The Green Forest tribune., 1910-09-09

area of 23.41s acres, which sold for s6os.- SIS; and down to August. 1910. there were but f7 entries, with an area of 1.72o acres, which sold for $33, ,910.60, making a dispo- sition of the coal lands In the last two years of about 6O0oO acres for S1 1,3O5 GOO.
 The present congress- already said, has separated the surface of coal lands, either classified or withdrawn for classi- fication, from the coal beneath, to permit at all times homestead entries upon the surface of lands useful for az riculture and to reserve the ownership In the coal tc the government. The ques- ton which remains to be considered is whether the existing law for the sale of the coal In the ground should continue in force or be repealed and new method of disposition adopted. Under the present law the absolute title in the coal be- heath the surface passes to the grantee of the government The price fixed Is upon an estimated amount of the tons of coal per acre beneath the surface. and the prices are fixed so that the earnings will only be 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- o1ogical survey estimate that in the United States today there Is supply of
 
 coal. and that of this one thousand billions are in the public domain. Of course. the oth- CT two thousand billions are within private ownership and under no more control to the or the prices at which the coal may be sold than any other private property. If the government leases the coal lands and acts as any 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 70 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 It to exercise limited but effective control in the disposition and saIe of the coal to the public. It 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. I 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 not free from difficulty; but in view of the fact that the government retains control as owner, I think there might be some lberality in the amount leased, and that 2,5o0 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 1t 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 trouble In the outset, and the training of experts in the matter of making proper leases; but the change will be 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 1oO0 square miles, and that there are known to be available about 15.000, COG, 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 say with considerable cer- tainty that there are two fields on the Pacific slope which can be reached by railways al a reasonable cost from deep water-in one case about fifty miles and in the other case of about 15O miles which will afford certainly 5000 100000 tons of coal, more than half of which Is of very high grade of bitumnous and of anthracite It Is estimated to be worth In the ground. one-half cent a ton, which makes It's value per acre from $50 to $500. The coking- coal lands of Penn sylvania are worth from $500 to s2,00O an acre, while other Appalachian fields are worth from s10 to $3S6 an acre, and the fields in the central states from S10 to 5000 an acre. and In the Rocky noun tains s10 to $500 an acre. The demand for coal the Pacific coast Is for about 450O,000 tons a year. It would encounter the competition of cheap fuel oil, of which the equivalent of 100000 tons of coal a year is used there. It Is estimated that the coal could be laid down at Se- attle or San Francisco, a high-grade bi- luminous at s4 ton and anthracite at s or s6 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 s4 to SIP ton. With regular coal supply established, the expert of the geological survey, MT. 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 12, 1906, President Roose- yelt 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 F, 1906, to proceed to entry and patent. Prior to that date some 300 claims had been filed, most of them said to be illegal because either made fraudu- 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 33 claims for 160 acres each, known as the Cunningham claims" which are claimed to be valid on the ground that they were made by an attorney for 33 different and bona fide 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 have 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 that such an agreement would in- validate the claims, although under the subsequent law of May 2S, 1908, the con- sOlidation of SIch claims was permitted