The first act, passed June 6, 1900, simply extended to Alaska the provisions of the coal lands in the United States. The law was ineffective, for it provided that only subdivided lands could be taken up and there were no land surveys in Alaska.
I do not like to criticise a coordinate branch of the Government. The Executive makes mistakes, and so does Congress, but I do not think it reflects greatly on the intense interest that Congress had in Alaska and her development that they should go to work and pass a law affecting the coal lands in Alaska that didn't operate there at all [applause]. The matter was rectified by the act of April 28, 1904, which permitted unsurveyed lands to be entered and the surveys to be made at the expense of the entrymen. Unfortunately the law provided that only tracts of 160 acres could be taken up, and no recognition was given to the fact that it was impracticable to develop an isolated coal field requiring the expenditure of a large amount of money by such small communities. Many claims were staked, however, and surveys were made for patents. It was recognized by everyone familiar with the conditions that after patent was obtained these claims would be combined in tracts large enough to assure successful mining operation. No one experienced in mining would, of course, consider it feasible to open a coal field on a basis of a single 160-acre tract. The claims for the most part were handled in groups, for which one agent represented the several different owners. Unfortunately a strict interpretation of the statute raised the question whether even a tacit understanding between claim-owners to combine after patents had been obtained was not illegal. Remedial legislation was sought and enacted in the statute of May 28, 1908. This law permitted the consolidation of claims staked previous to November 12, 1906, in tracts of 2,560 acres. One clause of this law invalidated the title if any individual or corporation at any time in the future owned any interest whatsoever, directly or indirectly, in more than one tract. The purpose of this clause was to prevent the monopolization of coal fields. Its immediate effect was to discourage capital. It was felt by many that this clause might lead to forfeiture of title through the accidents of inheritance, or might even be used by the unscrupulous in blackmail. It would appear that land taken up under this law might at any time be forfeited to the Government through the action of any individual, who, innocently or otherwise, obtained interest in more than one coal company. Such a title was felt to be too insecure to warrant the large investments needed for mining development. The net result of all this is that no titles to coal lands have been passed.
On November 12, 1906, President Roosevelt issued an Executive order withdrawing all coal lands from location and entry in Alaska. On May 16, 1907, he modified the order so as to permit valid locations made prior to the withdrawal on November 12, 1906, to proceed to entry and patent. Prior to that date some 900 claims had been filed, most of them said to be illegal because either made fraudulently by dummy entrymen in the interest of one individual or corporation, or because of agreements made prior to location between the applicants to cooperate in developing the lands. There are thirty-three claims for 160 acres each, known as the "Cunningham claims," which are said to be valid on the ground that they were made by an attorney for thirty-three different and bona fide claimants who, as alleged, paid their money and took proper steps to locate their entries and protect them. The representatives of the Government, on the other hand, in the hearings before the Land Office have attacked the validity of these Cunningham claims on the ground that prior to their location there was an understanding between the claimants to pool their claims after they had been perfected and unite them in one company.
The trend of decision seems to show that such an agreement would invalidate the claims, although under the subsequent law of May 28, 1908, the consolidation of such claims was permitted, after location and entry, in tracts of 2,560 acres. It would be, of course, improper for me to intimate what the result of the issue as to the Cunningham and other Alaska claims is likely to be, but it ought to be distinctly understood that no private claims for Alaska coal lands have as yet been allowed or perfected, and also that whatever the result as to pending claims, the existing coal-land laws of Alaska are most unsatisfactory and should be radically amended (applause). To begin with, the purchase price of the land is a flat rate of $10 per acre, with no power to increase it beyond that, although, as we have seen, the estimate of the agent of the Geological Survey would carry up the maximum of value to $500 an acre.
In my judgment it is essential to the proper development of Alaska that these coal lands should be opened, and that the Pacific slope should be given the benefit of the comparatively cheap coal of fine quality which can be furnished at a reasonable price from these fields (great applause); but the public, through the Government, ought certainly to retain a wise control and interest in these coal deposits (applause), and I think it may do so safely if Congress will authorize the granting of leases, as already suggested for Government coal lands in the United States, with provisions forbidding the transfer of the leases except with the consent of the Government, thus preventing their acquisition by a combination or monopoly, and upon limitations as to the area to be included in any one lease to one individual, and at a certain moderate rental, with royalties upon the coal mined proportioned to the market value of the coal laid down either at Seattle or at San Francisco (applause). Of course such leases should contain conditions requiring the erection of proper plants, the proper development by modern mining methods of the properties leased, and the use of every known and practical means and device for saving the life of the miners.
The Government of the United States has much to answer for in not having given proper attention to the Government of Alaska and the development of her resources for the benefit of all the people of the country. I would not force development at the expense of a present or future waste of resources; but the problem as to the disposition of the coal lands for present and future use can be wisely and safely settled in one session if Congress gives it careful attention. (Great applause)
OIL AND GAS LANDS
In the last Administration there were withdrawn from agricultural entry 2,820,000 acres of supposed oil land in California, about 1,500,000 acres in Louisiana (of which only 6,500 acres were known to be vacant, unappropriated land), 75,000 acres in Oregon, and 174,000 acres in Wyoming, making a total of nearly 4,000,000 acres.
In September, 1909, I directed that all public oil lands, whether then withdrawn or not, should be withheld from disposition pending congressional action, for the reason that the existing placer mining law, although made applicable to deposits of this character, is not suitable to such lands, and for the further reason that it seemed desirable to reserve certain fuel-oil deposits for the use of the American Navy. Accordingly the form of all existing withdrawals was changed, and new withdrawals, aggregating 2,750,000 acres, were made, in Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. Field examinations during the year showed that of the original withdrawals, 2,170,000 acres were not valuable for oil, and they were restored for agricultural entry. Meantime other withdrawals of public oil lands in these States were made, so that on July 1, 1910, the outstanding withdrawals then amounted to 4,550,000 acres.
The needed oil and gas law is essentially a leasing law. In their natural occurrence oil and gas cannot be measured in terms of acres, like coal, and it follows that exclusive title to these products can normally be secured only after they reach the surface. Oil should be disposed of as a commodity in terms of barrels of transportable product rather than in acres of real estate (applause). This is, of course, the reason for the practically universal adoption of the leasing system wherever oil land is in private ownership. The Government thus would not be entering on an experiment, but simply putting into effect a plan successfully operated in private contracts. Why should not the Government as a land-owner deal directly with the oil producer rather than through the intervention of a middleman to whom the Government gives title to the land? (Applause) The principal underlying feature of such legislation should be the exercise of beneficial control rather than the collection of revenue.
As not only the largest owner of oil lands, but as a prospective large consumer of oil by reason of the increasing use of fuel-oil by the navy, the Federal Government is directly concerned both in encouraging rational development and at the same time insuring the longest possible life to the oil supply. The royalty rates fixed by the Government should neither exceed nor fall below the current rates. But much more important than revenue is the enforcement of regulations to conserve the public interest so that the inconvenience of the lessee shall specifically safeguard oil fields against the penalties from careless drilling and of production in excess of transportation facilities or of market requirement.