admitted, someone may go upon that land, locate it as mineral land, claiming that it was known to be mineral at the time the State was admitted into the Union-and then the question is tried out in the courts. So the title of one purchasing from the State a portion of either section 16 or section 36 is always more or less clouded by reason of the fact that someone at some time or other may come in and assert that the land was, in fact, mineral at the time the State was admitted into the Union. Mr. SMOOт. Will the Senator from Montana yield to me? Mr. SMOOт. The Senator from Montana has made a very clear statement in reference to the matter, and I merely wish to refer to a case of which I am aware which is illustrative of what he has stated. Twenty-two years ago a part of a section in my State was purchased by an individual from the State. Later someone went upon it and claimed that at the time of the admission of Utah to Statehood the land was known to have been mineral. The question immediately arose as to title of the property, and, no matter what the purchaser may have expended upon the land, even though he may have expended upon it his entire means, there still rests a cloud upon his title. Mr. WALSH of Montana. The purpose of this proposed act is to permit the State to apply to the Secretary of the Interior for a patent to lands granted to it in place sections 16 and 36. It will then be obliged to claim that the lands are nonmineral, and the Secretary of the Interior will institute an inquiry thereupon as to whether or not the land is mineral or was known to be mineral at the time the State was admitted into the Union. If he determines that it was not known to be mineral at that time, but was known to be agricultural, a patent to the State will issue, and that settles the controversy for all time, so anyone thereafter buying from the State will know that he gets a good title to the land. The condition which I have stated has given rise to many unfortunate controversies, which this bill endeavors to prevent in the future. Mr. SHEPPARD. What is the meaning of the expression "in place"? Mr. WALSH of Montana. Lands granted to a State are either "in place or by selection. As I have indicated, place grants are always of sections 16 and 36. Besides that, the State receives grants in bulk for its educational institutions, its mines, etc.; that is, of a certain number of acres of land which it may select throughout the State. Having selected those lands, the Secretary enters upon an inquiry as to whether or not they are mineral, and finding them not to be mineral, patents will be issued to those lands. That is a floating grant, as the Senator will see; it does not attach to any particular lands until the State selects the lands. The other lands the State does not select at all, but they are already fixed "in place"; that is, sections 16 and 36. We find no difficulty at all, so far as the lands are concerned, which the States are obliged to select, because as to those the States get patent now under the law. It is only as to those lands which are "in place" with respect to which the States do not get title; so that it always remains a matter of doubt as to whether or not the State has title. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is, Shall the bill pass? The bill was passed. S. 889 was referred to the Committee on the Public Lands of the House of Representatives on April 24, 1922, but was never reported out of the House committee. On August 11, 1922, the following letters were sent to Hon. N. J. Sinnott, chairman of the Committee on the Public Lands, House of Representatives, by Hon. E. C. Finney, First Assistant Secretary of the Interior, relative to S. 889: Hon. N. J. SINNOTT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Chairman Committee on the Public Lands, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. SINNOTT: I am in receipt of your letter of July 8, inclosing for my consideration communication addressed to you by Hon. William N. Vaile, Member of Congress from Colorado, relative to S. 889. The occasion of Mr. Vaile's letter is a communication addressed to him by Mr. H. W. Havens, "mineral superintendent" of the State board of land commissioners. It seems to me from a perusal of Mr. Havens's communication that he does not clearly understand the existing law as construed by this department or the effect of S. 889 if enacted. He states that the State of Colorado has seyeral thousand acres of mineral land not known as mineral on the date of the approved survey, the surface of which has been sold by the State, the mineral rights having been reserved for the school fund, "and it does not seem possible that our Representatives in Congress will now allow these rights to be taken away from the State school fund." As you already know, the grant of sections 16 and 36 to the States for the support of common schools is a grant in place, but which does not vest until. the date of the grant (or admission of the State) if the lands were surveyed prior thereo, or until the approval of the official survey, if surveyed after the grant. If at that time known to be mineral in character they do not pass to the State, because the grant expressly excepts all mineral lands therefrom. If, however, on the date when the title would otherwise vest, the lands are not known to be mineral in character, the grant becomes effective and vests a title in the State to the land and to the unknown minerals therein. Assuming that it is this class of lands to which Mr. Havens refers, I am unable to find anything in S. 889 which would deprive the State of the title either to the surface of such school sections or the mineral contents thereof. As you are aware, the title to the State under the school grant is evidenced by no patent or instrument executed by the Interior Department under existing law. The lands either passed by virtue of the congressional grant or they did not pass, if known to be mineral at date of grant, or of survey, as the case may be. Such There is no statute of limitations which prevents inquiry at any time, whether it be 1 year or 50 years after the grant, as to whether a particular section 16 or 36 was known to be mineral at the date of the grant or of survey. cases have arisen very many times in the past and are continually arising, and I understand the purpose of S. 889 to be to put an end to this condition of affairs by authorizing such an adjudication or ascertainment by the Secretary of the Interior as he now makes in the case of railroad grants, and as he now makes in the case of every entry or selection under the agricultural land laws; i. e., a determination as to whether the lands passed to the State under its grant or not, and, if so, the issuance of evidence of title by the Secretary which will vest a definite and unassailable title in the State to the lands found to have so passed. Of course, if S. 889 is not enacted, the department can continue in the future as in the past to adjudicate the question of whether or not sections passed under the grant by reason of their mineral or nonmineral character, whenever the question is raised by a private contest or protest or by a Government proceeding. It was felt, however, that the enactment of the measure would be of great advantage to the States in making their tenure certain and definite, and that in those cases where the lands were ascertained, after due inquiry, to have been known mineral in character at the date of the grant or of survey, and therefore did not pass to the State, permit it to take indemnity in lieu thereof. There is also in the bill a provision that where lands purchased in good faith from any State are thereafter found by a final decree to have been of known mineral character at the time the grant would have otherwise attached, and that consequently they did not pass to the State, the transferee should have the right to acquire title to the surface on payment of the nominal sum of $1.25 an acre, or to a patent without mineral reservation as to all minerals. except the metalliferous ones, on payment of the appraised price thereof. I suggested that in lieu of this outright sale of the minerals the purchaser be awarded a preference right to a lease in accordance with the terms of the general leasing act, believing that this would be advantageous both to the State and the Government, as the respective shares of royalties thus derived would, in most cases, far exceed the cash appraised value recoverable under S. 889 as passed by the Senate. The suggestion of Mr. Havens that the words "in aid of public schools" be stricken out of lines 4 and 5 of the bill would apparently nullify the purpose 86958-26- -9 of the bill, as its principal object is to deal with and settle title of lands granted in place to the several States in aid of public schools. I must disagree with Mr. Havens, however, that the bill will leave the State's rights to its school lands in a more unsettled condition "for all time to come." As I construe the bill, and I know that to be its purpose, after a determination has been made under its terms that a common school section was not known mineral at time of the grant or time of survey, the Secretary of the Interior will then issue a patent to the State for the land. This will vest in the State, as I have stated, a complete and unassailable title, and not leave it in an unsettled condition, as Mr. Havens infers. As I have already indicated, this is practically the only class of lands with which the Interior Department is dealing in the public domain where there is no provision for a final adjudication and determination and the issuance of evidence of title based thereon. In the absence of some such legislation the uncertainty referred to by Mr. Havens will continue indefinitely, and I believe that when he gives the measure further consideration he will perceive that it is a step in the direction of definitely settling titles of this nature, and that it will have no effect whatsoever upon any lands which lawfully passed to the State under its grant, even though since that time valuable minerals may have been discovered thereon. Mr. Vaile's letter with inclosures is herewith returned. There is also inclosed carbon copy of this communication. Respectfully, E. C. FINNEY, First Assistant Secretary. Hon. N. J. SINNOTT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Chairman Committee on the Public Lands, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. SINNOTT: I have yours of the 10th, including communication from Mr. G. G. Brown, clerk of the State land board, stating that he fears that S. 889 would have the effect of disturbing State titles, and that the board is therefore of opinion that it should not become a law. Mr. Brown's letter is accompanied by an opinion from the special assistant attorney general of the State of Oregon. The attorney general seems to have a rather clear idea of the existing law, but I can not but feel that both he and the State land board overlook the situation of school sections under that law. Briefly stated, the granting of the sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections to the State for the support of common schools was a grant in place, needing no further action or conveyance to vest title in the State if the lands in the sections named were not reserved, occupied by prior settlers, etc., and were not known to be mineral in character at (1) the date of the admission of the State into the Union if prior thereto the lands had been surveyed and identified; or (2) if surveyed after the date of the admission of the State into the Union at the time of the approval of the official survey. However, there is no statute of limitations running against the Government, and proof at any time, whether it be 1 year or 50 years after the admission of the State or the survey of the school section, that the land was, at the time when the grant would otherwise have become effective, known to be mineral in character, defeats the grant and the Government has the legal right to dispose of the lands under appropriate public land laws, the State's only remedy being indemnity selection. This situation results in uncertainty of title and numerous instances have occurred in the various States where lands, which had been surveyed or which presumably had passed to the State upon admission many years before, were nevertheless proven to have been known mineral at the crucial date, and that consequently the grant was not effective. This condition, which will probably continue indefinitely, unless Congress remedies it, led to the introduction of S. 889. Of course, the department and the Senate took the view that it would not be in accordance either with the original grants, with the decisions of the courts and the department, or in the public interest, to confirm title to these sections in the State out of hand without some ascertainment as to whether or not they passed under the grant. Therefore, such an ascertainment and determination is provided for. When once made, the lands determined to have passed under the grant, patent, or evidence of title issued, the State's title will then be beyond attack and secure for all time. I believe that the fears of the State land board and the Special Assistant Attorney General, that it will result in a large amount of litigation, etc., are unfounded. The Interior Department is in position to-day, if S. 889 is never enacted, to question the title of any school section in the State of Oregon or any other State on proper allegation or prima facie showing that the land did not pass to the State under its grant because of the mineral character. That is all that could be done if S. 889 were enacted. The advantage of the proposed law is that when once determined it will be finally and conclusively settled, whereas under the present law there is no end in sight of the possibility of questioning the State's title. I note some remarks about the provision of the act, which grants the right to the State's purchasers to buy the surface at $1.25 an acre and to also acquire the minerals from the United States by purchase, but you will recall that I suggested there be substituted for this a provision that as far as the minerals are concerned, they should be leased in accordance with the general leasing act, and the State be given the share of royalties therein provided. As intimated herein, I would not feel justified in supporting legislation which would confirm absolutely the title in the State after the lapse of a certain number of years of school sections, whether they passed under the grant or not, and, frankly, I do not believe you could get Congress to approve such a law. If the States interested do not desire to have their titles finally adjudicated and determined, the only other alternative I can see would be to continue to operate under existing law, with the possibility at any time of the title to any school section being questioned, upon a showing that it was known mineral in character at the time when it would have otherwise passed under the grant. You might point out to the State land board and to the special assistant attorney general that railroads and all other grantees of the United States, as well as entrymen under the various land laws, are very anxious to and do secure a final determination from this department of their title, and when once a determination has been made that the land is of the character subject to the grant, entries, selections, etc., and patent issues as a result of the determination, it vests in them, in the absence of fraud, a secure and unassailable title. Such I understand to be the purpose of S. 889. The opinion of the special assistant attorney general is herewith returned. I also inclose a carbon copy of this letter. Respectfully, E. C. FINNEY, First Assistant Secretary. (H. R. 6158) On May 12, 1921, Congressman Summers of Washington introduced II. R. 6158. [H. R. 6158, Sixty-seventh Congress, first session] A BILL To vest title to school lands in the State in which the lands are situated, if a proceeding is not instituted before the Department of the Interior within twelve years after the State is admitted to the Union, or within twelve years after the survey of the school-land sections was approved, to determine whether such lands were of known mineral character Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in the case of the grant of school-land sections to a State, unless within twelve years after the State is admitted to the Union, or within twelve years after the survey of the schoolland sections of a State has been approved by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, a proceeding is instituted before the Department of the Interior to determine whether such land was of known mineral character at the time the State was admitted to the Union, or at the time the survey was approved, absolute title in such land so granted shall be vested in the State in which the land is situated. H. H. 6158 is the same as H. R. 6260 (p. 127) and S. 1721 (p. 114). On August 1, 1921, Hon. E. C. Finney, Acting Secretary of the Interior, submitted the following report on H. R. 6158 to Hon. N. J. Sinnott, chairman Committee on the Public Lands, House of Representatives: DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Hon. N. J. SINNOTT, Chairman Committee on the Public Lands, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. SINNOTT: Complying with your request, I have the honor to report as follows on House bill 6158. The bill provides that in case of a grant of school-land sections to a State absolute title shall vest in the State unless proceedings are initiated before the Department of the Interior to determine the character of such school-land sections with respect to minerals within 12 years after the State is admitted into the Union or within 12 years after the surveys of the lands have been approved by the Commissioner of the General Land Office. Congress had made grants of designated sections of land to the public-land States in aid of public or common schools. Mineral lands are excepted, in terms, from many of the grants, which call for no further or formal evidence of title, the statute (usually the enabling act of the State) in each case operating both as a grant and a conveyance, so far as the named sections are of the character and status subject to the grant. In case mineral lands are excepted from such a grant, the known condition of the designated section at the time when the grant takes effect determines whether title to the land does or does not pass thereunder, and if at that time the land is not known to contain mineral, a subsequent discovery thereof will not affect the State's title. (Deffeback v. Hawk, 115 U. S. 392; Colorado Coal Co. v. United States, 123 U. S. 307-328; Shaw v. Kellog, 170 U. S. 312.) If, however, the land is of known mineral character at that time, the land remains the property of the United States. (United States v. Sweet, 245 U. S. 563.) The grant is effective, if at all, from the date thereof or the date of the admission of the State into the Union, as to lands then surveyed. As to lands subsequently surveyed it is effective, if at all, upon acceptance of the survey by the land department. (United States v. Morrison, 240 U. S. 192.) One result of the proposed legislation, if enacted, will be to enlarge schoolland grants by the addition of mineral lands excepted therefrom under existing law, and not intended to be conveyed when the grants were made. Furthermore, these grants may or may not be effective as to school-section lands within the boundaries of Indian, military, or other reservations, depending upon the title status of the land at the time the reservation is created. If as such time title is in the State, it there remains, unaffected by the reservation withdrawal. If, however, the lands are unsurveyed at the time of the creation of the reservation, a subsequent survey made while the lands are reserved does not ordinarily operate to vest title in the State. The mineral or nonmineral character of these reservation school-section lands has not, as a rule, been tested by proceedings before the Department of the Interior, and while the bill may not have been drawn with a view to the vesting of title in and to such reservation school-section lands in the States, I think you will agree with me that it admits of such construction. Title to granted school-section lands should be secure and not subject to attack. The States should be given the same evidence of title that is given the individual, viz, a United States patent. A more comprehensive and it seems to be better method of assuring or confirming the titles of the States as well as to quiet titles of certain transferees of the States is found in Senate bill 889. A copy of the report made by this department on that bill, July 20, 1921, is inclosed, together with a draft of a bill containing the suggestions for amendments made in said report. It is recommended that the present bill (H. R. 6158), be not enacted. Respectfully, E. C. FINNEY, Acting Secretary. |