The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1910-01-29
CRAIG OPPOSES
; TAI ISLAND BILL
AIabamian Says Endless liti-
gallon Viii Result
HIS AMENDMENT IS LOST
Mr.. Craig Stands Up For Rights of
Property Owners In the utilza-
ton of Minersis and Llabi-
ity EoyfDamages.
HIS AMENDMENT is LOST

Washington, January ESPECIAL 1.-The
provision for agricultural entries on min
eral lands and the segregation of surface
rights from mineral rights, the first of
President iraft's recommendations on the
conservation Of natural potential ener-
gies to receive definite legislati tive re-
sponse are the purposes of bill re-
ported today by the House committee
on public lands.
The bill is, so to say, concentric with
the Presidents text, but it holds seq
ment that separates the parts that make
up the circle of the committees figura-
tive round table, the segregation of the
surface lands from the deposits, the
granting OF a homestead entry to the
settler and the retention of the min
erai rights to the government and its
assigns.
on this provision Representative Craig,
the Alabama member of the committee,
opposed the majority and offered an
amendment, which was lost, providing
for the reclassification of all public lands
and the separation of lands chiefly vaiua
BILE and useful for agricultural purposes
from tue idfiuS ncluinB uepusilS III QudH-
titles sufficient to be mined expediently.
The amendment provided for the surveys
necessary to determine the character of
the land, and for the opening to home
stead entry of such lands as were found
to be adaptable to agriculture and not to
contain considerable quantities of coal.
Mr.. Craig will introduce minority re-
port containing his amendment.
''The segregation OF the surface from
the mineral rights must necessarily cause
endless litigation and strife between the
owner OF the surface and the owner of
the mineral rights" said Mr.. Craig to-
night eff the government gives to the
homesteader title sufficient to warrant
him In making valuable and permanent
improvements, with q stipulated condition
that the uiilizarl OF tie mine. q rights
will be liable for actual damage resultant
from the utilization of the deposits, then
it is probable that in most cases the
minerals will not be mined. In most in
stances the mining operations and the
construction of houses necessary to the
operations ruin the lands for agricul-
tural purposes there is no way In which
the damages that will accrue to the sur
face from the mining operations can be
calculated previously to the commence
ment of the mining and the resultant
litigation win always be between one
class of plaintiffs and an entirely differ
ent class of defendants. ] have made
inquiries of coal operators in several
parts of the country on the subject and
their consensus is that the plan to segre-
gate the surface from the mineral rights
is not feasible and that, really, 1t is
the precursor of many impossibilities in
compromise and adjustment between en-
tryman and miner prosecutor.
1T think too that the government ought
not TO grant to an individual for pri-
yate purposes the right of eminent do
main which would be given in all In
stances. under the proposed law, TO the
n,,rcha sers of mineral rights to deposits
underlying land that had been settled
by homestead entry. For 1t Is certain
that the acouirement of the mineral rights
would of a necessity comprise also right
and title to such use OF the SURFACE as
would render the mineral rights disable.
The government ought not to give quail
fed titles: 1t ought to grant In Zee.
..The plan of segregation in the bill
apnroyed by the committee today Is ab-
so,utelv impracticable. All experience in
n,ining-especially in coal minins-induces
to the conclusion that 1T is most ex-
ned,ent even IL not imperatively neces-
sarv that the surface rights and the
,,;raral rights shall not be separated.
other minority reports than Mr.. Cralg
-,;11 ,>,oha hIy be made.