Senator KING. You contend that the Federal Government holds the land as a trustee and it is merely acting as an agency to pass title, and it must pass the whole title and not part of the title? Mr. MOORE. Absolutely.. Senator ODDIE. It seems to me that this committee can hardly consider a matter that will be before the Supreme Court. That is a matter for the courts to determine. I think we are getting into rather deep water. Mr. MOORE. There are some other matters that I wanted to bring before Congress. The homesteaders are very apt to make a collection of these patents and lay them before Congress and ask them what their intentions are about them. I have in mind the Burke v. Southern Pacific decision. That decision was based on the ground. that at some point or other a patent had to be made valid and that there was no better time than at the time of its issuance by the Secretary of the Interior. On that ground they held that the railroad grants reserved the minerals to the Government and that the railroad companies could only acquire non-mineral lands-agricultural lands. But the railroad companies have gone and taken vast aggregations and tracts of known mineral land. Up in Oakland County they have taken over 160,000 acres of known mineral land, covered by Judge Bledsoe's decision, which was before the Teapot Dome committee. By his decision, which was given three or four days before the Supreme Court ruled in a similar case involving 6,000 acres of the same land, he held that the company knew it was oil land. Senator KING. I do not agree with you there. I am somewhat familiar with that litigation. I think the distinction is very marked, that where there is a grant in presenti or where lands are granted to the railroad company and they have to be surveyed, when the survey is made and approved, clear-listed, then title passes; and if, when that land is clear-listed, no mineral is known to exist in that land, the railroad company or the individual gets a clear title and a good title in fee not only to the surface but to the mineral. But if when clear-listed there were known mineral lands within that area, then as to the known mineral lands title would not pass, and it becomes a question of fact. That was involved in the Burke case and in the Elk Hills case. In the one instance the testimony was overwhelming that it was not known to be mineral; in the other case the testimony indicated that it was known to contain oil. Therefore the decisions, apparently to the layman contradictory, are entirely logical. In one instance the proof was not satisfactory that it was known to be mineral, but quite the reverse; in the other the proof was quite satisfactory that it was known to be mineral. Therefore, in my judgment, you would have the duty under the law to hold that in the one instance the title did not pass and in the other instance title did pass. But I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that question is properly before your committee. Mr. MOORE. May I be permitted to remark, relative to Judge Bledsoe, that he did not hold the same under this Peters case that was before him-an adjoining tract of land, some of this same Southern Pacific land. In that case he gave the title to the Government. Senator KING. If there are any courts that decide those questions erroneously, there are appeals, and I have no doubt that the Government, if its rights were not fully recognized in the lower court, will appeal. Mr. MOORE. The thing I meant to convey to the committee was the necessity, the dire distress of the homesteader and the necessity for the integrity of the homestead entry, the right of the public to homestead on the public domain, whenever and whatever. That reservation was a denial to a citizen of a home that he wants. That is what I am objecting to. When it comes to a mineral right, I would like for some one to tell me where there is any portion of the earth. that is not mineral. I want to make a remark further, and then I am done. I am entirely satisfied with the American land system of fee titles. I think it is responsible for the releasing of the energies of the citizens who have such titles. They can go out on a piece of land, where they own it in fee, and acquire everything. A restricted land title is the thing that has held the world from progress for century after century, and not until you have got natural resource control into the hands of the individual do you get a great free nation, a free people. The attempt now is to take it away from them, and that is very dangerous. Mr. AUBURY. Mr. Chairman, I might throw a little light on the subject. The CHAIRMAN. In relation to the withdrawals? Mr. AUBURY. In relation to the withdrawals-the intention of the withdrawals and how it worked out. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Will you come forward? STATEMENT OF LEWIS E. AUBURY, FORMER STATE MINERALOGIST OF CALIFORNIA, BURLINGAME, CALIF. Mr. AURURY. Mr. Chairman, at the time all these questions came up I was acting head of the State mining bureau. We were responsible originally for the creation of the forest reserves of 16,000,000 acres. President Roosevelt made those withdrawals for the purpose of conservation, and he was afterwards backed up in it. Many maintained that he did not have a right as President to act in those withdrawal matters. He did it without the consent of Congress, but I believe he had the approval of Congress after the withdrawals were made. But in relation to this matter of the two reserves which were made in the San Joaquin Valley, reserves 1 and 2, the gentleman was just speaking about believing that all those lands should go back to the homesteader or go back to the public domain. I had a conversation with President Roosevelt shortly before he retired, and I considered that it would be a very good policy if the Government would make a reservation of all possible oil lands in the San Joaquin Valley, for this reason. They were working under the old placer law. A man would make a location of, we will say, for instance, 160 acres and put up his derrick, and he would go to work. If there was any doubt from the surveys of the land being oil in character he would have to prove it. In order to prove that it would be necessary for him to put down a well. Probably within a very short time after he commenced operations there would be filings on that land. There would be a homestead filing, then there would be a desert-land filing, and maybe a little scrip and a few other things. As a result of those numerous filings it was found that every one of the wildcatters and others who were out trying to develop oil land were meeting with all kinds. of difficulties, and their titles were hurt. We had a scrippers' war in Bakersfield-I think it was in 1895-and we had all kinds of trouble in regard to titles. I was approached by a number of oil men from the San Joaquin Valley to see if the State mining bureau could not do something for the purpose of alleviating those troubles. I conferred with President Roosevelt at that time and made the suggestion that as long as the reservations had been made in the forest there was no reason in my mind why such reservations should not also be made in regard to the oil lands, to have those lands declared either mineral or nonmineral, and if they were declared mineral it would be possible for the oil men to come in without being hampered by a half dozen different forms of entry being placed on their land. The matter drifted over into the Taft administration, and the understanding then was that these lands should be classified by the United States Geological Survey as to their mineral or nonmineral character, and after they had been classified they would again be thrown open. The withdrawals were made by President Taft with that object. The lands were classified, and shortly after their classification instead of the lands being turned back to the public domain, Mr. Pinchot and a few other conservationists came in and said, "Well, now, why should we turn these lands back to the public? Let us save this oil for the Navy." Thereupon the two naval oil reserves were created, and they did not comply with the original agreement to turn the land back to the public domain, and since that time it has remained the same way. The head of the United States Geological Survey, along with Mr. Pinchot and a few others, conceived the idea after the survey had been made that those naval oil reserves should be created, and they were created and the public lost any possibility of making any filings on those lands. At the same time, while they were talking about saving the oil for the Government, we were making an energetic fight to try and get the Government to use oil on the battleships of the Pacific Fleet, and we were informed by the Secretary of the Navy, after we had made those requests, that it was found very much more economical for the Government to use coal, bringing it around the Horn to San Francisco, Seattle, and other points, instead of using oil. Senator ODDIE. What year was that? Mr. AUBURY. I kept that fight up from 1901 to 1911. In 1911 I received a letter from the Secretary of the Navy, Mr. George von L. Meyer. He advised me in 1911 that it was cheaper for the Government to use coal on the Pacific Fleet that it was to use oil, notwith43213-25-PT 14- -14 standing we showed him that in one contract the Government could save a million and a quarter dollars by the use of oil. Senator ODDIE. Could it have been that there was no appropriation for converting the ships from coal burners to oil burners at that time? Mr. AUBURY. That may be possible. They had tried it out on the Wyoming, I believe; the Wyoming was used for a test. Senator ODDIE. Of course, those matters have to receive congressional approval and be provided for by appropriations. Mr. AUBURY. I hammered at every one of the Secretaries of the Navy from 1901 to 1911 with the idea of getting them to use oil on the battleships, and also wherever the Government used fuel to use our California oil. I was very promptly told that it was cheaper to use coal than oil. They did not give me any reasons why, but they continued the use of coal. Senator ODDIE. There has been a good deal of agitation in Congress and a good deal of work done in the last few years to provide appropriations for converting certain coal-burning battleships into oil-burning battleships. It takes some work to get those things through. Mr. AUBURY. I know, but that was all the explanation that was made at that time. I will say that I firmly agree with the previous speaker in regard to the returning of those lands as originally agreed by both President Roosevelt and President Taft; that those lands should be returned to the public domain after the United States Geological Survey had classified them. After they were classified, by some hocus-pocus in the Interior Department, they said, "Why should we turn those lands back? We want to use those for oil. We want to use those oil reserves for our battleships." And at the same time the Navy Department was telling me that they had no use for California oil. That was the governmental precedure, you know; they seemed to work at cross purposes. But I want to say this in regard to our conservation policy. We started the policy in 1902. We managed to secure 16,000,000 acres through President Roosevelt in getting our forest reserves. And I want to say that I am glad to be alive to-day and see that the policy of the Forest Service is gradually being improved, and that it is a great thing for our State of California-notwithstanding in those days I was warned that I had better not go out into some of those mountain districts, because they were liable to shoot me from behind my back for advocating a forest-reserve policy. I thank you, gentlemen. Senator ODDIE. Are there any further statements to be made? Mr. MOORE. May I file this copy of this magazine for the information of the committee? Senator ODDIE. Yes. Mr. MOORE. It is a rather able document on the same question. It is a very interesting and very ably prepared discussion of the basic law, and I want to file it as a matter of record. (The copy of the periodical referred to by Mr. Moore was filed with the committee.) Mr. J. W. NELSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to present here a brief statement regarding grazing on the national forests in California. Senator ODDIE. Very well; we would like to hear you. STATEMENT OF J. W. NELSON, ASSISTANT DISTRICT FORESTER, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. Senator KING. Mr. Nelson, you are in the employ of the Forest Service? Mr. NELSON. I am; yes, sir. Senator KING. You are presenting the Federal Government's view? Mr. NELSON. I am presenting here- Senator KING. Or the view of the people of California? Mr. NELSON. I am presenting the Federal Government's view. The statements I make here will be in connection with grazing on the National Forest in the State of California. I have here a tabulated statement of the grazing situation, showing the number of permits issued, classified according to grades and the number of stock grazed under the four grades of permits, for the past 16 years. which I think will be of assistance to the committee. Senator ODDIE. Would you like to have that inserted in the record? Mr. NELSON. I should be very glad to have it inserted. (The tabulation referred to is here printed in full, as follows:) Number of permits issued, classified according to grades, and number of stock grazed under the four grades of permits, 1909-1924, inclusive, District No. 5, California. Num Num ber of ber of Num- Num- Num- Num- Num- Num ber of Num- Num- Italic figures in the "Number of stock" columns represent average number of stock per permit. Plus and minus signs in the "Number permits" columns opposite the 1924 figures in italic indicate increases and decreases, respectively, in the figures for that year as compared with the figures for 1909. |