The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1913-09-24
has to be proved, all accused could in
most cases escape,
THE MINERAL LAND HEARING.

| TO lieu selections OF school lands. but
the discussion took wide range, anG
it became evident that the State Land
Board was at the bottom OF the move
ment, and that this Board had asserted
claims to mining lands which the
United States government never in
tended to allow; for it is evident, as
Mr., Senior argued, and as any one will
! easily conclude who makes himself ia.
miliar with land grants Of all kinds
that II has never been the purpose of
| Congress to make grants of mineral
lands either TO individuals, corpora
tions. or States In land grants min
eral lands are excepted, and the claim.
| ants TO mineral lands are always pro.
tected in their rights so far as Con
gress is able to do so.
The defense of the bill was not con
sistent, II was Smoot's contention that
his bill did not interfere with mining
locations. It was clear, however, from
the attitude of Attorney General
Barnes and of the State Land Board,
that it is the purpose Of this Board
to claim mineral lands. and TO put
prospectors and locators of mineral
claims at a distinct and costly .disad-
vantage. In fact. the State Land Board
in occupying this attitude puts itself
in the line of contesting every mineral
claim that is located upon the land
which this bill would convey to tho
State, and every locator of a mineral
claim would find himself confronted
with the State Land Board as con
testant against his claim. and he would
be put at great expense in stabli sbing
his right. To say that condition like
this, which would be created by the
passage of the Smoot bill, Is not an
tagonistic TO the mining interest, is to
plead imbecility or to abuse the right
use Of words.
II is interesting to note that the
discussion developed the real source of
this Smoot bill It came from the
State Land Board, and the purpose of
that board distinctly is to put itself
in opposition to the mining prospector
and mineral land claimant. Mr.. Senior,
noting this attitude of the Land Board
as being distinctly hostile to the mining
interests, put the question squarcly 10
the Attorney General, asking why ii is
that the Board in disposing Of its
lands gets no more than $3.50 per
acre, when it ought TO get in mineral |
districts az much as $40 an acre, and
be wanted to know who 1t is that bene-
fits in the discrepancy as to the price
Of such mineral lands. 1t was perti |
uent question, which was practically |
unanswered, although a reply was at
the reply being feeble. eva
sive and incousequent.
Now that Smoot understands fully
the purpose and the effect of the bill,
t would seem as though he ought to
lease urging it in Congress. The ami
nus behind il is perfectly plain, and
hat animus is grasping and evil. Why,
hen, should the bill be further pushed?
The committee appointed. on motion
If Mr.. Dern, to find some means of
that would be acceptable
o both sides, is distinctly favorable to
he Land Board Mr.. Senior is the
,nlv man on the committee Of four who
3 in favor of the mining interest: two
If the committee. being Attorney Cen
,ral Barnes and member of the State
3oard, are distinctly committed to the
aid upon the mining interests. which
would follow the passage by Congress
If the Smoot bill. Smoot himself NAV
DC said to be noncommittal in way.
although he has been acting under in
itemeut Of the State Board heretofore,
md probably would feel some obliga.
ions to support his bill. no matter
What effect it might have 1t is fair
o say, therefore. that three members
# this compromise committee are in
he interest of the grabs proposed by
he State Land Board only one mem
,cr of it. Mr.. Senior, being distinctly
n favor of the mining prospector and
mining claimant.
That the passage Of this bill would
practically eliminate prospecting for
lnder the patronage Of and by the co.
operation and consent of an inner cir
lie, Of which the State Land Board
would be the center, cannot be doubted.
Those. Of course, who might be on the
inside would be allowed to prospect
md discover what they could on the
ands in controversy, and their claims
you'd not be disputed by the Land
3oard. But every one on the outside,
10 matter how valuable mis- claim. no
natter how favorable Congress in it's
egislation might be TO the development
If mines, would find himself at the
mercy Of the Land Board, and his claim
AIKEN away from him.
The hearing Of Monday night cleared
he air, and showed exactly where the
different interests are and where the
provisions in the bill that are hostile
o the mining interests came from,
There can be no mistake hereafter as
o the evil nature of the measure pro.
,osed, The only possible compromise
L this matter would be to leave out
# the Smoot bill altogether. precisely
IS Congress has uniformity left out,