OCR Text |
Show 28 HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT especially after 1891, that the public lands in the West be retained in national ownership for the general benefit.68 Withdrawals for Public Purposes Begun With the rise of the movement for preserving in government hands the greatest areas of natural beauty and wonder and the remaining forests on the public domain, there appeared a new rationale for sectional attitudes on the public lands. The older states which had permitted their seashores, mountains, waterfalls, and forests to be exploited by private interests now were declaring that the public lands belonged to all the people and should be retained in national parks and forests to prevent destructive and unsightly exploitation of priceless natural resources and to assure the best use and conservation of growing timber. Conversely, the West was 68 Echoes of the controversy over sharing the benefits and income from the public lands were heard time and time again after 1890, though the position of the older states came to be expressed less vigorously and that of the public land states more stridently, dominating Federal policy increasingly. In the public hearings on a measure being considered by the Senate Committee on Public Lands and Surveys in 1926, a bold Yankee from New Hampshire, Philip M. Ayres, before a committe composed with one exception of Senators from the Great West, dared to express the view that income from any form of grazing control established on the public lands should go into the Federal Treasury for the benefit of all the states, because the public lands had been acquired by the blood and taxes of all the people. Hostile members of the committee had Ayres somewhat confused on the provisions of the bill by their questioning, but his views were clearly stated. The western committee members themselves seem to have been confused concerning the retention by the Federal government of the public lands in the new states as they were admitted; they also seemed unaware of the fact that never once did Congress deviate from the principle that the public lands belonged to the people of all the states and should be preserved for them, while at the same lime it was providing for their liberal disposal under the settlement laws. "Hearings before the Senate Committee on Public Lands and Surveys on Grazing Facilities on Public Lands, 1926," pp. 109-134, 311. resisting all such efforts and demanding the right to develop and utilize its resources without interference as the older states had previously done. No longer were eastern representatives talking about Federal grants of land or the proceeds from land for education. They wanted to have Grand Canyon, Bryce, Sequoia, and Crater Lake National Parks preserved and the national forests to become grazing and timber producing areas of increasing economic value to the Nation. Furthermore, as the rate of alienation, especially of forest lands, to private ownership increased, the pressure for enlarging the withdrawals for temporary or permanent public purposes increased. For example, between 1900 and 1909 the acreage placed in national forests was enlarged from 46,772,129 to 191,883,920 acres.69 In addition, in 1909 there were 4,307,240 acres in national parks and monuments plus a number of million acres that were withdrawn for other purposes. Revenue Sharing Principle Augmented Although support for cession of all the public lands to the states in which they were located was still strong in the West in 1900, more realistic leaders like Representative Francis G. Newlands of Nevada recognized its futility. He came forth with a proposal that, when adopted in 1902, constituted the greatest victory of the western states in securing to them the benefits of the economic exploitation of the public lands. Only rivaling it is the Act of 1953 by which Congress granted to the coastal states ownership of the so-called tidelands with their valuable oil and gas resources. The Newlands Act of 1902 provided that money derived from the sale of public lands after the deduction of the 5 percent already going to the states of origin was to go into a revolving fund for the building of reclamation projects to irrigate the arid lands. The costs of constructing the 69 The acreage for 1909 excludes Indian reserves but includes private ownerships. |