The San Francisco call., 1896-08-05
Why the Mineral Lands Bill
Failed 10 Pass Through
Congress.
MUCH OPPOSITION MET WITH.
The Next Association Convention Will
Pe Held in the Second Week
in Novemb r.

The executive committee of the CaHr
fornia Miners Association held an inter-
esting meeting last Monday evening in
the Union League rooms in tie Palace
Hotel. Nearly the en- tire session was
taken up in listeni ng TO the report of the
Hon. TREY L. Ford, the representative of
the association who went to Washington
10 obtain certain Congressional aid in be-
half of the mining industry of this State.
He spent nearly four months East and it
was through his energetic and persistent
efforts that assistance of any kind was OBJ
tanned. He was largely instrumental in
securing the $3.50, ,0oO appropriation for the
impoundiDg of debris in the streams in
the mining districts.
Senator Ford s report was partly histor-
icaI of the efforts made by heminers of
the State 10 obtain relief for hydraulic
miners. That the committee decided to
have it printed as valuable reference OF
useful data and information was a fitting
tribute to its worth. 1t consisted OF fifty
four pages of closely lined typewriter
matter.
When Senator Ford reached Washing
ton he found four measures before Con-
gress:
A bill intended to reduce the penalties
provided for in the committee act;
bill intended to amend the FEDERAL mining
laws with particular reference to the manner
Of locating, holding, and working mining
claims and the transfer OF contests as to the
agricultural or mineral character OF land from
the land offices to the local courts Dill look
ing to the segregation of the unpatented min
eral lands within the railroad land grants in
California, locally known as the Mineral
for the construction Of works to impound
mining debris and thereby to project the nav
igation streams of California.
The first was disapproved of and not
further urged.
The second bill, intended to amend the
Federal mining laws, was argued before the
House Committee on. Mines and Mining
by Representatives Barham and Mr.. Ford,
but no definite action was taken by the
committee, though the committee seemed
favorably disposed toward the measure,
particularly with reference to the transfer
of contests from the Land Office to the
local courts, to which latter particular the
arguments were most strongly directed.
The pFesurse of other matters caused
this bill also to be temporarily neglected,
although the California delegation was
united in its favor Of the mineral lands
bill Mr.. Ford reported:
This bill was introduced on the 26th day of
December, 1895, by Representative Johnson
and referred to the Committee on Public
Lands, where the same was pending on the ar
rival OF your representative in Washington on
January "a, 1896. This bill, it will be remem-
bered, was the bill mutually agreed upon by
the railroad company and your honorable
body and locally known as the substitute
bill" Prior TO his departure for Washington
your represen tative had consultation with
your honorable chairman, during which your
represen tative suggested that he would en-
deayor to ascertain upon reaching Washington
whether the bill originally reported by your
committee on legislation, and Locally known
the committee BILL" stood an equal show
OF passage with the bill already introduced.
On January 81 Mr.. Ford telegraphed to
Mr.. Neff that the committee bill could be
as easily passed as the substitute bill, and
received instructions TO urge the passage
of the com mittee bill. The substitute bill
was dropped, and Mr.. Ford and the Cali
fornia delegation devoted its energies to
the other, which became known as the
California mineral lands bill. The
measure met with much opposition, and
not little from the National administra-
ton, which operated through the effective
machinery of the Interior Department.
The Commissioner OF the General Land
Office addressed lengthy communica-
ton to the Senate committee, which had
the bill, setting forth with much vigor his
objections to the measure and opposing
its enactment into law. This letter had
the added weight of the written indorse-
ment Of the Secretary of the Interior.
This letter was replied TO by Mr.. Ford
and the California delegation and Mr..
Ford paid high praise TO Senators Per-
kins and White, Congressman Bowers and
Senators Dubois OF Idaho, Berry of Arkan
sas. Pascoe of Florida and Hartman of
Montana for their loyal support of the
measure and friendship to California
miners.
After much hard work the bill finally
passed the Senate after several amend
amendment, which did it no good. Mr..
Ford continued:
The bill was to be returned to the House in
the usual manner, when some member of the
House Committee on Public Lands, preferably
the chairman, Mr.. Lacey OF Iowa, or Mr..
Bowers, California's representative upon the
committee, was TO move a inconvenience by
the House and ask for the appointment of q
conference committee The Senate, anticipat-
ing such action on the part OF the House,
named its conferees at the time OF the passage
of the bill, Senators Dubois Of Idaho, Pascoe
OF Florida and Pettigrew of South Dakota
being selected by the Senate to represent that
body in the conference committee. The Sena-
tors thus selected were all friendly to the
measure and would have consented to a recess
sion by the Senate from any OF the Senate
amendments that might have been deemed
prejudicial TO the final passage and approval
of the measure.
The first intimation your representative had
that the programme above suggested had not
been carried out was from telegram received
by him at Denver conveying the information
that Mr. Bowers was sick and that the mineral
lands bill was hung up in the House. Further
correspondence developed grave
state OF affairs, which your representative,
after his arrival in San Francisco, and with
the aid of your secretary, Julian Sonntag, did
all in his power to overcome.
The result however is We'll known to your
honorable body. The bill, upon its return to
the House, was referred to the House Commit
tee on Public Lands instead OF 10 q committee
of conference, thus giving the measure
a parliamentary status which Speaker
Reed could not be persuaded 10
view faVorably though strongly urged TO do SO
by the enire California delegation and earn
estly importuned by the Governor, Secretary |
OF State, Attorney-General, State Controller |
and other prominent officers and citizens OF |
California. The bill therefore remains pend |
ing in the House awaiting concurrence or non /
in the Senate amendments AT |
the short session commencing in December |
and ending in March next the bill can be /
taken up and sent 10 the President Tor ap- 1
DroYal after an agreement by the two houses |
upon the pending amendments. In the mean- |
time your representative begs leave 10 suggest |
that your Committee on mineral lands might 1
employ such means as it may be /
able to command to the end that no lands be |
patented TO any OF the railroad companies |
affected by the bill in question prior TO the |
final passage and approval of the same