The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-09-05

lutte grant to the leasing system will
Involve good deal of trouble in the
outset, and the training of experts in
the matterF 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 it.
Alaska Coal Lands.
The Investigations of the geological
survey show that the coal properties
IN Alaska cover about 1000 square
miles. and that there are known -
be available about Is billion tons.
| rms is, however, an underestimate Of
the coal in Alaska, because further
developments will probably increase
Inns amount many times; but we can
say with considerable certainty that
there are two fields on the Pacific
| slope which can be reached by rail-
ways at reasonable cost from deem
| Water-ln one case of about so miles
ana IN the other case of about $50
m1les-which will afford certainly A
billion tons of COAL more than half
OF which is of a very high grade of
unanimous and of anthracite 1t is
estimated to be worth, in the ground.
one-naf cent ton, which makes its
value per acre from $50 to $500. The
coking-coal lands of Pennsylvania are
worth from $500 to $4,000 an acre.
while other Appalachian fields are
worth from SO to 1886 an acre. and
the nelds in the central states from
$40 to $4,000 an acre, and in the
Rocky Mountains SO to $500 an ac we
Ehe demand for coal on the Pacific
coast is for about 100000 tons a
year. 1t would encounter the compe
tlt1on of cheap fuel oil, of which the
equivalent of 100000 tons of coal
q year is used there. It is estimated
that the coal could be laid down at
seattle or San Francisco, a high-grade
pltumlnous, at 81 a ton and anthracite
at 80 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 81 to s12
ton: With a regular coal supply es-
tapHshed, the expert of the geologi-
cal survey, Mr.. Brooks who has made
report on the subject, does not think
mere would be an excessive profit in
the Alaska coal mining because the
price at which the coal could he sold
would be considerably lowered bv
competition from these fields and nv
the presence of crude fuel oil The
history of the laws affecting the dis
position of Alaska coal lands shows
them to need amendment hadIv
speaking of them, Mr.. Brooks saws:
The first act, passed June 6. 1900
SIMPLY extended to Alaska the pro
visions Of the coal land laws in the
onlted states The law was ineffec-
tive, for it provided that only subdivid-
ed lands could be taken up and there
We're then no land surveys in Alaska.
the matter was rectified by the act of
April 20 1904, which permitted unsur-
veyed lands to be entered and the SIR
veys to be made at the expense of the
entrymen. Unfortunately. the law pro
v1ded that only tracts of $50 acres could
be taken UP, and no recognition was
given to the fact that it was imprac-
t1cable to develop an isolated coal field
requiring the expenditure of a large
amount of money by such small units
Many claims were staked, however.
and surveys were made for patents. 1t
was recognized by everybody familiar
with the conditions that after patent
was obtained these claims would be
combined in tracts large enough to as
sure successful mining operations. No
one experienced In mining would, of
course, consider it feasible to open "a
coal field on the basis of single 16O-acre
tracts. The claims for the most part
were handled in groups, for which one
agent represented the several different
owners. Unfortunately, a strict inter
probation of the statute raised the
question whether even a tacit under
standing between claim owners to
combine after patents had been OBJ
tanned was not illegal. Remedial legis-
lation was sought and enacted by the
statute of May %. 1908 This law per-
mitted the consolidation of claims
staked previous to November r. 1906
in tracts of 1850 acres. One clause of
this law invaIidated the title if any in
dividual or corporation at any, time in
the future owned any interest what
soever, directly or Indirectly, in more
than one tract The purpose of this
clause was 20 prevent the monopoliza-
ton of coal fields: it's immediate effect
was to discourage capital. 1t was felt
by many that this clause might lead
to forfeiture of title through the acci-
dents of Inheritance. or might even be
used by the INSCRIPTIONS in blackmail-
ing. 1t would appear that land taken
up under this law might at any time
be forfeited to the government through
the action of any individual who, in
nocently or otherwise, obtained inter
est in more than one coal company.
Such a title was felt to be too insecure
to warrant the large investments need
ed for mining developments The net
result of all this is that no titles TO
coal lands have been passed"
Roosevelt's Order.
On November -. 1906. President
Withdrawing all coal lands from loca-
ton 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 900 claims had been
filed, most of them said to be illegal
because either made fraudulently by
dummy entrymen in the interest OF one
individual or corporation, or because
of agreements made prior to location
between the applicants to cooperate in
developing the lands. There are 8 3
claims for $50 acres each, known as
the cunningham claims which are
claimed to be valid on the ground that
thew were made by any attorney for 33
different and bona fide claimants VINO,
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 be-
fore the land office have attacked the
validity of these Cunningham claims
on the ground that prior to their 1oca-
ton there was an understanding be-
tween the claimants to pool their
claims after they had been perfected
and unite them in one company. The
trend of decision seems to show that
such an agreement would invalidate