OCR Text |
Show 734 HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT drawn land. The Secretary of the Interior was required to report withdrawals to Congress, and all prior withdrawals were ratified and confirmed "as if originally made under this act." Mr. Mondell of Wyoming, who only a few years earlier had so vigorously opposed Roosevelt's coal-land withdrawals,251 reported the bill favorably out of the Public Lands Committee of which he was Chairman. Mondell argued for the bill with a certain amount of conviction. Coming as it did from one who was certainly no arch-conservationist, this may seem to be a strange change of heart. John* Ise has suggested that Mondell may not have made as great a concession to conservation as it would seem.252 There was, it is true, a "joker" in the bill. Although ostensibly authored by Pickett, Mondell most certainly was not one to accept legal advice from anyone, and presumably he had something to do with the drafting. The controversial clause provided that after withdrawn land was in fact classified, the land was then "restored to appropriation and disposition under the laws applicable thereto." All other types of withdrawals, however, were to remain in force until revoked by the President or by Congress. The act of classification thus automatically returned withdrawn land to disposition under the applicable public land acts. The President was not given a free hand to "lock up" the public domain by making withdrawals for classification. The effect of the provision was to minimize what generally seemed to be a most expansive gesture to the Chief Executive. Ignoring for the most part the "joker" in the bill, Mondell addressed himself in the debates primarily to the withdrawal power of the Executive. In a most disarming fashion, he admitted that:253 ... we must recognize this fact, that in the country at large public sentiment was behind 261 See note 201, supra, and text. 282 Ise, supra note 228, at 314. 288 45 Cong. Rec. 4644 (1910). President Roosevelt, and has been behind President Taft, and that the principal complaints that have been made ... have been not that there was too much withdrawal, but that there was not enough withdrawal, or that there was too much restoration. Representative Martin of Colorado objected that under the bill vast amounts of public land might be tied up for 10 or 15 years, awaiting classification.254 Robinson of Arkansas felt that congressional ratification after a withdrawal should be made mandatory, and he generally favored overhauling all public land laws.255 Several Congressmen objected to the report of the minority of the Public Lands Committee which offered two amendments protecting bona fide claimants who had initiated claims prior to the withdrawal. They felt this amendment would enable a number of fraudulent entries to go to patent. The House eventually passed the bill,256 rejecting the two amendments and others introduced from the floor. The House was pro-conservation at the time, and the bill met with opposition only from southern Democrats and a few westerners. A substitute bill was offered in the Senate by the Public Lands Committee257 and by the time of its passage,258 the House version was unrecognizable. Numerous amendments were made on the floor. The arguments pro and con were the same tirades the Senate had heard since 1906. Some distrusted or favored the bill because they thought it would restrict the President's withdrawal power.259 Others thought it confirmed a power which did not exist.260 Senator Bailey of Texas favored turning the public lands over to the 254 45 Cong. Rec. 4644 (1910). 285 45 Conc. Rec. 5055 (1910). 858 45 Cong. Rec. 5103 (1910). 857 45 Cong. Rec. 6880 (1910). 258 45 Cong. Rec. 8580 (1910) (context of bill as passed by Senate). 258 See, e.g., 45 Conc. Rec. 7461-62 (1910) (Remarks of Mr. Nelson). 280 45 Conc. Rec. 7538 (1910) (Remarks of Mr. Clark). |