The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-02-10
Geologist Asserts the Disciples
of Conservation Are on the
Wrong Track.
MAN GETS BLAMED
FOR FOLLOWING LAW
Cunningham Case Is Cited as
Illustration of Energy
Run Riot.

: somewhat 81 ne" nIdSH IiHS N'N'
placed upon the conservation Of mineral
resources by j. r. Kemp in Economic
Geology and he ASSERTS that where the
prospector or claim locator has proceed
cd along the lines of the established law.
in which tho government enters into 2
contract with the locator. he should not
be blamed when what fault there is is
the fault Of The law. His discussion or
the Alaskan eases IN this connection wlil
prove OF interest To western circles,
which have their own idcns in regard TO
the conservation policy now being agi-
tated. He says:
couras ses the discovery and location OF
mineral deposits and has done SO for
many years. The reward thus held out
TO o fortunate rrospeCtor has been one
OF Tic greatest Influences in opening the
western country and Alaska. With the
support OF a number of men OF excellent
financial standing. chiefly in Washins
ton md Idaho and armed with powers
OF attorney from them, as. under the law
was perfectly proper, Clarence Cunning
ham in 1909 penetrated this at the Time,
little known, very rough. inaccessible and
unorganized region and stakcd out the
coal claims in question. This was done
under authority conferred by an act oi
congress. 1900. extending the general
mining laws of the United states TO
Alaska.
New Law Is Passed.
Later on. in 1904 new law was
passed with regard TO Alaska coal lands
and soon thereafter MIR. Cunningham re-
located all the claims, using new powers
of attorney and observing the terms OF
the new law. The thirty-three locators
OF the claims then filed upon them. paid
the required $40 per acre. about $52,S0O in
all. and received the usual certificates OF
purchase. hut not the final patents While
IL is unlawful for a prospector 10 locate
coal properties II he has prior under ,
Of a q N
with second party. so as, of course 70
prevent dummy locations, yet once the
ownership OF tract is secured there is
no restriction upon subsequent sale or
lease or development. Eighteen OF the
locators having their certificates OF own
ershlp then opened negotiations Tor their
development, but the negotiations did
not lead to any definite contracts.
Somewhat over four years after the
law mentioned above congress passed In
May 1905, further restrictions upon the
locations OF Alaskan coal lands. and sub
iect to this law the Cunningham claim
ants were offered patents by Secretary
Garfield. But, as their claims were re
corded and ownership obtained under an
earlier law. they naturally refused to ac-
cede to post facto legislation, The whole
matter has been still further complicat
ed by The post racto activitles OF the
forestry bureau, which under Mr.. Pm
chots administration has endeavored, In
what seems to us most arbitrary man
ner. TO prevent the thlrty-three locators
from securing their patents. The whole
matter moreover. has been made such a
political issue that IL cannot fail 10 be
unduly embarrassing to the president
and the present secretary of the interior.
who, II they do what seems to he their
plain duty and issue the patents. are
bound TO suffer somewhat In general
popularity,
Has Serious Side.
"This particular case brings up a gen
cral situation that has IT'S serious side
hold &c
Prospectors avail themselves of the OPP
portunity. They may go TO great eX-
pense and effort, as In the Cunningham
case and may I'm the end be deprived OF
their proper reward by the autocratic
action of a bureau chief. The law now
prevailing may be faulty. but so long as
IL Is the law. no generalities about th2
peoples wealth and no appeals TO the
collective cupdity Of the masses ought
rightly TO prevent carrying out agree
mcnIs.
But there are other equally wcighty
objections. In the recen. so-called inves-
tigation or the present secretary of tho
interior. practically the sole tangible re-
suit was obtained by the prosecution be-
cause a confidential secretary was in
duced to violate one of the fundamental
rules OF ordinary loyalty TO a chief. and
committed an act such tnat II the prac-
tice were general. mutual confidence be
tween men would be destroyed and socle
ty would be reduced TO chaos. Happen
| ings Of this sort cannot fail to make tho
widely spread talk of the prominent con
| servationtsts about governmental right
eousness and moral principles seem like
| the purest rot. II is little wonder thai
the conservation which they support be-
comes an object OF grave distrust.
Obvious Objections.
There are obvious objectionable (ea.
/ lures in our laws for the location OF min.
| eral claims. The exercise OF powers o
attorney is one. Whole districts. sucl
as Nome. have been tied UP uneudur.
| ably 10y their means. lt would he bet.
| ter 10 require every locator To- do his owl
| locating in person. Powers OF attorney
are. however at present quite proper un
| der the law. and must In honesty he re
! spcctcd. Their abolition for futur,
| claimants 10 mineral rights would be ont
| feasible method OF promoting conserva
| ton.
The apex law is firmly established foI
| claims already recorded. but IL ha!
| caused endless trouble uncertainty anC
waste. Its repeal regards new caim'
would he an emnently sensible way q
! promoting conservation. But while al
most everyone freely admits its unwis
| dom, very little of the pent-up cnerg,
for conservation has been directed alon,
the lines OF this obvious reform