The Tupelo journal., 1910-09-09

which sold for $3s, 910. go, making q dispo-
sition of the coal lands in the last two
years OF about $1,000 acres for $1.S05,000.
The present congress, as already said.
has separated the surface Of coal lands,
either classified OF withdrawn for classi-
~ication. from the coal beneath, SO as TO
permit at all times homestead entries
upon the surface of lands useful for az
riculture and to reserve the ownership
in the coal to the government. The ques-
ton which remains to be considered 10
whether the existing law for the sale OF
the coal in the ground should continue
in force or be repealed mi a new method
of disposition adopted. Under the present
law the absolute title in the coal be-
meath the surface passes to the grantee
of the government. The price fixed Is
upon an estimated amoun OF the tons
OF coal per acre beneath the surface, and
the prices are fixed so that the earnings
will only be a reasonable profit upon the
amount paid and the investment neces-
sary. But, OF course, this is more or less
guesswork, and the government parts
with the ownership Of the coal In the
ground absolutely. Authorities OF the ge-
illogical survey estimate that In the
United States today there Is a supply OF
about three thousand billions OF tons OF
coal, and that of this one thousand billions
are in the public domain. OF course, the 9TH
CT Two tHOuSdnU DlllCnS dTC WlSiiAAi
ownership and under no more contrQi as
to the use or the prices at which the
coal may be sold h any other private
property. If the government leases the
coal lands and acts as n landlord
would, and imposes conditions In It's
leases like those which are now imposed
by the owners in fee Of coal mines In the
various coal regions of the east, then 1t
would retain over the disposition OF the
coal deposits a choice as TO the assignee
OF the lease, or of resuming possession at
the end of the term of the lease, which
might easily be framed to enable 1t to
exercise q limited but effective control
In the disposition and sale of the coal to
the public. 1t has been urged that the
leasing system has never been adopted In
this country, and that its adoption would
largely interfere with the investment of
capital and the proper development and
opening up of the coal resources. 1 ven
ture to differ entirely from this view.
The question as to how great an area
ought to be included in a lease to one
Individual or corporation, Is hot free from
difficulty; but in view of the fact that
the government retains control as owner,
I think there might be some liberaity in
the amount leased, and that $500 acres
would not be too great a maximum.
BY the opportunity to readjust the
terms upon which the coal shall be held
by the tenant, either at the end OF each
lease or at periods during the term, the
government may secure the benefit of
sharing in the increased price of coal and
the additional profit made by the tenant.
BY imposing conditions in respect to the
character of work to be done in the
mines, the government may control the
character of the development of the
mines and the treatment of employees with
reference to safety. By denying the
right to transfer the lease except by the
written permission Of the governmental
authorities. it may withhold the needed
consent when it is proposed to transfer
the leasehold to persons interested In es-
tablishing a monopoly of coal production
in any state or neighborhood. The change
from the absolute grant to the leasing
system will involve a good deal of
in the outset, and the training of
experts in the matter of making proper
leases; but the change will be a good
one and can be made. The change is in
the interest of conservation, and I am
glad to approve 1t.
Alaska Coal Lands.
The investigation of the geological sur
vey show that the coal properties In
Alaska cover about 1900 square miles,
and that there are known 20 be available
about 5000 900, 900 tons. This is, however.
an underestimate OF the coal in Alaska,
because further developments will prob
ably increase this amount many times:
but we can say with considerable GER
tainty tina there are two fields on the
Pacific slope which can be reached by
railways at a reasonable cost from deep
water-in one case about fifty miles and
in the other case of about $50 miles
which will afford certainly 5000, 900. 900
tons Of coal, more than half of which is
20 =, x,Arrr hi0h crndn nf hifI1YninnllG q md
of anthracite. 1t is estimated to be worth,
in the ground, one-half a cent a ton,
which makes its value per acre from $50
to $500. The coking-coal lands of Penn
s~ylvania are worth from $500 to $1,000 an
acre, while other Appalachian fields are
worth from $40 to 1886 an acre, and the
fields in the central states from $40 to
81, 600 an acre, and in the Rocky noun
tains $40 to $500 an acre. The demand for
coal on the Pacific coast is for about
4. 800, 900 tons a year. 1t would encounter
the competition of cheap fuel oil, of
which the equivalent of 100000 tons of
coal a year is used there. It is
that the coal could be laid down at Sc
attic or San Francisco, a h~igh-grade BIZ
luminous, at 81 a ton and anthracite at
S. or Sc a ton. The price of coal on the
Pacific slope varies greatly from time to
time in the year and from year to year
from $ to $12 a ton. With a regular coal
supply established, the expert of the
geological survey, Mr.. Brooks, who has
made a report on the subject. does not
think there would be an excessive profit
in the Alaska coal mining because the
price at which the coal could be sold
would be considerably lowered by compe-
tition from these fields and by the pres
ence of crude fuel oil. The history of the
laws affecting the disposition of Alaska
coal lands shows them to need amend
ment badly.
On November IL, 1906, President Roose-
Welt issued an executive order with
drawing all coal lands from location and
entry in Alaska. On May 16, 1907. he
modified the order so as to permit valid
locations made prior to the withdrawal
on November IL, 1906, to proceed to entry
and patent. Prior to that date some 800
claims had been filed, most of them said
to be illegal because either made u
lently by dummy entrymen in the inter-
est of one Individual or corporation, or
because Of agreements made prior to To-
cation betweenthe applicants to cooperate
in developing the lands. There are 80
claims for 100 acres each, known as the
cunningham claims which are claimed
to be valid on the ground that they were
made by ar attorney for 80 different
and bona fde claimants who, as
alleged, paid their money and took the
proper steps to locate their entries and
protect them. The representatives of the
government in the hearings before the
land office lave attacked the validity of
these Cunningham claims on the ground
that prior to their location there was an
understanding between the claimants to
pool their claims after they had been
perfected and unite them in one COM
pany. The trend Of decision seems to
show thai such an agreement would in
validate the claims, although under the
subsequent law of May Is. 1908, the con-
~solidation of such claims was permitted,
q ftor ionafion and entry. In tracts Of