History of public land law development

page 740

740 HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT opposed any proposed agreement with the purchasers which might afford them some protection if the producers were later denied patents. The Operating Agreements Act of 1914295 to some extent protected operators who commenced drilling within 3 months after the second withdrawal. When the Midwest decision296 upheld the 1909 withdrawal, the government stepped up its litigation to nullify earlier patents in California. Relief legislation in the form of the Phelan and other proposals sought to protect drillers who commenced operations prior to the second withdrawal in 1910. Plans to relinquish some land in the naval reserves in return for leases were made by the oil companies and vigorously opposed by the Secretary of the Navy. When agreements could not be reached, the production of crude oil allegedly declined, and, at one time, there were threats of commandeering the California oil fields to avert a possible shortage of oil for the Navy. Eventually, with the adoption of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920,297 some relief provisions were adopted, although they were not, of course, as liberal as the oil people hoped for. Throughout the 10-year period the pressure put directly on two Presidents, the Secretaries of the Interior and the Navy, and the Attorney General, as well as the congressional committees, by the oil interests was fantastic. Pinchot and other conservationists aligned themselves with the Secretary of the Navy who opposed all such legislation. Secretary of the Interior Lane, who was admittedly to some extent sympathetic to the California oilmen, was bitterly criticized by Pinchot and the eastern newspapers. Professor Ise, usually objective, is quite critical of the Secretary. He attributes the latter's equivocal position to the fact that he was a lawyer 298 38 Stat. 708 (1914). "•See note 271, supra. »T30 U.S.C. § 181 (1964 ed.) and "the training of, a lawyer often leads to an exaggeration of individual rights and an inability to see social rights . . ."298 On the other side of the coin,299 his statement is rather typical of the Roosevelt conservationists who were fanatically inclined to condemn anyone whose views differed, even slightly, from their own. They saw a monopolistic conspiracy behind every derrick. This attitude left its mark on both the Taft and Wilson administrations which, because of the congressional backlash, had great difficulty obtaining conservation legislation of any type. The Period of Reservation: 1910-1920. It will be remembered that a series of acts between 1909 and 1912 permitted nonmin-eral entries on public land valuable for coal and provided for the issuance of limited patents.300 Similar legislation was enacted in 1912, which allowed surface entries on oil, gas, and phosphate land located in Utah only.301 When Representative Stephens of Texas questioned the wisdom of confining the act to Utah, he was informed by Representative Mann of Illinois that Representatives of the other western states did not favor such legislation and, therefore, these "gentlemen decided to try it first on the dog."302 The experiment apparently proved to be harmless, for on July 17, 1914, an act was passed authorizing all forms of nonmineral entry on withdrawn land containing these minerals. During the Woodrow Wilson administration there was constant pressure to open ¦¦ Ise, supra note 228, at 337. "• White, supra note 229, is more sympathetic to the oil operators. 800 35 Stat. 844 (1909); 36 Stat. 583 (19)0); 37 Stat. 105 (1912). 301 37 Stat. 496 (1912) . The original Senate bill was not so restricted. See 48 Cong. Rec. 1728, 1756, 3478-79 (1912) . A similar statute permitted selections by the State of Idaho of phosphate and oil lands. 37 Stat. 687 (1913). 30148 Cong. Rec. 11339 (1912). 38 Stat. 509 (1914) provided for agricultural entry on lands withdrawn, classified, or reported as containing phosphate, nitrate, potash, oil, gas, or asphaltic minerals.