OCR Text |
Show LEGAL ASPECTS OF MINERAL RESOURCES EXPLOITATION 735 states.261 Senator Heyburn of Idaho opposed all conservation legislation as "socialistic."262 And so on. Although the "debates" occupy considerable space in the Congressional Record, there was really little interest in the bill. The East had already decided how to vote, and the western opposition bored everyone else to the point where only 19 votes on both sides could be garnered to vote on one particular amendment.263 The House reluctantly concurred in the Senate bill264 and on June 25, 1910, it was signed by President Taft.265 To many conservationists it was totally inadequate.266 To the western oil operators it was something of a victory. The bill introduced by Representative Pickett was hardly a model of legislative drafting. Although it may have been less effective as a conservation measure, the Senate version which passed was more carefully constructed. Yet, the act did leave unanswered a number of problems. In the first place, in recognizing an Executive withdrawal power, it carefully avoided any confirmation of the legality of previous withdrawals: ". . . this Act shall not be construed as a recognition, abridgment, or enlargement of any asserted rights or claims initiated upon any oil or gas bearing lands after any withdrawal of such lands made prior to the passage of this Act . . ." The validity of prior withdrawals was, therefore, left up to and finally decided by the courts. But the act went beyond this. It authorized the President in the future to "temporarily" withdraw at his discretion land from the operation of the general pub- 28145 Cong. Rec. 7542 (1910). 282 45 Cong. Rec. 8042 (1910). 293 45 Cong. Rec. 7552 (1910) (Mr. Clark's amendment for automatic restoration 6f withdrawn lands) . 294 45 Cong. Rec. 8673 (1910). 285 45 Cong. Rec. 9119 (1910). 288 It was frequently said to be a "reservation" rather than a "conservation" measure. See Peffer, supra note 210, at 118. 287 See note 252 supra. lie land acts for the following purposes: waterpower sites, irrigation, classification of lands, or for "other public purposes" which were required to be specified in the withdrawal orders. The word "temporarily" has no special significance because a later sentence provided that any withdrawal or reservation should remain in force until revoked by the President or by Congress. The "joker" in the original bill-that classification automatically amounted to a restoration of withdrawn land-was omitted.267 The withdrawn lands were not, however, completely removed from the land laws. They continued to be open to "exploration, discovery, occupation and purchase" under the mining laws so far as the latter applied to minerals other than coal, oil, gas and phosphates. In 1912, the latter provision was changed to permit location for "metalliferous minerals."268 As a concession to oil operators, the act also provided that persons, who in good faith occupied oil and gas land at the date of any future withdrawal and who were diligently performing work leading to a discovery and so continued, would not be prejudiced by the withdrawal. This clause proved to be one of the great headaches in the 10 years which followed. Homesteads were excepted from the act to a limited extent, and, opening up an old wound,269 it was provided that forest reserves could not be created in the future in six named states. After several years of squabbling about the usurpation of congressional power over the public domain by Executive withdrawals, Congress did have the opportunity in 1910 to wrestle the entire conservation program from the control of the President. It showed no inclination to do so. This can only be a reflection of the general sentiment in the country which was unsympathetic to the attitude of Congress toward conservation in the previous decade. Rep- 288 43 U.S.C. § 141 (1964 ed.). 289 See note 190, supra. |