OCR Text |
Show LEGAL ASPECTS OF MINERAL RESOURCES EXPLOITATION 743 terests and with no hope of success, the amendment elicited painful astonishment from Senators Fall of New Mexico, King of Utah, and Walsh of Montana, whose reactions were thoroughly enjoyed by the Senator from Arkansas. Kirby's thesis was that if the supply of oil was as vital to the future of the Navy as everyone had suggested, and if the time had actually come to unlock the public domain reserves, why not authorize the government to keep for the public what belonged to it as a matter of right? He felt confident that the government could mine as economically as private enterprise and even conceded that the government might pay taxes to the states on the oil lands. The western Senators could only rejoin that private enterprise alone was capable of financing such an undertaking. The Kirby amendment was rejected after only a few hours of debate.321 Senator La Follette of Wisconsin later offered an amendment which would permit the government to set a fair price on all products (whether in crude or refined form) derived from the leased lands.322 He felt that the Standard Oil Company which, he alleged, indirectly controlled large operations in California and particularly in the Salt Creek Field in Wyoming would, despite the use originally of dummy entrymen, eventually obtain leases under the bill. Price-fixing would eliminate manipulation by the company of its prices for crude and refined oil. Only Senator Lenroot of Wisconsin felt constrained to reply. He argued that it would be impracticable to fix prices for refined products because of the difficulty of tracing the oil produced under the public domain leases into the company's many refineries. Falling upon "indifferent ears," the amendment was defeated, although, surprisingly enough, it did receive 10 votes.323 Senator La Follette became very interested in the bill, attacking primarily the relatively liberal relief provisions proposed in the Senate bill. For one thing, he felt that the measure would destroy the naval reserves. His amendment to exclude the reserves from the Senate bill was defeated.324 It was inevitable that the old controversy between Secretary of the Interior Lane and Secretary of the Navy Daniels over the reserves would be rehashed, and La Follette made a dramatic appeal by introducing letters from Daniels and Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin Roosevelt.325 The arguments over the relief provisions centered mainly around the question whether prospectors who entered after the September 1909 withdrawal should receive any consideration at all in view of the fact that they were technically trespassers, despite the fact that they sometimes relied in good faith on the belief that the withdrawal order was unconstitutional. La Follette introduced a list of the oil companies which would profit handsomely from the provision.326 Among them, of course, was the perennial target of the Progressives, the Standard Oil Company. The bill as finally passed by Congress in 1920 contained relief provisions inserted by the House which were less favorable to the oil companies.327 It protected those who had entered prior to the Taft withdrawal of July 2, 1910 (confirming the earlier withdrawal) provided they had continued operating in good faith after discovery. They were permitted to relinquish their claims in return for 20-year leases at a minimum royalty of 12i/£ percent, with payments to be made, of course, on past production. Not more than one half of the area in the geologic structure (in any event, not to exceed 3,200 acres) could be leased to any 32158 Cong. Rec. 4416 (1919) . 322 58 Cong. Rec. 4733 (1919) . 323 58 Cong. Rec. 4736 (1919). 324 58 Cong. Rec. 4745, 4767, 4773 (1919). 325 58 Cong. Rec. 4759 (1919). 126 58 Cong. Rec. 4766 (1919). 327 30 U.S.C. §227 (1964 ed.). |