n> 
 
 ffD 
 
 242 
 
 3 
 
 L4 
 
 00 
 
 r- 
 
 vD 
 C\J 
 
 o 
 
GIFT F 
 Mr. H.L. Leupp 
 
The Public Land Policy 
 
 Of the United States in 
 
 ALASKA 
 
 AN ADDRESS BEFORE THE 
 
 Northwest Mining Convention 
 
 SPOKANE 
 
 February 16th, 1912 
 
 BY 
 
 MAURICE D. jLEEHEY 
 
 812 Alaska Building ^^ Seattle 
 
L 
 
 The Public Land Policy 
 
 Of the United States in 
 
 ALASKA 
 
 t 
 
 By MAURICE D. LEEHEY 
 
 The American people, or those who interest themselves in Alaska 
 enough to read about it, are pretty well satisfied that there is something 
 radically wrong in the laws for that territory, and in the government 
 policy, or lack of policy, toward the Treasure . Land which constitutes our 
 last frontier. Alaska .progressed rapidly during the ten years which fol- 
 lowed the rush to Cook Inlet in 1896. With the discovery of gold in the 
 Yukon came the prosperity of Circle City and Rampart. Then the world- 
 famed Klondyke rush, the first Nome boom, and the development of the 
 Fairbanks region. Through all this growth and prosperity we heard much 
 talk of an All- American route to the Yukon, and saw some action to that 
 end. Work was initiated upon at least five routes over which it was 
 planned to build railroads from the southern coast to the Interior. But 
 during that same period there was also discovered deposits of splendid coal, 
 seemingly the one commodity needed to assure the permanence of Alaska's 
 prosperity and the speed of her development. This discovery which prom- 
 ised so much good for Alaska, has so far borne but evil, for while the 
 year 1906 proved the banner year of Alaskan gold production, that same 
 year also witnessed the withdrawal of all coal lands in Alaska from entry, 
 and the suspension of railroad building to the Interior. Instead of inaugu- 
 rating a period of splendid progress, the discovery of coal brought stagnation 
 and retrogression. No doubt the population of Alaska increased rapidly 
 from 1896 to 1906, but it much diminished during the following four years, 
 as the census of 1910 showed an increase in population of only 764 people 
 over the census of 1900. This was not sufficient to cover the increase bv 
 the birth rate over deaths. So the census of 1910 shows that Alaska actually 
 lost population, so far as immigration is concerned, during the preceding 
 ten years. Prof. Tarr says in a recent issue of the North American Re- 
 view: "The towns of Alaska, with hardly an exception, have lost popula- 
 tion, and vacant houses and stores exist by the score. People are closing 
 up business and leaving there in general despondency, especially in the 
 coastal portions, which have been looking forward to the impetus that should 
 result from the building of railroads and the development of the coal 
 fields." 
 
 This loss of population is remarkable when we consider the results of 
 that brief period of development.! Alaska poured more than two hundred 
 million dollars worth of minerals into this country. The gold output rep- 
 resents $196.000,000, while $8,000.000 have been realized from Alaska cop- 
 per since 1901. Even if we disregard the millions obtained in fish and furs, 
 the production of which does not necessarily indicate material development 
 of the territory, surely the mineral production is such as to justify many 
 times the present white population of approximately 35,000 people. 
 
3 
 
 The reason is found in the treatment of Alaska by the government of 
 the United States, and no one has yet had the timerity to justify that 
 treatment. Those who criticise the laws passed by Congress for the de- 
 velopment of Alaska contend that other laws should have been passed, and 
 each party to the controversy blames the other for the condition in Alaska. 
 The people who went to Alaska, and undertook the development of her 
 
 resources, have been the least considered in all this discussion. Only 
 
 recently were they given a delegate in Congress without vote. They are 
 denied local self-government" many form, and while we may be antago 
 nized by the statement that every charge made by the Colonists against 
 King George in the Declaration of Independence can be truthfully made by 
 the people of Alaska against the government of the United States, yet when 
 we closely analyze that statement, we must admit it indeed difficult to 
 deny./ It is also true that the people of Alaska may urge many causes of 
 complaint not mentioned in the illustratrious Declaration penned by Thomas 
 Jefferson. Certainly we have no record in the history of the Colonies of 
 where the British Government ever deliberately and openly violated its 
 contracts in the manner in which the government of the United States 
 has arrogantly violated the contracts which arose with people of Alaska 
 claiming under the Public Land Laws. 
 
 Of course, some reason exists for this. The men charged with the 
 administration of public affairs are not necessarily to be charged with 
 dishonesty or bad faith. A wild popular clamor has arisen, and while from 
 our point of view we cannot admit this as an excuse for ignoring the law, 
 yet means have been found and lines of argument have been produced to 
 justify the position taken in each particular case. _But the Alaskans arj 
 Americans. Practically all of them came directly from the States, and every 
 state m pur union is represented in Alaska by some of her most enter- 
 prising sons and bravest daughters, jf Consequently, the Alaska people are 
 patriotic, and they have exercised for years a patient, philosophical patrio- 
 tism, because they have confidence in the honesty of the American people, 
 and know that when the American people are fully and correctly informed 
 justice will be done. 
 
 The administration has for several years recommended legislation with 
 reference to Alaska without visible results. In the meantime laws appli 
 cable to Alaska have been suspended by the withdrawal of public lands 
 from entry. Naturally, Alaskans are disposed to criticise the administra- 
 tion quite as much for its failure to proceed under existing laws as to blame 
 Congress for the failure to enact new legislation. It is popularly under- 
 stood that the. coal question^ is the most important problem in Alaska. This 
 is not entirely true. The great problem is that of transportation, and 
 the coal question is chiefly important for its bearing upon transportation. 
 Alaska requires railroads to the Interior, and it is manifest that these 
 railroads will not be built until the Alaska coal is placed upon the market. 
 
 Coal was mined in Alaska by the Russians long years ago, probably 
 soon after the settlement of Sitka and Kodiak, the oldest towns on the 
 Pacific Coast of America, whence supplies were shipped to California and 
 along the Pacific Coast before San Francisco, San Diego, or Seattle were 
 founded. These Russian coal mines though never became of commercial 
 importance, and our American people paid no attention to Alaska coal 
 until after the discovery of gold in the Interior. 
 
 The general coal land laws of the United States were extended to 
 Alaska by the Act of June 6th, 1900. Prior to that time attempts were 
 made to locate coal lands in Alaska, but there was no law permitting the 
 same, and even the general coal land act of 1873 has been inoperative be- 
 cause it applies only to surveyed land, and the public surveys have not 
 been extended to Alaska. The act though encouraged several men, in the 
 utmost of good faith, to attempt locations, and much work was done on 
 the ground to explore and better reveal the deposits of coal as shown by 
 surface croppings. The simple men who did such work were innocent 
 
 M1G0463 
 
enough to believe that the law meant something, and that by complying 
 with it as best they could, their rights would sometime be recognized. 
 
 After another delay of four years Congress passed the act of 1904 
 which provides for coal land locations by private surveys. Such legisla- 
 tion was urged upon Congress by the President's message. Congress acted, 
 and on April 28th, 1904, the President approved the law now in force 
 permitting individual entries of 160 acres of coal land to be designated by 
 private surveys at the expense of the applicant. About 1000 coal claims 
 were located under this Act. Some 300 of these have been surveyed at 
 the sole expense of the claimants, who have also paid into the United 
 States Treasury nearly $400,000.00, but so far not a single patent has been 
 issued. It has been charged that most of these claims are invalid. We 
 presume that only the officials of the General Land Office have sufficient 
 knowledge to speak of all entries, but we do know of certain claims which 
 are entirely valid, made in strict compliance with the law, and which 
 should have been patented years ago. We know of men who went into 
 both the Katalla and Matanuska regions and spent their time and money 
 in the utmost good faith, strictly complying with the law in its every 
 detail. Indeed, some of these men have actually lived upon their claims 
 during all these weary years of waiting. Such applications there are 
 which have been pending for four years and more, and yet no action has 
 been taken, no charges filed, and in some cases not even the slightest sug- 
 gestion of an irregularity has been made, although during all of these years 
 a score of field agents have been at work, interviewing claimants and 
 other persons who might have some knowledge, and employing every means 
 of a skilled detective force to ascertain possible fraud or irregularities. 
 
 Has this long delay been caused by a gigantic conspiracy to unlawfully 
 acquire and monopolize the Alaska coal fields? Or, was it caused by 
 another conspiracy, which has for its object the nullification of the laws 
 solemnly passed by Congress, and the substitution of a leasing system in 
 the Alaska coal fields, without any regard to the rights of those people 
 who proceeded in good faith according to law? 
 
 Thirty-one months after the President signed the Act of April 28th, 
 1904, that same President issued an executive order withdrawing all these 
 coal lands from entry. The executive order nullified the act of Congress. 
 The order was so sweeping as to even suspend action upon claims already 
 filed, and the Kegister and Eeceiver were thus compelled to refuse to 
 file notices of locations made even prior to the withdrawal. Some months 
 later the order was modified so as to permit action upon existing entries. 
 It was admitted that patents should issue to valid claims located between 
 April 28th, 1904, and November 12th, 1906, but so far all that has been 
 done is to file charges against some of the claimants, which charges have 
 resulted in an order for the cancellation of one group. But we repeat 
 there are many applications which remain pending after all these years 
 without any action, not even charges filed or suggested. Why this long 
 delay? Surely the illegal acts of one should not entirely prevent action 
 upon the claims of another against whom no charges have been made. 
 Bather was not this delay caused and is it not continued, in furtherance 
 of another conspiracy to force a leasing system upon the Alaska coal 
 fields? 
 
 This situation is the more aggravating because most of these particu- 
 lar claimants have agreed to accept patents under the limitations of the 
 Act of May 28th, 1908. This act applies only to claims located prior to 
 November 12th, 1906, the date of the President's withdrawal. This later 
 act permits the consolidation of such claims in groups of not to exceed 
 2560 acres, and was intended to cure defects which might have Resulted 
 from the location of a group of claims in common, or with intention to 
 combine after obtaining patents. It is manifest that a coal mine cannot 
 be operated upon 160 acres. Consequently, many of these claims were 
 located in groups by men represented perhaps by the same agent, and to 
 
some extent acting jointly, each individual however locating one claim 
 and holding it independently, but having in mind possibly that some plan 
 of joint action might be adopted after the issuance of patents. Congress 
 intended to validate any irregularities in such locations, but imposed 
 severe conditions, as will be noted by Section 3 of the Act of 1908 which 
 reads as follows: 
 
 "^ " That if any of the lands or deposits purchased under the provisions 
 of this act shall be owned, leased, trusteed, possessed, or controlled by any 
 device permanently, temporarily, directly, indirectly, tacitly, or in any 
 manner whatsoever so that they form part of, or in any way effect any com- 
 bination, or are in anywise controlled by any combination in the form of 
 an unlawful trust, or form the subject of any contract or conspiracy in 
 restraint of trade in the mining or selling of coal, or of any holding of such 
 lands by any individual, partnership, association, corporation, mortgage, 
 stock ownership, or control, in excess of two thousand five hundred and 
 sixty acres in the district of Alaska, the title thereto shall be forfeited to 
 the United States by proceedings instituted by the Attorney General of 
 ^the United States in the courts for that purpose. ' ' 
 
 This is certainly the most stringent anti-monopoly clause possible to 
 frame in the English language. But nearly four years more have passed 
 since this drastic legislation, and still no action has been taken. Is such 
 Departmental inaction but the reflection of public sentiment? Perhaps it 
 is. Perhaps it but expresses a conviction of the American people that the 
 public land system which gave the great west the most splendid develop- 
 ment in the history of the world, cannot now be extended to Alaska; that 
 the enactment by Congress to do so was a mistake, for which the honest 
 coal claimants in Alaska must suffer, and those who took their little all 
 of health and goods into Alaska, in full confidence that the laws of the 
 United States would be enforced, must suffer loss because they had too 
 much faith in the integrity of our government. Be that as it may, it is 
 unquestionably a fact that had the same policy been pursued in the early 
 settlement of the middle west that is now being pursued toward Alaska, 
 the buffalo would still be King of the Plains, Chicago would still be a 
 frontier town, Kansas City would be a mere trading post at the edge of the 
 Great American- Desert, and the now splendid cities of Denver, Spokane and 
 Minneapolis would not even be names upon the map. 
 
 This policy has manifested itself in the most arrogant assumption of 
 power against which we have no protection, because there is apparently 
 no legal remedy. Consider the withdrawals made by President Roosevelt 
 without authority of law. The want of such authority was tactily ad- 
 mitted by the executive in its request that Congress pass a law conferring 
 such authority. The withdrawal simply amounted to a notice that the 
 Land Department would not execute the law; that its officers would not 
 perform the duties which they took solemn oath to perform, nor uphold 
 the law which they solemnly swore they would execute. Congress then 
 passed the Act of June 25th, 1910, authorizing the President in hi dis- 
 cretion to "temporarily withdraw from settlement, location, sale or entry 
 any of the public lands * * * and reserve the same for water power sites, 
 irrigation, classification of lands or other public purposes to be specified in 
 the orders of withdrawal." Pursuant to that law, the President has 
 withdrawn all coal lands in Alaska, al!" lands in Alaska containing petro- 
 leum, oil or gas, all lands in the vicinity of hot springs, all lands around 
 the shores of Resurrection Bay, and has made other withdrawals too num- 
 erous to mention. Note that the law only permits the withdrawal of a 
 specific area for a specific purpose, which purpose must be stated in the 
 order of withdrawal. Instead of withdrawing any specific area of coal land, 
 the order withdraws all coal lands in Alaska. In other words, the Executive 
 order absolutely nullifies the Act of 1900, extending the general coal land 
 laws to Alaska, and also nullifies the Act of 1904. permitting coal loca- 
 tions upon unsurveyed lands in Alaska, both of which Acts of Congress ap- 
 
ply only to Alaska, and are entirely annulled by such withdrawals. Clearly 
 the withdrawal is illegal. In the first place, because it applies to all 
 coal lands, while the Act contemplated the withdrawal of only specific 
 areas. Instead of doing so the order of the Executive attempts to nullify 
 and hold for naught at least two Acts of Congress, formally enacted by 
 both houses with the approval of the President. Then, too, the Act speci- 
 fies the purposes for which the withdrawal may be made, and requires that 
 such purposes be stated in the order of withdrawal. What is stated? Is 
 there any pretense that such withdrawal was made for ' ' water power 
 sites, "'* irrigation" or "any public purpose?" If so, such purpose is not 
 stated in the order of withdrawal, as the law requires. It cannot be con- 
 tended that all the coal lands must be withdrawn for the purpose of 
 classification, because the fields most seriously affected are already classi- 
 fied as coal lands. But lo and behold! what does the order of withdrawal 
 state? We are advised that such withdrawal of ALL the coal lands in 
 Alaska is made in "aid of legislation." The Act of June 25th, 1910, 
 does not contain these words; does not specify any such grounds for with- 
 drawal. It is the opinion of the lawyers who have studied the subject 
 that even the existing order withdrawing ALL coal lands in Alaska from 
 entry is illegal. But how may we attack the legality of the order! The 
 Land Department simply refuses to take action upon any entries. They 
 simply refuse to execute the law, and there seems to be no method by which 
 any appeal may be made to the courts for a judicial review of the ques- 
 tion. Congress refused to make the provision recommended by Secretary 
 Ballinger that an appeal might be taken to the courts from the decisions of 
 the Interior Department even upon questions of law. 
 
 Alaskans are in full sympathy with the desire of the people of the 
 United States that the great coal fields of Alaska shall not pass into the 
 hands of a._private monopoly, to be exploited solely for private gain. We 
 believe though the dangerof such monopoly in Alaska has been greatly 
 exaggerated. In fact, we who know conditions in Alaska, are convinced 
 that such monopoly cannot arise under existing laws, if properly inforced. 
 We are also interested in the men who discovered these coal fields and re- 
 vealed their wealth to the nation, and in those men who spent their time 
 and money to develop and prove the value of these fields. We understand 
 the Act of 1904 to be an offer by the government, which when accepted 
 by the bona fide locator constitutes a contract between him and the 
 government. We still believe that the American people, who are fair ana 
 honest when correctly informed, will insist that the contract be kept. 
 
 We deplore the delay which has operated so much to our disadvantage, 
 caused financial loss to so many honest men and women who invested 
 perhaps all they had in money, labor, health and enterprise, and gave 
 several of the best years of their lives, relying on this contract with the 
 United States. We refer not only to the honest coal claimants, but still 
 more especially to the far more numerous band of hardy, enterprising 
 people who went to Alaska, and have no direct interest in the coal fields, 
 but engaged in various other lines of business, relying on the opening of 
 these coal deposits and upon the building of railroads and smelters, to 
 which the use of this coal is an absolute essential. It is in this way that 
 the great loss to Alaska and Alaskans has really been suffered. Our 
 appeal is for justice, not merely to the honest coal claimants, but also, and 
 more especially, to that vast body of Alaskan pioneers who invested their 
 all of time and money, labor and sacrifice, enterprise and energy, in trust- 
 ing that the law of 1904 would be fairly executed. Those pioneers are 
 indeed the same honest, rugged, sturdy men and women who conquered the 
 West, who opened the coal fields and iron mines of Pennsylvania and Ohio, 
 who converted the prairies of the Mississippi Valley into a blooming garden, 
 who have conquered the plains and tunneled th<? mountains and made the 
 great Northwest yield up its treasure of mine and field. These same men 
 have gone into Alaska and endured the hardships and privations of the 
 
Northland in an effort to open up that country in whose resources they 
 have such abundant confidence. Some of them found their last resting 
 place beneath the Northern Lights. Many of them have left Alaska 
 disappointed and disheartened, broken in health and spirit, while others 
 still remain in the desperate struggle, many of them simply because they 
 are unable to get away. It is difficult to picture the condition of thest 
 disappointed people along the Alaska Coast, and we shall not attempt it 
 because we cannot do the subject justice in the first place, and our picture 
 would be deemed over-drawn if we correctly portrayed it. These men have 
 seen public officials, senators, congressmen and cabinet officers visit 
 Alaska and depart much impressed, but no results followed their visit. 
 Consequently, it is not strange that many of these who welcomed Secretary 
 Fisher to Alaska on his recent trip, expressed doubt as to whether results 
 would follow it. 
 
 Secretary Fisher grasped the situation, however, in a short trip suffi- 
 ciently to recognize the greatest need of Alaska, which is transportation. 
 The coal is important chiefly in its bearing upon transportation. JWe know 
 _^that the Alaska jioaJ, is of higher quality than any other on tfie Pacific 
 cT)SSt, whetfcefni America, Asia or Australia. We know comparatively 
 little, however, as to the extent of the deposits and the possibility of 
 economical mining. Only the highest grade coal of Alaska can be shipped 
 from the territory in competition with other fuel along the Pacific Coast. 
 During the last ten years the Pacific Coast of the United States has 
 consumed annually from four to five million tons of coal. There has been 
 very little increase Tn that consumption, principally because during tne 
 same period the production of oil has increased so rapidly, that now we 
 consume fuel oil of the equivalent of more than eleven million tons of 
 coal annually. Most of our shipping is now operated by fuel oil which is 
 also used at the Treadwell and is being installed on the Copper Biver Kail- 
 road. It seems unlikely that Alaska steaming coal will find any con- 
 siderable market outside of Alaska unless for the use of the navy which 
 now consumes annually about 150,000 tons of coal and burns nearly a quarter 
 of that amount in shipping it around Cape Horn. .There will doubtless be_ 
 a market for Alaska anthracite, particularly in thejGalifornia cities^ but it 
 will require consIcTerable capital, not only to mine the coal, but to ship 
 it and establish bunkers and distribute same in the various cities so tliat 
 a constant supply may be assured at a reasonable cost. There is practically 
 no coking coal on the Pacific Coast and consequently there is much promise 
 for the Alaska coking coal, but even the market for coke is at present 
 limited. It has no competitor in smelting and steel making, and with the 
 growth of these industries on the Pacific Coast the demand for Alaska coke 
 will increase. Dr. Brooks, the very eminent and much beloved head of the 
 United States Geological Survey in Alaska, estimates that there is a market 
 for 500,000 tons annually of Alaska coal outside of that territory. Hence, 
 the importance of Alaska coal to the Pacific Coast has been greatly exag- 
 gerated. It is important to Alaska, however, for we cannot hope that 
 railroads will be built in Alaska until the Alaska coal is made available, 
 and the great wealth of the Interior of Alaska is awaiting development 
 which can only come with adequate transportation facilities. 
 
 I Stop to think of it, there has never been a producing mine at tide 
 water on the face of the earth outside of Alaska, while nearly all of the 
 producing mines in Alaska are located at tide water, where a ship may load 
 ore from the bunkers. Alaska has yielded over $200,000,000 in precious 
 metals, practically every bit of which has been taken front places within 
 sight of the smoke of a steamboat, including of course, the placers along 
 the Yukon Eiver and its tributaries. | We know of mineral deposits of 
 fabulous wealth in the interior, immense areas of lower-grade placers, rich 
 gold quartz, and mines of native copper, but today they are as useless to 
 us as if hidden in the chasms of the moon. Transportation is required, 
 railroads must be built, but this cannot be done without Alaska coal./ 
 
8 
 
 And the study of the Alaska transportation problem will involve considera- 
 tion of the coal fields.J The two principal fields are the Bering Eiver and 
 the Matanuska. The Bering Eiver is also commonly known as the Katalla 
 field, as it is near that town. A few years ago the Alaska Syndicate began 
 the construction of a breakwater at Katalla with the idea of developing 
 a harbor there, but later abandoned the project, and moved its terminals to 
 Cordova, a point on Prince William Sound, from which the Copper River 
 & Northwestern Railroad has been built easterly across the Copper River 
 Delta and thence up that valley to the Bonanza Copper Mine. A branch 
 line could be built from this -road so as to make a total haul of about 85 
 miles from the center of these fields across the Copper River Delta to 
 Cordova. Much has been said recently concerning the merits of Controller 
 Bay as a harbor for the Katalla fields. Controller Bay is situated about 
 15 miles from the coal, or about 25 miles from the center of the field, 
 and has the advantage of distance and easy grade. The government charts 
 show a sufficient depth of water in Controller Bay, but the navigable 
 channel is small and can be reached only by building several miles of 
 trestle over the mud. These trestles, with bunkers, wharfes and terminal 
 facilities at deep water, .will be expensive to construct and still more 
 expensive to maintain, because of the difficulty with ice coming out of 
 the rivers each spring. Then too, the harbor is only partially protected 
 and is exposed to some of the most dangerous windstorms that visit the 
 Alaska Coast. The Alaska Syndicate, financed by J. P. Morgan & Co. 
 and Guggenheim & Sons, carefully investigated both Controller Bay and 
 Katalla; and spent perhaps more than a million dollars at the latter place, 
 but finally abandoned both places for Cordova. There is no doubt that 
 Controller Bay is avilable as a harbor for some portions of the year, but 
 there is no danger of a monopoly there for any one of its several miles of 
 mud flats is just as valuable as another, and we regard the judgment of 
 th Alaska Syndicate as expressing the general opinion of all people 
 familiar with the Alaska Coast. 
 
 The Matanuska coal fields can be reached from Seward, on Resurrec- 
 tion Bay, an ideal land-locked harbor, equal to any on the Pacific Coast. 
 The coal measures in the Katalla field are much broken, and require 
 extensive development to determine the most economical methods ot 
 mining. The Matanuska coal fields are reported to be less broken but 
 have the disadvantage of a longer haul. Transportation must be provided 
 for each field, and this includes wharves, bunkers and terminal facilities, 
 which must be built and maintained under the conditions prevailing along 
 the Alaska Coast. These items must be considered in our study of any 
 system for the opening of the coal fields. Alaska requires railroads to 
 reach the great interior and permit its mineral and agricultural develop- 
 ment, but coal is also needed for such railroads and for use throughout 
 Alaska, and the transportation of such coal is thus of prime importance. 
 Secretary Fisher is quite consistent in his conclusion that the government 
 should provide the railroads for Alaska, if it insists upon withdrawing 
 from capital the inducements of private ownership and the probable increase 
 in value. Even the inducement of private ownership in the lands and coal 
 mines was not sufficient to encourage the building of railroads across the 
 public domain of the United States. The first trans-continental railroads 
 received substantial government aid, although operating at a time when 
 the public, land .policy of the government was most liberal to settlers and 
 mineral claimants. If government assistance were needed to build railroads 
 across Nebraska; Colorado, Utah and Nevada, why not also in Alaska, 
 especially in view of the determination of the government to deal far less 
 liberally with the pioneers in the matter of its public lands in Alaska. 
 Sound reasons exist for government construction of or aid to railroads in 
 Alaska entirely independent of the coal question. The future of Alaska 
 depends upon the development of the coal and copper mines and the 
 low-grade placers of the great interior, and upon the agricultural develop- 
 
9 
 
 ment of the valleys which is sure to follow. Alaska is in the same latitude 
 as Norway, Sweden and Finland. The cities of Cordova and Seward in 
 Alaska are in the same latitude as Christiana in Norway, Stockholm in 
 Sweden and St. Petersburg in Russia, while Kodiak, Juneau and Ketchikan 
 correspond to Aberdeen and Glasgow in Scotland. The agricultural areas 
 of Alaska are as much larger and will ultimately become as much more 
 important than the combined agricultural areas of Norway, Sweden, Fin- 
 land and Northern Russia, as the Japan Current in the Pacific is larger 
 and more influential than the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic. This is not 
 a wild prophesy, for the farming operations already conducted in these 
 valleys assure that success whenever transportation and a convenient 
 market is provided. Railroads through such valleys are necessary before the 
 farms will be developed, and this means that the raliroads must be operated 
 for some years at a loss, or at least without profit. The government will 
 not give a land grant to aid such a railroad, although the value of its 
 public lands would be multiplied by its construction. Why should not 
 the government build the road itself as the government has done in Canada 
 and in four-fifths of the countries of the world? The government should 
 build railroads more cheaply for it can sell its 3 per cent bonds at par 
 while a private corporation must sell its 6 per cent bonds at a discount. 
 The private corporation must at least earn its fixed charges, while the 
 government can afford to make lower rates and even operate at a loss for 
 a time to encourage the great development which will surely follow and 
 more than justify the investment. Then, too, the development will proceed 
 more rapidly ahead of railway construction by the government whenever a 
 route has been selected. Capital can then be induced to begin the develop- 
 ment of mines in the interior, and homesteaders will settle in advance of 
 the construction of such roads because of the assurance of the government 
 that the road will be built, while in the case of private corporations, with 
 the long record of receiverships which have attended such pioneer railroads, 
 both in the United States and Alaska, it will be necessary to see the 
 smoke of the engine along the route before capital will be justified in 
 making any heavy expenditures in the development of the interior. Rail- 
 roads built in Alaska, and gradually extended from year to year, will shorten 
 each year the winter routes to the interior and on to Nome, and will justify 
 the construction of road houses and even villages along the line of such 
 route, affording inns for the traveler, and providing a development in 
 advance of railway construction which will make the transportation routes 
 the more quickly profitable. 
 
 I But while transportation is the important question, and coal is import- 
 ant chiefly in its bearing upon transportation, yet we must revert back to 
 the consideration of the coal question before the transportation problem 
 will be solved, even with the government railroads in Alaska, for it is 
 inconceivable that the government will build railroads and still continue 
 to ship coal around Cape Horn for the use of the navy upon the Pacific 
 Coast. It is costing the navy the price of a battleship every two years to 
 bring coal from the Atlantic Coast for use on the Pacific, and the money 
 which may be saved in this way by the use of Alaska coal will pay the 
 interest and provide a sinking fund for the retirement of bonds for the 
 construction of two trunk lines from the Coast of Alaska to the Yukon. I 
 
 But how is the coal to be utilized? A leasing system has been sug- 
 gested, and it now seems so popular throughout the United States to 
 advocate such a leasing system that even our own people are disposed to 
 accept it as inevitable. We seem to forget that we tried the leasing 
 system in this country years ago with disastrous results. For more than 
 forty years we tried to develop the coal and lead mines of Indiana, Illinois 
 and Missouri and the copper mines of Michigan upon a leasing system, 
 but utterly failed to do so. Missouri insisted upon being shown, with 
 the result that she was the first state enabled to throw off the shackles 
 of a leasing system. But the legislature of Illinois found it necessary 
 
10 
 
 to memorialize Congress many times, and for years the states of Illinois, 
 Indiana and Michigan waged the fight for private ownership. They needed 
 the coal. They wished the lead and copper mines developed, and that 
 devlopment did come when private ownership of the mines was made 
 possible. This is a matter of history, admitted by all who read its pages. 
 Even the advocates of a leasing system must admit its failure in the early 
 development of those states. And they are at a loss to offer any explana- 
 tion of difference in conditions which will make a leasing system successful 
 now though a failure years ago. At least the experience of the Northwestern 
 States, situated in the same conditions that Alaska is today, should be 
 the best guide for the development of Alaska. 
 
 Poor old Alaska has surely had quite enough of the leasing system. It 
 was leased by Kussia from 1799 until 1867 to the Russian-American Company. 
 That company was the absolute lord and master, and its leasehold sov- 
 ereignty absolutely prevented development. Fortunately nobody was lured 
 there under false promises. Only those went there who did so for the 
 Bussian-American Company. A leasing system was not inflicted upon 
 honest, trustful pioneers as is now proposed by the American government. 
 Fortunately also for the United States, Alaska was not colonized or 
 settled by the Russians. Their leasing system prevented it. Otherwise 
 the Russian people would have so well developed Alaska by 1867 that the 
 United States could not have bought it fo.r two cents an acre, with its 
 wonderful fisheries and a fur seal herd of 6,000.000 thrown into the bargain. 
 The first thing we did, however, was to lease that seal herd to a company 
 which in forty years made a net profit of $5.738,000 and depleted the seal 
 to about 75,000. In the meantime, the United States Government spent more 
 money in patroling the seal islands than it obtained from royalties on 
 the lease, and Alaska got absolutely nothing, not a cent in taxation, not a 
 light-house, not a schoolhouse, not as much as a flag pole. Now, the 
 United States Government has gone into the sealing business itself, and 
 has already begun to make a profit. This experience may be an argument 
 for government construction of railroads in Alaska and even for the 
 government operation of coal mines, but is surely no argument for the 
 adoption of a leasing system. It must be admitted that leases can only be 
 taken by men or corporations who- possess the necessary capital. There if 
 absolutely no encouragement to the prospector. Under the system of pri- 
 vate ownership the prospector who acquires title to a valuable coal deposit 
 can find some basis to ask capital to assist him in its development. But 
 can a mere prospector or any man of small capital secure additional capital 
 upon the securities of a mere lease? Manifestly not. The adoption of a 
 leasing system means the elimination of the prospector who gave knowledge 
 of these deposits to the world. How shall Alaska be explored except by 
 the prospector? It is a well-known fact that able geologists passed over 
 the great Matanuska coal fields without discovering their existence. This 
 is not said to their discredit, but as an illustration of the fact that only 
 the prospector who spends his entire lifetime in the field can thoroughly 
 explore the ground. Such exploration is not the work of geologists but is 
 the work of the prospector. If we are to have any progress in the mineral 
 development of this country we must encourage the prospector, and we 
 must not forget that much derided "non-resident" who furnishes the 
 prospector his grubstake. Neither of them will exist under a leasing 
 system. A still greater objection to the leasing system is that it leads 
 inevitably to monopoly. The allurements of private ownership with its 
 promised increase in the value of the land encourages competition in pro- 
 duction. Competition leads to a careful study of economical mining. 
 Manifestly no one can be induced to take a lease on coal lands except 
 upon reasonably liberal terms. In fact, the terms must be so liberal, es- 
 pecially in Alaska with expensive mining and a limited market, that the 
 lessee will be practically assured of a certain market without competi- 
 tion. Now that is precisely what is proposed by the Secretary of the 
 
11 
 
 Interior. Secretary Fisher says: ''The prime requisites of a leasing system 
 are that only sufficient coal lands should be leased to meet the existing 
 market and encourage its development." Now think of that confession. 
 It is an admission that the government must limit the area leased in order 
 to encourage someone to take a lease. It is an admission that the govern- 
 ment must protect that lessee in his "existing market." It utterly elimi- 
 nates competition. It does not encourage economical mining. It does not 
 compel the lessee to study the cheapest method of extraction and to provide 
 the most modern and improved machinery and to utilize the waste and to 
 develop every possible source of profit in his mines. No, for only suffi- 
 cient coal lands will be leased to meet the " existing market" and protect 
 the lessee in that market. That is the avowed plan of the Secretary oi 
 the Interior. We must admit that Secretary Fisher has outlined a possible 
 leasing system. Yes indeed, and a profitable leasing system for the lessee. 
 Why if you owned every foot of coal lands in Alaska and had no other 
 interest in Alaska, you would probably do just what Secretary Fisher 
 proposes. Lease it out in limited areas here and there, just enough to 
 enable the lessee to meet the existing market at the highest price that 
 market will stand. But if you owned all coal fields in Alaska and all the 
 other public lands in Alaska, and were interested in the material develop- 
 ment of the agricultural and mineral resources of Alaska, then you would 
 adopt the most liberal policy possible in the coal fields; permit the mining 
 of that coal upon the largest scale possible and its use to the consumer at 
 a cost to be regulated by competition, and you would encourage the 
 prospector and the grubstaker and the miner to find and deliver more coal 
 fields and the capitalists to build more railroads to those fields and to 
 open up those mines and provide the greatest competition possible. Why a 
 leasing system on the plan outlined by Secretary Fisher must inevitably 
 lead to such a monopoly as will make the evils of so-called "private ex- 
 ploitation" fade into insignificance. It is significant that the coal barons 
 of the East, of Pennsylvania and West Virginia, are the men who advised 
 Secretary Fisher that a leasing system should be adopted in Alaska. It 
 is significant too that George W. Perkins, late partner of J. P. Morgan & 
 Company, interested in the Alaska Syndicate, is now an avowed advocate of 
 the leasing system. He says he reached that conclusion when he visited 
 Alaska in 1909 in the interest of the Alaska Syndicate. Why did he not 
 say so then? Evidently because he deemed it inexpedient to do so. Does 
 he reflect the sentiment of the one syndicate which will inevitably have a 
 monopoly on the Katalla fields if a leasing system be adopted? 
 
 We are told that the leasing system has been successful in Canada, 
 New Zealand and Australia. Why there is not a single coal mine in 
 British Columbia or the Yukon Territory operated upon a leasing system, 
 although the system in British Columbia really amounts to private owner- 
 ship. The lessee in British Columbia may obtain a lease of 6400 acres for 
 five years, with renewal for three years, but he has always an option to 
 purchase the land' at $20 per acre. However, the coal of British Columbia 
 is being mined upon granted lands. There is a law for leasing coal lands 
 in the Yukon Territory, but the only attempts to operate under that law 
 have resulted in disastrous failures. In fact the failure of the leasing 
 system in Canada has been so pronounced that we have heard little about 
 it during the last six months. We are now referred to New Zealand and 
 Australia as shining examples of the success of this government landlord 
 system. It is advocated in the report of Mr. Veatch who was sent there 
 by our government to investigate the success of the leasing system in those 
 far-off lands which have furnished coal and coke to our Pacific Coast and 
 even to smelters in Alaska. The trouble with that report is that instead 
 of being a fair, unbiased investigation, such as should be conducted at 
 government expense, any reader must be convinced that the author was 
 simply seeking material to support his preconceived idea. Wliile ostensibly 
 sent there to investigate a leasing system, it seems he really went there to 
 
12 
 
 find arguments to support it. Consequently instead of investigating the 
 system he investigated the lessees, and of course, he found them satisfied. 
 Why not! They have a government protected monopoly. The coal opera- 
 tors in New Zealand meet annually and fix the price of coal without let or 
 hindrance from the government. Just read the report of the Minister or 
 Mines of New Zealand. Bead the statement in that report, that "the 
 colliery proprietors have decided that the price of coal for 1911 shall remain 
 the same as in 1910, which was $2.68 per ton." The average price of coal 
 in the United States under our system of "private exploitation" is $1.12 
 per ton, according to the statement 01 George Otis Smith, Director of the 
 U. S. Geological Survey. Of course the government lessees are satisfied 
 in their government protected monopoly. From the official reports of 
 New Zealand for 1909 we find 142 mines operated under lease and two by 
 the government. But on further inquiry we find that 4 mines produced 
 half the entire product of two million tons; six produced a quarter and two 
 government mines produced 290,000 tons. So that 132 small mines pro- 
 duced less than 7 tons per day and were operated to supply small isolated 
 communities. In other words, ten mines control the output. The average 
 annual production per man was 630 against 760 in the United States, 
 though we know that the coal measures in New Zealand are more favorable 
 for economical mining than the average throughout the United States. 
 In New South Wales, Australia, the average production per miner during 
 1909 was given as 425. The cost of coal at pit mouth, however, in New 
 South Wales was $1.65; throughout Australia $1.88 and in New Zealand 
 $1.95 as against $1.07 throughout the United States in 1909. These state- 
 ments are taken from the official reports which also show that coal was 
 mined in the United States in 1910 for 88 cents per ton less than in New 
 Zealand; 58 cents less than in New South Wales, and 81 cents less than 
 the general average for Australia that year. 1 am advised by men who 
 lived in Australia that the most crude methods are employed. Wheel- 
 barrows are used in practically all the mines instead of cars and tracks, 
 and yet we are referred to Australia and New Zealand as an example 
 which we should follow. A little investigation of the subject will cause 
 the advocates of a leasing system to cease their reference to Australia and 
 New Zealand just as completely as they have dropped their refernce to 
 British Columbia, and I suppose they will pass on next to Madagascar or 
 some other no man's land from which to draw their beautiful illustrations 
 of beneficent government landlordism which should be adopted by patriotic, 
 enterprising, independent Americans. 
 
 Dr. George Otis Smith, in his address before the American Mining 
 Congress in Chicago last October, made perhaps the best argument for the 
 leasing system which has ever been presented. He dwelt strongly upon 
 the advantages to capital in saving the cost of the investment in the mine. 
 That is the great trouble with the arguments of the advocates of ;the 
 leasing system. They base them always on the standpoint of the lessee. 
 We are willing to admit that the lessee may prosper under the leasing sys- 
 tem, but how about the consumer, and how about the development of the 
 country? These are the vital points to be considered. We care little for 
 the royalties which may be more or less. The lessee can well aford to pay 
 a substantial royalty for a government protected monopoly, especially 
 since he will pass it on to the consumer. That is not the point. Who will 
 discover the coal deposits? Certainly not the prospector who knows he 
 cannot obtain money on a mere lease to develop any deposits he may 
 discover. Indeed, he cannot even obtain a grubstake to hunt for coal. 
 And what about the consumer who must buy from the lessee operating on 
 a government lease without competition? Will this provide cheaper fuel? 
 Will it encourage the manufacture of coke which is so much desired for 
 the treatment of the copper ores in Alaska? This is an item of the utmost 
 importance. Indeed the coking coal is the most important coal in Alaska. 
 And what is needed more than anything else for the mining industry of 
 
13 
 
 Alaska is the assurance of an adequate supply of coke at a reasonable 
 cost. Smelters and matting plants would then be built along the Alaska 
 Coast for the treatment of low-grade copper ores, which really have more 
 metal contents than the low-grade copper ores of Montana and other 
 states. These ores exist in infinite variety all along the Alaska Coast. 
 Desirable blends of ore can be brought together at different places and a 
 copper matte produced that will stand shipment around the world, if 
 only an assured supply of coke be provided at a reasonable price. The 
 smelter at Hadley, Alaska, paid' as high as $30 a ton for coke from Canada 
 and Australia, and even then ' operated' successfully while copper was 
 commanding upwards of 15 cents. With Alaska coke at $8.00 per ton, the 
 operation of such smelters would be possible, even at the present low 
 price of copper. Ships return from Alaska practically without cargo. 
 They could bring coal and coke and distribute it along the Coast at 
 reasonable freight rates, but we must first have an assured supply at a 
 fixed reasonable cost. The lessee will have no interest in developing the 
 future market. He will try to get all he can out of the present marked 
 He cannot afford to encourage future consumption by giving low prices, 
 thus to develop a large market, for he must make all the money he can 
 out of his lease right away. This condition may be an argument for the 
 mining of coal and manufacture of coke by the government, but it cer- 
 tainly is not an argument for the adoption of a leasing system. 
 
 Even the lessee will have one serious disadvantage under a lease 
 from the government. Dr. Smith bases his entire argument upon the 
 assumption that the government will always treat the lessee with fair- 
 ness. The lessee though will always consider the fact that when he takes 
 a lease from the government he must submit all his disputes with the 
 lessor to that same lessor for decision. The courts will not be open to him 
 for the adjustment of differences. He must settle the same with an 
 autocratic bureau clerk 4,000 miles away, or with an under-paid and there- 
 fore inexperienced and incompetent inspector on the ground. At least, 
 that is the universal experience with the government bureaus thus far in 
 the administration of public lands. 
 
 Is it not a little strange that the advocacy' of a leasing system should 
 proceed from so-called conservationists? Do they honestly believe that a 
 lessee will better conserve the coal in a leased rriine than the man who 
 actually owns that mitie? Of course, we all believe in conservation, as 
 we all believe in economy, though there may be a wide difference of 
 opinion as to what constitutes either. It is interesting to note, how- 
 ever, that these so-called conservationists who so eloquently champion the 
 leasing system are largely the same men who until recently have pre- 
 dicted the utter exhaustion of our natural rsources. Wle have not heard 
 so much on this subject lately, because the facts are becoming better 
 known. Think of Illinois with 200 billion tons of coal of which she has 
 mined only 733 million during nearly seventy years. It may be illus- 
 trated as the case of a man who was given $200,000 in cash at birth, and 
 during a lifetime of 70 years spent only $733. But as against the 200 
 billion of Illinois, Wyoming has 424 billion, and has not mined enough to 
 fairly sample it. The high priest of the conservation movement foretold 
 recently from spiritualistic visions the utter destruction of our timber. 
 We have not enough to last 30 years, he said. Yet the bureau in which 
 he did such effective work, much for good, yet some for evil, is authority 
 for the statement that, even adding the destruction by fire and allowing 
 for the enormous waste in our forests, our timber is still increasing by a 
 natural growth about three times as rapidly as we are using it. And as for 
 water power, well, the watershed of the Columbia River alone has so much 
 water power that if we were now to proceed to harness it at the rate 
 of 10,000 horse power per year it would take us over 2,000 years to do 
 it. Yes, a period longer than the Christian era just to install the equip- 
 ment to put all this power in use. 
 
14 
 
 The situation in Alaska is deplorable. I say deplorable because 
 while nature's bounties are so great and every other condition so favor- 
 able, the government policy, or lack of policy, alone retards and prevents 
 its development. The adminstration might afford relief by a public land 
 policy which would encourage development. It might well do so under 
 existing laws, inadequate though those laws are in many respects, The 
 President might make a lawful withdrawal of Alaska coal lands, suffi- 
 cient in area to protect the public interests, instead of the illegal blanket 
 withdrawals which are now being enforced. Entries of coal lands might 
 be permitted in certain areas and fair treatment accorded the entrymen. 
 Not only might this be done, but it is the positive duty of the adminis- 
 tration to do so. It is the duty of the executive to enforce the law as it 
 stands, but both the present and the preceding administrations have 
 conceived it to be an executive duty to recommend new laws and in the 
 mean time suspend the laws already in force. The President and the 
 Land Department should recommend to Congress such changes in the 
 law as they believe best for the public interest, but the Executive has 
 no right to annul existing laws. No right I say to disregard the laws 
 which the executive has sworn to execute. It is a sad commentary on our 
 system to observe the President of these United States taking solemn 
 oath to uphold and enforce the law and then deliberately disregarding, 
 yes, and annuling certain laws and refusing to enforce the same just 
 beeause (in the opinion of the Executive) Congress should enact a dif- 
 ferent law. Even if, under stress of circumstances, and in response to 
 a great popular demand, the President might be induced to do so for a 
 time long enough to permit Congress to act, yet what can we say when 
 such suspension is continued over a long period of years? I repeat the 
 Alaska people are patriotic. Not only that, but they have confidence in 
 the integrity and good intentions of our government and the men who 
 compose it. We fully appreciate the dignity of the office of President, 
 and the ability, purity and integrity of the great man who fills that 
 office. We are delighted with the interest taken in Alaska by the aole 
 and energetic Secretary of the Interior, and appreciate the value of several 
 suggestions he has made, and hope that his better recommendations will 
 be carried into effect. But will Congress act? And if not, has not Alaska 
 already suffered long enough from the Alphonse and Gaston plays between 
 the executive and the legislative departments of our government. 
 
 After all, Alaska is not suffering so much from the evils of law 
 as from the evils of the system. Our public land administration is such 
 under bureaucratic domination that the development of the public lands 
 everywhere is retarded. We note this more severely in Alaska because 
 there we have practically no land in private ownership. Do you realize 
 fully/ however, that in the great states of Oregon, Idaho. Montana and 
 Washington development upon the public lands is almost at a standstill? 
 The same policy is responsible. Alaska is the most deplorable illustration 
 at this time, because she has practically no land in private ownership. Do 
 you realize that in the Northwestern States our development is practically 
 confined to the lands already in private ownership, and that even in 
 these states the development of our public lands is practically at a stand 
 still! And why! Is it because Congress willed it, and has so legislated? 
 No, the bureaus have legislated! The whole policy of the land depart 
 ment ' has 'been changed in recent years. The bureaucrats have con- 
 strued "the law to mean just what they think it should mean. For in- 
 stance, the department has been called upon for nearly forty years to 
 declare" what is necessary to constitute opening and improving a coal 
 mine under the Act of 1873, in order to give a preference right to pur- 
 chase. They give these words a reasonable construction. As late as 
 n 900 the Secretary of the Interior, in the case of Eeed vs. Nelson, (29 L. D.. 
 615), opinion written by Judge VanDevanter, then Assistant Attorney 
 General, but now on the Supreme bench, held that Nelson had " opened 
 
15 
 
 and improved" a coal mine within the meaning of that act when the 
 record showed that "an open cut was run a short distance and then a 
 shaft sunk disclosing a 4-foot vein of coal." Now the Alaska law of 
 1904 uses the same words, and provides that any person "who shall have 
 opened or improved a coal mine or coal mines on any of the unsurveyed 
 public lands of the United States in Alaska may locate" the same as 
 a coal mine. But in the one Alaska case which has actually come before 
 the Department for consideration they have held that a tunnel driven 
 255 feet into the mountain side, along a vein of coal with 11 cross-cuts 
 showing the vein to be more than 20 feet in width, is not "opening or 
 improving" a coal mine, although several hundred tons of coal per day 
 might immediately be taken from that same tunnel. The Department 
 contends that this was not opening or improving, but prospecting. They 
 evidently do not believe that a mine is a deposit of minerals which can 
 be worked at a profit, but insist on regarding the tunnel, shafts and 
 other workings as the mine, rather than the minerals thus explored, and 
 255 feet of tunnel, attaining a depth of several hundred feet with 11 
 cross-cuts and a body of coal available sufficient to yield an immediate 
 output of several hundred tons per day, is not sufficient workings to 
 constitute a mine, because the tunnel was intended primarily to prospect 
 and explore the coal bodies. They regard the workings as constituting 
 the mine rather than the minerals, and I suppose those learned bureau- 
 crats will set a high value upon the splendidly developed mine, with a 
 complete system of workings, from which every bit of coal has been 
 extracted. That is the logical result of their interpretation, if it is the 
 workings which constitute the mine rather than the minerals. If a 
 cow were hid in the tall grass, and a pole used to push aside the grass 
 so as to reveal the cow, I suppose these learned men would say that the 
 opening in the grass is really the cow. This Alaska decision ignores the 
 case of Reed vs Nelson, not even referring to it. Its logic is the more 
 ridiculous when you consider the fact that the law provides that such 
 coal mine must be "opened and improved" before a location can be made. 
 In other words, the department tells you that you must have a completely 
 equipped coal mine, with tunnels, shafts, up-raises, stopes and cross-cuts, 
 mining machinery, cars and equipment, yes. and you must have all 'these 
 before you even locate a coal mine. And yet. that same Land Depart- 
 ment will not permit one to ship a pound of coal from the mine until 
 after the patent proceedings have been completed and the purchase price 
 paid. The Chief of the Field Division actually closed down in 1908 the 
 only coal mine operating at Katalla fields simply because the patent 
 proceedings were not then completed, and although completed and the 
 purchase price paid that same year, no action has since been taken upon 
 that entry, no charges filed against it, simply nothing done. 
 
 Alaska merits your careful consideration and your most helpful assist- 
 ance. But after all, it is only one part of the great problems which must 
 be faced by the people in the public land states./ This public land question 
 has not received the serious consideration of our people which it merits. 
 Tt has not received the due study and attention of the senators and repre- 
 sentatives in Congress from the public land states. At the coming election, 
 and hereafter, let us see to it that only men are sent to Washington who 
 are familiar with this great question, who will study it carefully, and who 
 are courageous enough to stand for the right regardless of the possible 
 loss of administration favor or political prestige. 
 
 We must realize that the advocates of the leasing system do not pro- 
 pose to stop with leasing coal lands. Indeed, they admit, or at least 
 most of them admit, that they believe all mineral lands should be leased. 
 Some are fair enough to sav that any rovalties derived from such leases 
 should go to the states or communities .But this removes only one of the 
 lesser ob.iections to the leasing system. There might be no serious objec- 
 tion to the leasing of oil lands, for the situation there is materially differ- 
 
1G 
 
 ent, and if the advocates of a leasing system are really earnest in their 
 desire to develop that system and prove its value, they might urge that 
 it be applied first only to oil lands. Their efforts along those lines might 
 result in something that would encourage development of the oil lands of 
 Alaska. But those iconoclasts are not content to carefully develop such 
 important changes in our public land system. The fact is this agitation 
 comes principally from the bureaucrats in Washington, prompted largely 
 by personal motives, though doubtless so fanatical as to believe themselves 
 really honest. The men we send to Washington must be prepared to meet 
 this great issue. The American people as a rule are fair when fully in- 
 formed, and it is our duty as well as to our interest to correctly inform 
 them. The Federal Government should go out of the public land business, 
 and the remaining public lands should be ceded to the different states 
 where they would be managed by men close to the people who use these 
 lands, and responsible to the people of the whole state who are most 
 interested in their development. It may take years to bring this about, 
 but we should conduct the campaign of education. .We have arguments to 
 support it, even from the conservation standpoint, f Our states are afford- 
 ing the only substantial fire protection which is given to our forests. 
 Our State of Washington has passed the laws for the protection of our 
 salmon. This state alone maintains 23 fish hatcheries and employs more 
 men to enforce the laws and protect our fish within the limited area of 
 Puget Sound, than the Federal Government does over the thousands of 
 miles of the Alaska Coast. This state has checked the decline and has 
 actually increased the annual run of fish. But in Alaska, where the supply 
 was enormously greater than anything ever known in this state, the salmon 
 are threatened with extinction, because of the lack of proper laws, properly 
 enforced, and proper means to replenish the supply. In the state it is 
 a matter of intimate domestic concern. For Alaska, the subject must be 
 handled, if at all, by a congress indifferent to and ignorant of the whole 
 subject. 
 
 The Alaska question, in its final analysis, is simply the public land 
 question which from now henceforth must receive the most serious con- 
 sideration of the people of our public land states, if our lands are to be 
 made the happy homes of progressive Americans rather than of the serfs of 
 an absentee landlordism from which the people of Ireland are just now 
 arisimg after the struggle of the centuries..' 
 
.3 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY