The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1892-04-26
The MINERAL LAND BILL.
Argument Of Major Maginnis Before
the House Committee on
Public Lands.
In Support Of the Bill Introduced
by Congressman Dixon,
of Montana.
Answer to President Henry Willard and
General Counsel Nckaught, of the
Northern Pacific Company.

public lands Friday, April 15, 1892:
Mr.. Chairman and Gentlemen of the COM
mittee: The states of Montana and Idaho.
throuRh their ropresen tatiyes, all tho people
of the mining states, through their press,
their Legislatures and their public assem-
blIes. the commissioner of the general land
ofllco. the secretary OF the interior, through
their reports, and the president of the
United States. by his messages. all stand
before your honorable committee and ask
for the careful consideration and speedy
enactment Of this bill. or such Legislation
as may, in your Judgment with in the con-
stitutionnl powers Of congress, save the
mineral lands within the grants of the Pa
eific railroad companies. to the government
and the people of the United States. l re-
gret shat some difference Of opinion has
arisen between the supporters Of this policy
as to methods and details. The bill intro
duced by Mr. Dixon was long considered
and weighed and, as we thought, met the
approval of all interested. When we asked
that this bill be sent up to the inte-
rior department some weeks ago we
expected most speedy concur
renee in it's propositions and
The honorable secretary and the land corr
missioner join in urging speedy legislation
in this direction, bat seem to prefsr bill
drawn upon the lines submitted by Mr.,
Garter. then our representative in the
house, in tbs last congress. 1t 10 only nat
ural that Mr.. Carter should prefer his own
bill. and that the department., having rec
commended that bill, should now wish to
revive it; but in my Judgment this fuller
and more complete measure is the only one
that meets the requirements of the situa-
tlon, and the representatives of the states
Interested have concluded to support Mr..
Di1on'S bill. In my judgment, TO omit the
clauses suggested by the honorable com
missioner would weaken tho measure, /
know that the constitutional lines are close
ly followed-thsy have to be; but believe
that G5ngress can within its powers PASS
this bill. and that it will stand us law. 1t
is approved by the press of all shades of
opinion in Montana and Idaho, and all the
numerous organizations have endorsed its
provisions. My correspondence bears
ample testimony to this fact. In clear
and lucid argument Mr.. Dixon has made
known to you the points of merit in hia
bill. cordially agree with him. and 90 /
think do all the representatives Of tho NUM-
erous states. We stand by this bill, but
leave to the judgment of the committee Che
adjustment of minor differences.
Mr.. McNaught, ON the part of the North
ern Pacific railroad, at great length has
defined his opposition to the passage of this
bill or Of either bill. exoept they be amended
according to the suggestions which he has
made. Hc ooneurs, however. in tho propo-
| sition that classification should be made.
not only on the surveyed, Lut as this bill
proposes also, on the unsurveyed portions
of the grant, in order that the company
may exchange the mineral lands, which he
| admits would be better for all to remain in
the possession Of tho United States in order
that they may beproSpected and Developed
for other lands in lieu thereof, not CON
tanned within the present indemnity limits,
| unless the company be allowed to select
from tho even as we'll sS the odd sections.
Wherefore classification is admitted to be
desirable wherever the courts may decide
the ownership of the lands may lie.
The criticisms and amendments which
Mr.. McNaught has made on this bill in de-
tail will leave to be answered by my friend,
| the Hon. Willis Sweet. of Idaho. member
OF your committee, who will close the
debate on our side, and / will, in general
terms, show the urgent necessity of i'm medi-
ate action in this matter, and endcavor to
impress upon you its rightfulness.
Mr.. Henry Willard, the president of the
road. or rather of the board of control con
Guided his remarks by making a PROPOSE
tion TO the committee. Both Mr.. Nillar
and Mr.. McNaught proceeded uaon the as
sumption that the title to all these miners
lands not known to be such at the time of
the definite location of the road, now vests
| in the railroad company. MIR. Willard says
he considers that question as closed. TheSe
lands, he claims, now belong to the COM
panv, and the only way to restore the title
10 the United States is for the company to
deed back all tho mineral lands in lieu for
| agricultural lands to make Wy the loss. He
pledges the consent of the company to this
| exchange. He admits that this contro-
! versy in blight upon this prosperity of the
country and of his road, and [ must say
expresses oommendable anxiety for its set
Element. he law now grants new lands in
| exchange for all mineral lands contained
within the grant but these gsntlmen say
that there is not agricultural land enough
| within the grants and it's present Indemnity
| limits to make up for tho loss
of the mineral lands. Therefore
they either want new indemnity lands
| outside the present limits or the power to
| take odd and even sections i'll solid blocks
inside the limits, until the quantity they
| claim is made mp. Now. if the committee
| thinks it only equitable to carry out tho
present law i'll that way shall enter no
protest and shall not oppose it. Ths fact
CuAG Vic limllb uO uOb SONlhlu lhnu enough
to indemnity all losses was owing to tho
fact Of settloment during the delay In
building the road. and neither the govern
ment nor tho people were responsible for
that delay. What We want is the mineral
lands, and If the oommittee think is right
to give the company greater indemnity for
lands acknowledged to be mineral and ao-
knowlsdged 30 belong TO the United States.
| shall not attempt to influence its action;
but in view Of tho opposition Ill the house
| to what will be charged in debate as Nh ex-
| tension TO the land grant. hope tho COM
mittce will not smhody it in this bill. but
report 1t AZ II separate proviso. so that tho
houho can vote on 1t separately. | would
not like TO soc the house vote down the bill
on account of such a proposition. IL the
proviso is voted down let the bill then pass.
II tina house sustains the proviso both oHn
pass togethsr. 1t ia only fair to lot every
tub stand on its own bottom. That is all
| ask in this connection.
lam here on the part OF the state of
Montana, frat OF all, to save tho mineral
lands. Az u matter OF final resort il the
Judgment of the supreme court should be
| against us would accept the proposition
| of MIR. Willard. If that court should decide
i'll favor Of the company and against the
people. then would agree to the exchange