The San Francisco call., 1910-09-06
spoke in part as follops:

natural resources for economical
use, so as 10 secure the great
est good to the greatest number.
Today we desire to re-
strict and retain under public
control the acquisition and use by
the capitalist of our natural re-
sources.
The danger to the state and to
the people at large from the
waste and dissipation of our
national wealth is not one which
quickly lmpresseS itself on the
people OF the older communities,
because its most obvious in
stances do not occur in their
eighborhood, while in the newer
part OF the country the SYM
pathy with expansion and de-
velopment is SO strong that the
danger is scoffed at or ignored.
Among scientific men and
thoughtful observers, however,
the danger has always been pres
ent; but it needed some one to
bring home the crying need for
remedy Of this evil so as to I'M
press itself on the public mind
and lead TO the formation of pub
lie opinion and action by the
Theodore Roosevelt took up this
task in the last two years of his
second administration, and we'll
did he perform it.
As president of the United
States I have, as it were, inherited
this policy, and 1 rejoice in my
heritage. 1 prize my high oppor-
tunity to do all that an executive
can do to help a great people
realize great national ambi
ton. For conservation is ma
tional. 1t affects every man of
us; every woman. every child.
What l can do in the cause
shall do, not as president of a
party, but as president Of the
whole people. Conservation is not
a question OF politics, or of fac
tlons, or of persons. It is a ques-
flon that affects the vital well
fare of all of us-of our children
and our children's children.
What I wish to emphasize, how
ever, is that a satisfactory con-
clusion can only be reached
promptly If we avoid acrimony,
imputattons Of bad faith, and po-
1tical controversy. There
is no crying need for radical re-
form in the methods of disposing
of what are really agricultural
lands. The present laws have
tions have been made that the
United States ought to aid in
the drainage of swamp lands be-
longing to the states or private
owners, because, if drained. they
would be exceedingly valuable
for agriculture and contribute to
the general welfare by extending
the area Of cultivation. l depre-
cate the agitation in favor of such
legislation. 1t Is inviting gen
eral government into contribu-
tlon rrom-its treasury toward
enterprises that should be con-
81 D.
or at the instance of the state.
The law now prohibits the res
erVation OF any more forest lands
IN Oregon. Washington, Idaho,
Montana. Colorado, and Wyom-
ing. except by act of congress.
am Informed by the department
Of agriculture that the govern
ment owns other tracts of timber
land in these states which should
be included in the forest reserves.
! expect TO recommend TO con-
gress that the limitation herein
imposed shall be repealed. In the
present forest reserves there are
lands which are not properly for
est land and which ought to he
suoJect TO homestead entry. This
has caused some local irritation.
We are carefully eliminating
such lands from forest reserves
or where their elimination is not
practicable, listing them for en-
try under the forest homestead
have shown sufficiently the
conditions as to federal forestry
TO indicate that no further legis
Iation is needed at the moment
except an increase in the fire pros
lection to national forests and an
act Vestlng the executive with
r. run power to make forest reser-
Natlons IN every state where gov
ernment land is timber covered.
or where the land is needed for
forestry purposes.
When President Roosevelt be-
came fully advised of the neces-
slty of the change IN our disposi-
ton of public lands, especially
those containing coal, oil. gas.
phosphates, or water power sites,
ne began the exercise of the
power OF withdrawal by execu-
i've order. of lands subject by
law to homestead and the other
, methods of entering for a aEricul-
tural lands. The precedent he
set in this matter was followed
by the present administration.
The next subject, and one most
important for our consideration.
lands in the United States and in
Alaska -
Under the laws providing for
the disposition OF coal lands the
minimum price at which lands
are permitted TO be sold is SO
an acre; but the secretary of
the interior has the power 10 fix
q maximum price and to sell at
that price.
The question which remains to
be considered is whether the ex-
listing law for the sale of the
tinue in force or be repealed
and new method of disposition
adopted.
! have looked with some care
into report made at the in
upon the disposition of coal
lands in Australia, Tasmania and
New Zealand. These are necu-
harly mining countries. and their
experience ought to be most val
method for the disposition and
opening of coal mines originally
owned by the government Is by
granting leasehold and not hy
granting an absolute title.
Its success is abundant
The Investigations of the geo
logical survey show that the coal
properties in Alaska cover about
200 square miles and that there
are known to be available about
1000, 100000 tons. This is.
INV ever an unOereStlmate OF the
coal in Alaska If is
estimated TO be worth, in the
ground, half cent a ton. which
makes its value per acre from
$50 to $500.
The demand for coal on the Pa
cific coast is for about $500. 600
tons q year. 1t would encounter
the competition of cheap fuel oil
OF which the equivalent of 12.-
100000 tons of coal a year is used
there. 1t is estimated that the
coal could be laid down al Seat
tie or San Francisco. a high
grade bituminoas, at 81 a ton and
antilracite at So or SIS ton.
On November u. 1906. Presi-
dent Roosevelt issued an execil-
tive order withdrawing ali coal
lands from location and entry in
Alaska. On MAY Is. 1907. he
modified the order so as 10 r,arS