OCR Text |
Show LEGAL ASPECTS OF MINERAL RESOURCES EXPLOITATION 741 up the oil lands. The failure of Congress to take any position on leasing for an entire decade has frequently been criticized by historians. John Ise's thorough study convinced him, however, that this appraisal is not in accord with the facts. His basic position, often overlooked, is found in the following brief passage: During this time there was always overproduction of oil from privately owned lands, and there was never any need or justification for opening any public oil lands . . .S08 Two timid steps toward leasing were taken in 1914 when the Alaska coal lands, after considerable debate, were put on a leasing basis,304 and in 1917, because of the importance of potash in the manufacture of explosives, the Potash Leasing Act was adopted.303 As far as the oil lands were concerned, every session of Congress during the decade after 1910 saw bills proposing either outright transfer to the states of these public lands or providing for leasing under various types of controls. There would be no profit in tracing all of these proposals. Most were short-lived after being referred to the Public Land Committees. Two of the most important, however, should be noted. The first was introduced by Representative Scott Ferris of Oklahoma, Chairman of the House Committee on Public Lands, in April 1913. Mr. Ferris' proposal was an administration measure providing for complete revision of the laws applicable to coal, oil, gas, phosphate, potassium, and sodium. It is important because it advocated a mixture of sale and leasing. It provided for prospecting permits on tracts which might vary in size, depending upon how closely they were located to producing wells. If oil was discovered, the licensee could obtain a patent 303 Ise, supra note 228, at 327. •°* 38 Stat. 741 (1914) . See Alaska Coal-Leasing Bill, Hearing before the Committee on Public Lands, House of Representatives, 63d Congress, 2d Sess., on H. R. 13137 (1914). 306 40 Stat. 297 (1917). to one-fourth of the land. It was debated at length,308 and there was considerable dispute as to the Federal-State sharing of royalties. A compromise bill introduced by Senator Walsh of Montana in the first session of the 65th Congress was defeated largely because of Einchot's objection to the relief provisions.307 The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. The first session of the 66th Congress saw a new bill on the oil lands reported from the Committee on Public Lands by its Chairman, Senator Reed Smoot of Utah.308 Although he had been opposed to leasing in the past, Senator Smoot now conceded that it was clear that Congress would consider opening up the withdrawn oil lands only if the committee reported a bill providing exclusively for leasing. He lamented the fact that 6.5 million acres of oil lands and 2.7 million acres of phosphate land had been withdrawn from all development. He noted also that 3.5 million acres of oil-shale land had been classified and that 43.7 million acres of coal land had been withdrawn, only 27.3 million acres of which had in fact been classified.309 Confronted with this situation, most (but not all) western Senators reluctantly agreed that leasing was the only solution. Typical of their attitude was the statement by Arizona Senator Ashurst who said he would "hold his nose and vote for the bill."310 The Smoot bill, on the whole, was favorable to the western interests.311 The 36 sections of the bill cannot be discussed here in detail. The basic scheme was to provide different rules for leasing proved and unproved oil fields. In the case of the former, leases could be issued on competitive bidding in tracts of not more than 640 acres and for a period of 20 years at a 12i/2 per- 304 51 Conc. Rec. 14945-50, 14953, 14964 (1914). 307 58 Cong. Rec. 4112, 3705, 10382 (1919). 308 58 Cong. Rec. 3886 (1919). 800 58 Cong. Rec. 4112 (1919) . 310 58 Cong. Rec. 4250 (1919). m The bill appears in 58 Cong. Rec. 4054-57 (1919). |