Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1897-05-26
MIR. KINGS LAND BILL.

The bill introduced Ia the House OF
Representatives by Congressman
King OF Utah, asking for a cession OF
public lands to this State, is calling
for considerable adverse criticism on
that part which provides that the State
shall have coded to 1t the mineral
lands within its borders.
The vigor with which opposition Is
urged to the cession Of mineral
lands especially, presents rather
peculiar phase OF The situation. 1t
is urged that to place the
mineral lands OF this State under the
control OF the people Of the State
would be to "blight" the mining In
dustry in this State. In fact that
sentiment is the chief burden Of the
outcry against the bill. AT present,
as In the recent past, there has been
no protest sgainst ceding agricultural
lAnds to the State; and nobody comes
forward with the accusation that
because Of such cession, the
people Of the State will be
sure to take advantage OF an oppor.
tunity, and "blight" the agricultural
and stock industries. Would the PEG.
pie Of this State be more unfriendiy to
the mining industry than to the others?
1t would seem to us that the accusation,
that II the people OF the Stats OF Utah
had control OF the mineral lands with
In the State boundaries they would
use their power to blight the mining
Industry. rests upon very peculiar
grounds, to say the least.
We cannot conoede the point that
with the possession OF timber, agricul.
tural or mineral lands, the people OF
this State would deliberately iuiure or
destroy either the timber, agricultural
OF mining Interests Of the State. They
have shown no disposition to do 30 In
the opportunity given In their limited
experience. On the other hand, 1t
cannot be denied that so far as matters
have gone, the State has shaped Its
land policy for the mutual interests
OF the State and Its inhabitants.
The welfare Of ems Is the welfare Of
the other. It is only fair to presume
that It would be the same with miner.
al lands. Therefore the distrusi OF the
people, displ aged In the charge that
they would discriminate In favor Of q
policy to injure 80 important an indus
try as that OF mining, does not seem
to have its force In any desire for the
public welfare.
No doubt exists that the possession
OF public lands, mineral and other
wise, has been and 10 source OF i'm.
mense revenue to the general govern.
ment. Would II not be to the great
advantage OF this State to be the direct
recipient Of lite proportion Of that
revenus7 Would 1t not be to the
permanent material advantage OF the
people Of the State for Utah to have
csded to 1t all the public lands therein?
And cannot the people Of Utah, by
their legally chosen representatives, be
trusted to use or dispose OF those lands
for the mutual good OF the State and
It's inhabitants? We are inclined to
think that the State would be about as
fair to all parties concerned az the gen.
erAl administration ia nova most
excellent administration, but yet sub
ject to grave uncertainties as to min
eral lands, an illustration OF this being
given In the still unsettled cont est
relative to the Uncompsh gre reserva.
ton.
As TO the King bill, the NEWS 10
not prepared to say 1t endorses 1t, In
the absence OF the full text OF the
measure to give 1t critical considera.
ton. But 1t does call attention to the
Inconsistency OF the antagonism there
to declaring that the people OF this
State should not be permitted to re-
ceiva from the general government
grant Of very great valus financially.
lest they should use II to their own
injury.
1t may be pointed out, however,
that Congressman King's bill is in
line with the present governmental
tendency regarding the public lands,
and anticipates that which appears to
be coming in the near future. The
FOLEY heretofore has been for the
general government to dispose Of It's
public laud holdings direct to individ-
ual owners. But with the general
distrib1tion OF state governments over
the whole country and the shrinking
quanty OF public land, the late,
tendency IL to apportion this land
to statee, 10 dispose Of the same 10 SCI.
tiers. This is shown clearly in the
extensive grants made to this and to
other states. and Indicates that before
long there may be only the state land
odices for tuch bueiBess. The older
commonwealths as well as these O.
mo.a recent growth, seem united upon