Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1910-09-09
THE PERRYsBURG JOURNAL. FRIDAY SEPTEMBER g. 1910

rtculture 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in force or be repealed and new method
OF disposition adopted. Under the present
law the absolute title in the coal be-
meath tho surface passes to the grantee
OF the government. The price hxed 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-
illogical survey estimate that In the
United States today there rs 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
er two thousand billions are within private
ownership and under no more control as
to the use or the prices at which the
coal may be sold than any other private
property. II 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 choice as 60 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 a limited but effective control
in the disposition and safe 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
,nrtn Nf h.. ol
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,
think there might be some liberality 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
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. II may withhold the needed
consent when 1T is proposed to transfer
the leasehold to persons interested In es-
tablshing a monopoly of coal production
| in any state or neighborhood. The change
from the absolute grant to the leasing
| system will involve 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 1900 5quare miles.
| and that there are known 20 be available
about $1,000, 100000 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 that there are two fields on the
| Pacific slope which can be reached by
railways at reasonable cost from deer
water-in one case about fifty miles ant
In the other case of about $50 miles
which will afford certainly 5000, ,000, ,O0
tons of coal. more than half of which 1,
of very high grade of bituminous ant
of anthracite. It is estimated to be worth
which makes its value per acre from 81
to $500. The coking-coal lands of Penn
sylvania are worth from $500 to 5000 al
acre, while other Appalachian fields ar,
worth from $40 to 1886 an acre. and tn,
fields in the central states from $40 I,
5000 an acre, and in the Rocky noun
tains SO to $500 an acre The demand TO
coal on the Pacific coast is for abou
4,500, 900 tons year. 1t would encounte
the competition of cheap fuel oil, o
which the equivalent OF 1900, 600 tons o
coal year is used there 1t is estimate,
that the coal could be laid down at Sc
attic or San Francisco, high-grade bi
luminous at 81 a ton and anthracite a
IS or Sc a ton. The price of coal on tn
Pacific slope varies greatly from time I
time in the year and from year to year
from 81 to Sl2 ton. With a regular Goa
supply established, the expert of tn
geological survey, Mr.. Brooks, who ha
made report on the subject. does nc
think there would be an excessive prof
in the Alaska coal mining because tn
price at which the coal could be sol
would be considerably lowered by compe
tition from these fields and by the pres
ence of crude fuel oil. The history of tn
coal lands shows them to need amend
ment badly.
On November IL, 1906. President Roost
Welt issued an executive order with
drawing all coal lands from location an
entry in Alaska. On May 16, 1907.
modified the order SO as to permit vail
locations made prior to the withdraw
! on November 12. 1906. to proceed to entr
and patent. Prior to that date some q
claims had been filed, most of them sal
to be illegal because either made fraud,
, lently by dummy entrymen in the inte
est OF one Individual or corporation,
, because of agreements made prior to |,
: cation between the applicants to co-opera
, In developing the lands. There are
, claims for 16o acres each, known as Il
cunningham claims" which are elaine
to be valid on the ground that they we
, made by an attorney for 80 dffere
and bona fide claimants who.
alleged, paid their money and took Il
proper steps to locate their entries ar
protect them. The representatives OF II
. government in the hearings before Il
! land ONCE have attacked the validity
/, these Cunningham claims on the grouI
that prior to their location there was
understanding between the claimants
, pool their claims after they had be,
!, perfected and unite them in one cor
pany. The trend of decision seems
show that such an agreement would 4
, validate the claims, although under Il
= subsequent law of May 2S. 1908. the CO
: solidation OF such claims was permitte
= after location and entry. In tracts