK P. FLINT, California.

MARLIN E. OLMSTED, Pennsylvania. GEORGE SUTHERLAND, Utah.

EDWIN DENBY, Michigan. ELIHU ROOT, New York.

E. H. MADISON, Kansas. DUNCAN U. FLETCHER, Florida.

OLLIE M. JAMES, Kentucky. WILLIAM E. PURCELL, North Dakota. JAMES M. GRAHAM, Illinois.

PAUL SLEMAN, Secretary.

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION.

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That there be printed as a document for the use of the Senate and House of Representatives three thousand copies of the report of the committee and the views of the minority and the evidence taken, together with appendices, in the investigation made pursuant to Public Resolution Numbered Nine, approved January nineteenth, nineteen hundred and ten, authorizing an investigation of the Department of the Interior and its several bureaus, officers, and employees, and of the Bureau of Forestry, in the Department of Agriculture, and its officers and employees, one thousand for the use of the Senate and two thousand for the use of the House of Representatives, and that there be printed in one vol. ume thirty thousand additional copies of the report of the committee and the views of the minority, ten thousand for the use of the Senate and twenty thousand for the use of the House of Representatives. Attest :

CHARLES G. BENNETT,

Secretary of the Senate.

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

HEARINGS BEFORE COMMITTEE.

Feb. 11, 1911,

INVESTIGATION OF INTERIOR DEPARTMENT AND BUREAU OF

FORESTRY.

THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 1910.

JOINT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE INTERIOR
DEPARTMENT AND FORESTRY SERVICE,

Washington, March 10, 1910. The Joint Committee to Investigate the Interior Department and Forestry Service met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m.

Present, Senators Nelson (chairman), Sutherland, Root, Fletcher, and Purcell; Representatives McCall, Olmsted, Madison, and Graham; Mr. Paul Sleman, secretary; also Mr. Louis D. Brandeis and Mr. Joseph P. Cotton, jr., representing Mr. Louis R. Glavis; also Mr. George Wharton Pepper, representing Mr. Gifford Pinchot; also Messrs. John J. Vertrees and Carl Rasch, representing Secretary Ballinger; also Mr. E. C. Finney.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order. The examination will proceed.

TESTIMONY OF JAMES RUDOLPH GARFIELD—Resumed.

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Garfield, at the time of the adjournment you were giving your testimony in relation to the coal-land legislation which was pending in the winter of 1908 and 1909. I think you had said that there were certain measures which related to coal lands in Alaska only. Is that correct?

Mr. GARFIELD. Yes, sir.
Mr. PEPPER. Will you just state briefly what these measures were ?

Mr. GARFIELD. The measures relating wholly to coal lands in Alaska were, first, the Cale bill; second, the Heyburn bill; and thirdly, the Mondell bill, which was different from the Mondell we were discussing at the last hearing. That was a bill introduced by Mr. Mondell at the same time that Senator Heyburn introduced his bill, and applied wholly to the Alaska situation.

Mr. PEPPER. Am I right then in understanding that the following were the three bills that applied exclusively to Alaska: First, a House bill called the Cale bill, which is the one Mr. Ballinger says that he had drafted; second, a Senate bill introduced by Senator Heyburn, and third, a House bill introduced by Mr. Mondell ?

Mr. GARFIELD. That is correct.

Mr. PEPPER. And you distinguish these three on the one hand from another House bill introduced by Mr. Mondell which related to the coal situation generally and not exclusively to Alaska ?

Mr. GARFIELD. That is a general coal bill considered by the House committee.

Mr. PEPPER. Could you state very briefly the net effect of each of those measures, of the three measures as they became a law?

1515

Mr. GARFIELD. The net effect of the three measures was this: Under the Cale bill, by the last clause, bona fide locators could have consolidated their claims up to four sections, paying therefor the price of $10 per acre. Under the preceding sections of the bill other locations, or new locations, could have been consolidated at the price of $10 an acre, with various other provisions in the bill which were discussed at the last hearing, and which were, in brief, an attempted regulation against monopoly and separation of the surface from the coal. I think that is all of the general provisions.

Mr. PEPPER. If I may interrupt just for a moment--that is the bill respecting which Mr. Ballinger appeared before the House committee on March 3, 1908 ?

Mr. GARFIELD. It is.

Mr. PEPPER. And it was with respect to that, that an amendment was suggested as respects then future locations having regard to an increased price?

Mr. GARFIELD. An amendment was suggested that as to such locations the price was to be a minimum price, and was to be fixed by the Secretary of the Interior, but as stated in the hearing, which I believe is presented for the consideration of the committee here, the Commissioner of the General Land Office, Mr. Ballinger, stated that the $10 per acre would apply to all existing locations and that the suggested amendment of his would apply only to the future locations.

Mr. PEPPER. Then what was the net result of the Heyburn bill ?

Mr. GARFIELD. The Heyburn bill would have permitted the consolidation of all locations or entries in Alaska regardless of whether they were made in good faith or not, up to, I think, five sections, as I recall it, instead of four sections.

Mr. PEPPER. And at what price?
Mr. GARFIELD. At $10 per acre.

Mr. PEPPER. And the net result of Mr. Mondell's Alaska bill is what?

Mr. GARFIELD. It was that all valid locations might be consolidated up to four sections at the price of $10 per acre, and at that time there was a discussion before the House committee of how the word “valid” might be interpreted by the Interior Department.

Mr. PEPPER. Well, with those measures before it, what action did the Department of the Interior take, and what was the final outcome of that action ?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Pepper, will you just allow me for my own benefit to ask one question? You recommended an amendment, as I recall it, to section 9 of one of those bills. Do you remember which bill it was?

Mr. GARFIELD. That, Senator Nelson, had to do with the general coal bill introduced by Mr. Mondell, and not to his Alaska bill, to which I have referred.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all. Mr. Pepper, you may proceed.
Senator Root. Mr. Pepper, let me get a certain thought straight in

my mind.

Mr. PEPPER. Certainly.

Senator Root. Mr. Garfield, we have here in testimony a document which purports to be a report of hearings before the House Committee on Public Lands, on the 3d of March, 1908. It appears on page 1241 of the testimony.

Mr. GARFIELD. That was the hearing, Senator Root, upon the Cale bill, the first of the three measures which I have spoken of.

Senator Root. Now, over on page 1250 in a part of that hearing I see that Mr. Ballinger says:

I have some suggestions for amending the bill in some slight particulars which I will file with the committee.

The suggestions referred to are as follows:

It is suggested that the bill should be amended by adding to line 4, page 2, after the words "price of,” the words "not less than,” for the reason that it would appear that valuable deposits of anthracite coal, or lands containing large quantities of semibituminous coal, should not be disposed of at the same rate per acre as the lower grades of bituminous coal and lignites. By the amendment suggested the Department of the Interior will be enabled to classify and dispose of the coal deposits at prices commensurate with their ascertained value.

I wish that you would explain whether that conforms to the view which you advocated during this period of May, 1908, or how it differs.

Mr. GARFIELD. It in general conforms to the recommendations that I have made relative to the Alaska coal, namely, that as to future entries the Secretary of the Interior should have power to reclassify and revalue the Alaska coal in accordance with its market value, and that thereafter the new entries made could be consolidated up to the extent of four sections at the new classified price.

Senator Root. So that there was not any difference between you and the then commissioner, Mr. Ballinger, on that subject?

Mr. GARFIELD. Yes; there was.
Senator Root. That is what I want to get at. What was it?

Mr. GARFIELD. The difference as shown by this hearing was this, that Mr. Ballinger believed that the then existing locations made in Alaska should be permitted to consolidate up to four sections at the $10 price, as he expressed it in the preceding portion of this same hearing, at the foot of page 1247, in answer to the questions by Representative Smith, which were as follows:

Mr. Smith, of California. Do you not think it would be better for us to frame a law applicable only to the better grades of coal and leave the lignite question for consideration in another bill?

Mr. Ballinger answered: Mr. BALLINGER. I would cover the whole thing by one measure and give some elasticity to the price of coal. For instance, in line 4, instead of fixing the price at $10 I would say, "not less than $10," but upon the coals already entered or located I would leave the price as it heretofore was, a flat price of $10 an acre. As to the disposition of the coal areas under future legislation, I would leave that elastic, so that the higher grades of coal could be sold at a higher rate than $10 an acre.

So that the difference between his proposition and mine was as to the existing locations. I did not believe that they should be perfected or consolidated into a larger area at the old price of $10 an acre, unless they were made in good faith and for the benefit of the persons in whose names they were made.

Mr. GRAHAM. Would the Cunningham claims come within the purview of the language used there by Mr. Ballinger as coals already entered or located?

Mr. GARFIELD. They would, yes; as those entries had already been entered and had been passed as far as final receipt, as I recollect it.

Senator SUTHERLAND. May I ask you, Mr. Garfield, assuming that coal entries were made in good faith, speaking now of the Cunningham coal entries, then the entrymen would have acquired a vested right in the coal claims, would they not?

Mr. GARFIELD. My position was this, that both as to those or any other claims that were made in good faith, were legal—that they might be perfected under the old law, if the entrymen saw fit to do it, and that they then would be in position to take advantage of a consolidation up to the limit provided by the new statute.

Senator SUTHERLAND. The point I was trying to get at was this: Assuming the entries to be in good faith then the entrymen would have acquired a vested right?

Mr. GARFIELD. That was my understanding.

Senator SUTHERLAND. That the final receipt was equivalent to a patent?

Mr. GARFIELD. No, sir; the final receipt was by no means equivalent to a patent. They were entitled to the issuance of the patent provided that between the time of the final receipt and the application for the issuance of a patent the Government had not discovered anything that would lead it to believe that the patent ought not to be issued.

Senator SUTHERLAND. I am assuming that the entry was made in good faith, nothing that could induce anybody to believe that the law had been violated prior to the issuance of the final receipt.

Mr. GARFIELD. Yes, sir. If there was no ground upon which the Government could properly refuse, and the entry had gone as far as the final receipt, then, of course, the patent would follow.

Senator SUTHERLAND. Then in that case the final receipt would be equivalent to a patent.

Mr. GARFIELD. Yes, sir. Senator SUTHERLAND. The issuance of a patent is simply evidence of title.

Mr. GARFIELD. Yes, sir.

Senator SUTHERLAND. After all I think I am correct. It would be evidence of title rather than the title itself. The point I want to get at is, that being so, assuming that to be so, then these entrymen would be entitled, as a matter of law, to have the land at the price fixed by the law, namely, $10 an acre.

Mr. GARFIELD. Under the old law.

Senator SUTHERLAND. Under the old law Congress would have no power to increase the price, assuming the state of facts as I have already done.

Mr. GARFIELD. There are cases, as I recollect, that do give Congress the authority to take action at any time before patent is issued even under such cases.

Senator SUTHERLAND. To increase the price of land after the land to be paid for and final receipt issued ?

Mr. GARFIELD. Or determine not to permit the patent to be perfected. But my position always was, Senator, under such circumstances as you have stated, that I believe there was a vested right, which the Government should protect, in the hands of the good-faith locator.

Senator SUTHERLAND. It would seem to me that must be so.
Mr. GRAHAM. By “protected” do you mean issuing the patent?
Mr. GARFIELD. I mean issuing the patent; yes, sir.

« PrejšnjaNaprej »