coal mined from the state lands regardless of the quality of the coal.
The State of Wyoming fixes royalties for all grades of coal mined from
state lands at from three cents to six cents per ton, depending upon
the quality produced. Private leases in Wyoming require as high as ten
cents, and for small local mines, much higher rates. Fifteen cents, for
instance, is the royalty in the Mills City and Roundup districts of
Montana, and in the Trinidad and Boulder countries in Colorado it runs
from eight to twenty-seven and one-half cents. The government price on
federal lands is in no case more than three cents a ton, and the great
majority of the Western fields are being classified at from half a cent
to two cents a ton. Now, that system of valuation results in prices of
which only a comparatively small part are $150 or more. Great areas
are valued at the minimum fixed by statute, and other great areas at
comparatively low figures. Values running into the large amounts will be
found only in the anthracite and the other high grade bituminous fields.
In many of the cases the prices fixed are less than the actual market
price of private land of the same character in the same field. For
example, coal lands in the Rock Springs field of Wyoming are reported
to have been sold from $100 to $430 per acre. The government prices in
this field will run from $20 to $465, the high price being for land with
greater tonnage than that which would be covered by the $430 price paid
by private interests. In the Colorado Springs district of Colorado these
private land sales are reported from $100 to $500, while the classified
price in that district ranges from $20 to $50. Now, it is true that in
some of the cases prices by the acre are greater than the prices fixed
for corresponding acreage elsewhere, even in the Eastern field, but the
reason will be found to be in all those cases that the extent of the
coal, the thickness of the vein and the number of the veins is greater.
Land in certain fields of Pennsylvania is selling at $2,000 an acre, on
the other hand, whereas the highest price fixed by the government on any
of its lands is $600 an acre.
THE CLASSIFICATION POLICY.
It has been said that these prices are prohibitive. I have had a table
prepared showing what the results have been in the four fiscal years that
have passed since the adoption of the classification policy as compared
with the preceding four years, and as a result I find that the sales of
public coal land have increased 12½ per cent in acreage and 36 per cent
in value, as compared with the four preceding fiscal years.
I am giving these figures, and discussing this somewhat dry question at
this time because of the fact that public attention is being attracted
to these questions, and that a certain amount of either misunderstanding
or misrepresentation is going vigorously on. The truth of the matter is
that the government has offered incentive to development along this line
greater than prevails in the private field. Why has it not been more
vigorous? May I put the question to you, whether it may not be that
we are making the mistake which Australia and New Zealand have already
recognized and corrected? And that we should put our coal lands where the
conservation movement, where the National Conservation Association and
the other conservation organizations have advocated placing it, under a
rational leasing system? If I am right (applause) the present objections
largely disappear.
I was very much interested at the reception which was given to the
presentation of some of these facts to the audiences that I addressed
in Seattle and in other places, and to find that the suggestions made
to them met with hearty concurrence so far as I could judge, when
they clearly understood the facts, when they once clearly understood
what had been the history in other fields where coal was put under a
leasing system. For instance, I find the suggestion made that Canada was
proceeding much more wisely and much more profitably and successfully in
its coal development policy than the United States. But when I read the
statutory law of the Yukon territory, and ascertained that every foot of
coal land that is disposed of in that territory now is under a leasing
system, I found that the argument went home. So it is with all of these
other questions. There are great problems to solve, and it should be up
to us to help solve them, although not entirely to us. The gentlemen on
the other side, who are complaining of delay, have their share; but the
responsibility, gentlemen, is upon us all, and we should all frankly
recognize it.
What is the ordinary history of coal lands in this country? What has
been the history in the East and the central West? That the coal lands
have been originally entered or acquired in one form or another by
private owners, and that the original private owner seldom developed the
mines. He sold or he leased to someone else. If he sold, the chances
are that the purchaser himself leased the land; until you will find
that a great part of the coal lands of the United States that are now
under development, are being operated under leaseholds of one kind or
another. So in the far West. Take the railroad mines. I had the pleasure
of riding with the officials of some of these railroads in the West,
who have control of the coal lands of the companies. And when I asked
them what their policy was for the development of these lands, without
exception thus far—there may be exceptions, although I haven’t heard of
them—without exception this far, they stated they were developing their
coal lands under the leasing system, and regarded it as the only proper
way. If that is so we should at least pause long enough to consider
whether that policy is not the right one for the Nation, and adopt it if
right, and discard it if it is wrong.
After this coal is leased what do we find? We find that unrestricted
development, that development which is thrown open to the laws of
commercial competition, does not always work wisely. Our coal fields now
generally throughout the country, are largely overexploited, with the
result that during a considerable portion of the time the coal mines are
empty, the miners are idle and depression reigns, and we find what always
happens—demoralization and frequently disorder; for it takes, gentlemen,
steady work to make steady men. And you have got to get that principle in
your coal fields if you are going to be successful with them. (Applause)
THE HISTORY OF THE FORESTS.
Take the history of the forests to which I must hastily turn. When I
talk with the lumber interests of the country—and inquire about the real
facts as to the condition of the lumber trade—I find that large holdings
throughout this country are being held in private hands and undeveloped,
uncut, although they admit that much of it is ripe and ready for the
ax and the saw. Why? Because of conditions in the market. I find them
complaining of the fact that large areas have been thrown open to people
without capital who have thought that there was a way to quick and easy
wealth, who have made their obligations to the banks, and who have to
meet the interest charges, and the minute that the price of lumber goes
down the only way they can meet it is by throwing upon the market more
lumber, with the result of consequent demoralization of the trade. And
all the while the large interests protect themselves by buying at the
lower prices and holding out of development as much of their areas as
they can. Now, that, it seems to me, is fundamentally unwise. We should
wish to dispose of our national resources in such a way that development
will be absolutely assured and that holding them for future profit will
be absolutely prevented (Applause), because in the last analysis, all of
this burden comes back upon the consumer’s shoulders. We never escape it.
If we sell the coal land to the individual, and he sells to another at
an added price, and he to another, and then finally it is leased to the
fourth, who actually operates, we can depend upon it that the consumer is
paying the carrying charge upon each of the profits that the first three
have successively obtained. If we adopt the policy, as in Australia, that
the mine holder cannot hold his lease unless he develops, that he must
pay a fixed rental of a certain amount in any event, we will create an
automatic check which will work largely to remedy the evil of which both
the public and the honest dealer complain. (Applause)
Now, I want to turn for a moment to the irrigation question, because no
one can have traveled over this Western territory as I have done and
made personal investigation of the work of the Reclamation Service, and
of the work being carried on by private interests in the same direction,
without being tremendously impressed with the immense public benefit
derived from activities of this sort. And yet that service presents
certain concrete difficulties. For instance, our reclamation law provides
that we must divide our payments into ten annual installments, and that
the settler does not obtain title to his land until he has paid all of
the installments. It requires continuous residence as well as continuous
cultivation.
CHANGES OF LAW NEEDED.
Some examination of the question has convinced me, as I now see the
facts, that a modification should be made in both of those directions.
I believe that the law should be so changed that the settler upon the
irrigated lands who has cultivated his land for a certain period of time,
who has lived upon it a sufficient period of time, to be fixed by law,
to make sure that he is a bona fide settler, should be enabled to get
title to his land and be enabled to borrow money upon it and develop it
as any other individual should (Applause), subject at all times to the
lien of the government for the unpaid installments. (Applause) I find
that that suggestion meets one of the principal, if not the principal
objection which has arisen in the West on the part of men who are
enthusiastic adherents of the policy of irrigation through the government
agencies and who still find that the law has not been completely adapted
to their particular conditions. For instance, suppose the law required
that a settler should continuously cultivate his land during the first
two years, and that he should live upon it the last three years of a
five-year period, and should then be enabled on proof of cultivation,
continuous and progressive cultivation, and of residence for the time I
have mentioned, that he could then acquire title subject to the lien of
the unpaid five installments, I believe that it would be to the great
advantages of the public and to the settler, to bring about that reform.
What will be the result? In many instances the farmer, the settler,
would transfer the burden of the debt from the government to the bank.
He would go to the bank, make better terms than it would be possible
for him to make with the government under the law with regard to the
unpaid five installments, and the result would be that the banks would
be carrying the burden of the indebtedness, as they should as a part of
their legitimate function in the community; while the government would
have released to it those installments for use in some other place where
the settlers are crying for the advent of the Reclamation Service. These
are some of the great questions that come up and which in very definite
form impress me as being the most important that we can consider. I
believe that we should undertake a solution of problems of exactly
that character. I think when we do this that the objection which has
been raised in many quarters to conservation as being theoretical will
instantly disappear.
WATER POWER.
There is only one other topic on which I wish to speak, and that is the
question of water power. I have very little to say about that. At the
last meeting of this Congress in St. Paul, I presented in a somewhat
brief and compact form my views upon that question. I believe that no
solution of the water power question will be worked out in the United
States until state and nation are working together at the problem.
(Applause) Not only is there no necessary or natural conflict between
state interest and federal interest, but those two interests must be
coördinated before we reach a right solution. We find a quite general
attempt on the part of those who have interests that may not be free
from suspicion to arouse a feeling of state pride, of state interest,
as against the federal government. I think that those interests can
be properly worked out and reconciled. I believe that the natural and
legitimate interest of the state, the locality, is in the regulation
of the service, and of the rates at which the power is sold. I believe
that the interest of the federal government is in the development of the
streams as units, and that no other instrumentality can so effectively
work out that portion of the problem. Then why not adjust the two? Why
not adopt, as the cardinal principle in our water power development, that
the federal government shall make the grant subject to the reservation
that the grantee will at all times acquiesce in whatever reasonable
regulations of service and rates may be made by the state or by any
delegated agency of the state. There should be compensation and there
should be periodical readjustment of the compensation paid to the federal
government, so that every ten years, or whatever the period may be,
there will be enforced upon the public authorities, state and national,
an inquiry into the condition of the water power grants, and their
development. If with this we will adopt the fundamental principle that
every dollar of the compensation paid to the federal government, except
that necessary for administration, should go back into the development
of the stream, and the water shed of the stream, from which the revenue
was derived, so far as needed for that purpose, we, in my judgment,
will have reconciled and coördinated those two agencies so that they
will work together like the best team that any of you men drive on any
of your farms. (Applause) And the protection of the public interest, in
my opinion, will to some extent be automatic. For what will happen? If
the federal government at the end of the first ten-year period wishes
to readjust the compensation, it will make an inquiry, and if it finds
that that particular grantee is furnishing proper service at proper
rates to the community, that the state or its delegated agencies have
properly exercised their functions of regulation, there will be neither
opportunity nor incentive to increase the compensation. But if, upon
the other hand, the state has been derelict in its duty, if it has not
protected the public interest, the Nation will be able, by the increase
of the compensation, to prevent undue profits and, indeed, to make it to
the financial interest of the grantee to see that that situation does not
happen again. And always the legitimate interests of the grantee must be
adequately protected.
Now, these are some of the concrete questions which come up in the
Department of the Interior with regard to the federal domain. They all
relate to the general principle for which we stand. They all come back
to that fundamental proposition, that the purpose of conservation is
to secure wise development in the interest of the public as a whole.
(Applause)
Chairman COBURN—The powers that be, and over which I have no control,
have seen fit to readjust this program, whereby Mr. Bryan, who was to
have addressed us this evening, will speak this afternoon and again to
this Congress tonight at eight o’clock. He is with us on the platform
this afternoon, and I have asked him to stand up and say a word to you,
in order that you might give him the glad hand. I take pleasure in
introducing the Honorable William Jennings Bryan. (Applause)
Mr. BRYAN—Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen. I did not come to this
Congress to speak as an expert. I came merely to testify to my interest
in a great and growing subject. When they told me that the time of
my speaking was postponed from this afternoon until this evening, I
consented on condition that they would appoint others to assist me
in entertaining the audience. I was afraid that I might not be able
long to satisfy the audience assembled. So they have arranged with two
others, with whom I shall divide the time and I know that that may be an
inducement to you to come. (Applause)
I feel that it is necessary for me to fortify my invitation with theirs.
Now, if this were a subject upon which I had been speaking, I might make
it a condition that no one else would be permitted to speak (Applause),
for there are a number of subjects upon which I can speak at sufficient
length to occupy an evening. But this is not one. I mention it at this
time in order to emphasize the fact that as I have insisted that two
others shall help me tonight you will understand why I do not attempt to
divide my short speech into an afternoon and evening speech. I am afraid
that I will have little enough to say if I put it all into one speech,
and yet I confess to you that I do not know now how long I shall talk
tonight.
I feel the spirit of the meeting taking possession of me (Applause);
and by night I may ask my associates to limit their time. (Applause) I
find that every time I hear a speech on this subject the subject seems
larger. I am gratified that I could hear the speech made this afternoon
by the Secretary of the Interior. Whatever others may say on this
subject, his speech must of necessity be of paramount interest, because
most of us can only advise without any great assurance that the advice
will be accepted, but the Secretary of the Interior acts, and we are
all interested in knowing the lines upon which he will act. I have been
interested in the brief outline that he has given us this afternoon—the
conclusions which will doubtless be set forth at more length in his
official report. Tonight I want to speak on a little broader line. He
has covered conservation as it commenced, conservation as it relates to
his department; conservation of land, of the forest, of the water and of
water power. These are the things that are in his domain; but I confess
that as I have studied the subject it reaches out until it touches all
parts of our lives, and that is why I am so uncertain as to how long I
will talk tonight. I know the limit of my speaking, the maximum, but I
would not attempt to fix a minimum. (Applause) I spoke once, twenty years
ago, and more, at a little meeting not far from Lincoln. On the train as
I was going out to this place I met a citizen of Lincoln who said that
he did not think a man could be interesting on any subject for more than
one hour. Well, I was in the habit of talking more than an hour, and it
worried me a little to think that anybody believed that I could not be
interesting as long as I talked. (Applause) I combated the proposition,
but he seemed so fixed in his opinion that I soon gave up the discussion.
When I arose to speak in the afternoon he was present, and his presence
embarrassed me, and at the end of an hour he arose and left the meeting.
(Applause)
I don’t know how many of you entertain his views, and I may hesitate to
run beyond the hour. I heard of a man who spoke in Yale, and just before
rising to speak he asked the chairman of the meeting how much time he
would be permitted to occupy. He was assured that he could speak as long
as he pleased, but the chairman said that a very careful examination of
the records revealed the fact that no one who had ever spoken at Yale had
said anything after the first twenty minutes. (Applause) I do not know
how many of you have received your training at Yale. I have a general
outline in my mind; I want to sum up some things; I want to speak of the
phases of conservation that are most prominently presented, and then I
desire to show how this subject is connected with every large thing,
with these larger things that underlie civilization itself, and I am
afraid to commence on that speech this afternoon, for fear I may become
so interested that I will give it to you now and have nothing to say
tonight. (Applause)
Mr. WALLACE—A letter from Col. Roosevelt, Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of
the Congress. We have had a great meeting, but we have not had everybody
here that we wanted to get. We wanted Gifford Pinchot, but he had to go
to Alaska. We wanted Mr. Page, but he was obliged to go into the hands of
a doctor instead of starting here. We wanted James Garfield, and he was
expected to come until the last moment, and then had to stop. We wanted
Roosevelt; I wrote him and he declined. I wrote him that I would not
accept his declination, and then he wrote me a letter telling why. Then I
wrote him for permission to read that letter here, as that would be the
next best thing to himself, and here is the letter.
DEAR MR. WALLACE:
If only you could be in my office and see the numerous letters
I receive requesting me to speak for matters which I regard as
of very great consequence to the welfare of our people, you
would realize, as naturally it is now impossible for you to
realize, that I simply cannot possibly accept the invitation
to speak at the Conservation Congress. I believe with all my
heart in conservation; I believe in the movement against
child labor; I believe in the movement against the white slave
traffic; I believe in every rational movement to promote the
cause of temperance; I believe in the cause of industrial
and agricultural education; I believe in the movement for
playgrounds in every great city; I believe in the movement
for the betterment of rural life conditions; I believe in the
movement to secure workmen’s compensation acts; I believe
in the movement for bettering tenement house conditions; I
believe most emphatically in something being done carefully
to investigate the increased cost of living, and to see just
how much of the increase paid by the consumer goes to the
producer, and how much is absorbed by the middleman, properly
or improperly; I believe in a very great number of similar
movements, all of them of very real importance. Within the
last month, I have had requests to speak for each one of the
movements I have mentioned, and for very many others; and each
body of men who made the requests sincerely felt that their
movement stood on a very different plane from any other, and
that while they entirely agreed with me that I ought not to
speak generally, and that especially I ought not to speak
for the other movements, yet they were perfectly sincere in
their belief that for their movement I must and should speak.
Now, my dear Mr. Wallace, I cannot speak for one unless I
speak for the other movements. After I came back from abroad,
I felt that I ought to try to show my appreciation of what
the American people had done for me in the only way that was
possible—by trying to visit each section, and if possible each
state, and speaking therein for some one of these causes in
which I believe. In different sections and different states,
I have spoken for all of them, and for innumerable others. In
particular, I have spoken again and again for the cause of
conservation, and as a matter of fact have spoken for it far
more frequently than for any other of the great social and
industrial movements for righteousness in which I so thoroughly
believe. I have found by actual experience that every speech
I make simply means that I am asked to make a hundred others,
and that (and this is notably the case as regards conservation)
instead of the fact that I have spoken with all my heart
for any movement and said all I have to say for it, being
accepted as a reason why I should not speak for it again, it is
apparently accepted as a reason why I should keep on speaking,
and keep on repeating these speeches I have already made. This,
however, is not only true of conservation. In Berkeley, last
year, across the bay from San Francisco, I delivered an address
on the three hundredth anniversary of the authorized version of
the Scriptures, and not only did this result in my being asked
to repeat the address in New York, Detroit and Memphis and a
number of other Eastern cities, but I was actually and in good
faith urged to come back, only one month later, and repeat the
address in San Francisco itself!