Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

At the end of section 3 add:

Provided, however, Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the Secretary of Agriculture from listing for homestead entry under the provisions of the act of June 11, 1906 (34 Stat. 233), any of the above-described lands found by him to be chiefly valuable for agriculture and not needed for public purposes: Provided further, That the provisions of this section shall not apply to any proposed development for water-power purposes for which an application for license was pending under the terms of the Federal water power act on or before January 1, 1928.

The above amendments conform to the suggestions of the Departments of Agriculture and of State. Letters from these departments follow as part of this report. The Secretary of the Interior has also expressed himself as favorable to the legislation. In reporting on the bill he said:

I am in sympathy with the general purposes behind this legislation, and since it now appears that the scattered tracts of unreserved public land within this area were temporarily withdrawn by Executive order of May 26, 1928, in aid of legislation such as that now proposed, I wish to withdraw my recommendation that enactment of the bill be deferred until action by the Commission on the Conservation and Administration of the Public Domain has been taken.

Therefore, so far as the public lands are concerned, I recommend that the bill receive favorable consideration by Congress.

This legislation has had extensive consideration by a subcommittee of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry and also by the full committee. Hearings were had and the subject considered from every angle.

The committee therefore recommends early and favorable action on the legislation as reported.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Washington, February 17, 1930.

Hon. CHARLES L. MCNARY,

Chairman Committee on Agriculture and Forestry,

United States Senate.

DEAR SENATOR MCNARY: Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of January 28 requesting a report from this department upon the bill (S. 2498) to promote the better protection and highest public use of lands of the United States and adjacent lands and waters in northern Minnesota for the production of forest products, and for other purposes.

This department, in reporting on earlier bills of similar nature and in other communications, has consistently approved the principle embodied in the bill S. 2498. It regards the area involved as one of great potential social value within which there should be a deliberate and systematic conservation of the scenic and wild-life values and of the opportunities for unique and desirable forms of outdoor recreation.

On the other hand, the area also possesses large economic or industrial possibilities; the potential capacity to produce large quantities of timber and thus to contribute to the support of local industries, communities, and institutions. This aspect of its social value should not be disregarded.

In the opinion of the department neither broad field of use should be excluded or dominated by the other, but both should be so coordinated and correlated as to produce the largest net return in social and industrial service. All facts available to the department warrant the belief that this can be done, and such is the objective of the department in its administration of the Superior National Forest. It, therefore, seems desirable that such legislation as may be enacted by Congress shall not be so rigid nor inflexible as to militate against the best and highest use and management of the area, consequently I wish to suggest certain minor changes for the consideration of your committee.

So far as this department is aware, section 1 of the bill is satisfactory and no change is suggested.

Section 2, in substance, prescribes certain rules to control the cutting of timber under the direction of this department. As now worded, it applies without

restriction or qualification to any waterway within the region described. In actual fact, the region is a regular network of waterways which are so widely and intricately distributed that they influence the major part of the Superior National Forest. Some of these waterways are used rarely if at all by tourists, campers, etc., and the application to the timber adjoining them of the same rules that are justified in relation to the international boundary waters or other major boat or canoe routes would be difficult of justification. An amendment covering this point will be hereafter suggested.

Section 2 authorizes the cutting of diseased, insect-infested, or dead timber within 200 feet of natural shore line, but makes no provision for overmature timber which obviously will be dead before the area again becomes subject to a cutting operation. It is the belief of this department that a judicious removal of the obviously overmature and decadent trees not only will avert an economic loss but actually will result in improved appearance of shore line and therefore might well be authorized by the bill.

Again section 2 makes no provision for openings along streams or lakes in connection with logging operations. The removal of timber by water really would be an advantage in conserving natural beauty since it would obviate the need for the construction of railroads, tramroads, etc. But as the bill is now worded, the necessary openings to permit of removal by water would be prohibited.

The preceding comment applies also to section 3. During low-water periods the connecting streams which link one lake with another and thus create the water route are frequently too low to permit the free movement of logs or other timbers, and to meet this condition it is necessary to build small dams by which a water level sufficient to permit the movement of logs can be maintained in such connecting streams. The bill does not authorize, but to the contrary would prohibit, that practice. There is no probability that a modification such as suggested herein would be abused or carried to an extreme, defeating the purpose of the bill. In view of the several comments above made the following amendments are recommended:

Page 2, line 6, after the word "any", insert the word "other".

Page 2, line 7, after the word "area" insert “which is now or eventually to be in general use for boat or canoe travel".

Page 2, line 14, insert the word "dying" at the beginning of the line.

Page 2, line 15, change the period to a comma and add "except where necessary to open areas for banking grounds, landings, and other uses connected with logging operations.'

[ocr errors]

Page 3, line 9, change period to comma and add “and maximum water levels not higher than the normal high-water mark may be maintained temporarily where essential strictly for logging purposes in the streams between lakes by the construction and operation of small temporary dams."

It is the belief of the field officers of the Forest Service that the amendments suggested herein will not militate against the purpose or effectiveness of the pending bill, but will really facilitate both its local acceptance and the execution of its provisions, in that they will more adequately permit of the desirable coordination of the recreational and industrial potentialities of the Superior National Forest and the highest realization of the public value of that area. Unnecessary restrictions upon the industrial utilization of the material resources of the forest, and of the intermingled privately-owned lands, undoubtedly will inspire persistent efforts for their modification and consequent instability of administration, whereas a reasonable adjustment between the two major forms of service will permit this department to plan its administration of the forest with assurance and effective

ness.

Subject to the amendments herein proposed, the bill has the full approval of this department, and its favorable consideration by your committee is recommended.

Sincerely yours,

R. W. DUNLAP, Acting Secretary.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR,
Washington, March 6, 1930.

Memorandum, in re language used in forms of withdrawal and in H. R. 6981 "are hereby withdrawn from all forms of entry or appropriation under the public land laws of the United States subject to prior existing legal rights.

*

This phrase as ordinarily used by the Department of the Interior in withdrawals of public lands and in the bill in question, is designed subject to prior legal rights to withhold the lands from all forms of entry in the General Land Office, looking to the issuance of patent therefor, and from other forms of appropriation whereby citizens of the United States initiate vested or inchoate rights which may ultimately grow into legal or patentable rights. The word "appropriation" is used as a broad term comprehending such forms of initiated title to the public domain as settlement under the homestead laws, location of mining claims under the general mining laws, etc.

It would not, in my judgment, if the lands were included in a national forest reserve or placed under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service for purposes of administration, preclude them from granting permits or licenses for the development or utilization of the forest resources. It would prevent the disposition of the land under patent or deed or the imitiation of a right or claim which might grow into such a title.

Hon. CHARLES L. MCNARY,

E. C. FINNEY.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, February 7, 1930.

Chairman Committee on Agriculture and Forestry,

United States Senate.

SIR: Referring to the bill S. 2498 entitled "A bill to promote the better protection and highest public use of lands of the United States and admacent lands and waters in northern Minnesota for the production of forest products, and for other purposes," which has been referred to your committee, I inclose a copy of a note dated January 30, 1930, received from the Canadian Legation at this capital concerning the proposals contained in this bill and in H. R. 6981 and H. R. 8968.

I believe it would be desirable to make certain that the proposed legislation will not be construed to interfere with the functions of the International Joint Commission created pursuant to the provisions of article 3 of the convention concluded January 11, 1909, between the United States and Great Britain relating to the boundary waters between the United States and Canada. Accordingly, it is suggested that in section 3 of S. 2498 after the word "project" on page 3, line 4, the following proviso should be added:

[ocr errors]

Provided, That nothing in this section shall be construed as interfering with the duties of the International Joint Commission created pursuant to the convention concerning the boundary waters between the United States and Canada, concluded between the United States and Great Britain on January 11, 1909, and action taken or to be taken in accordance with the provisions of the convention, protocol and agreement between the United States and Canada which were signed at Washington on February 24, 1925 for the purpose of regulating the level of the Lake of the Woods."

A similar communication has been addressed to the chairman of the Committee on the Public Lands of the House of Representatives. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

[blocks in formation]

SIR: I have the honor to state that I have been instructed by the secretary of state for external affairs to direct your attention to certain considerations arising in connection with several bills which are now before the Congress of the United States, one of the purposes of which is to prevent the alteration of water levels

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

5

in a designated area of the State of Minnesota in the vicinity of the international boundary between Canada and the United States, except under the authority of a special act of the Congress of the United States. These proposals are contained in bills H. R. 6981, H. R. 8968, and S. 2498.

In the convention, protocol, and agreement between Canada and the United States, which was signed at Washington on February 24, 1925, for the purpose of regulating the level of the Lake of the Woods, provision was made for referring to the International Joint Commission certain questions regarding Rainy Lake Question 1, and the other upper waters of the Lake of the Woods watershed. sections (b) and (c), and question 2 of the agreement provide for inquiries into the practicability and desirability of the regulation of, and the provision of storage facilities upon, boundary waters in the area which is designated in the bills in question. The International Joint Commission has held hearings on these questions and has appointed engineers to pursue the investigation. These engineers have made a preliminary, but not a final, report.

In these circumstances, His Majesty's Government in Canada desire to urge that no action should be taken which would in any way impede the inquiry which is still in progress or interfere with the recommendations which are to be made by the International Joint Commission.

In this connection, reference is made to a letter from the Department of State to the chairman of the Committee on the Public Lands of the House of Representatives dated February 21, 1929, relating to similar proposals made in bill H. R. 12780 of the Seventieth Congress, which is printed in House Report No. Refer2814 of March 2, 1929, and to the amendments to H. R. 12780 proposed by the Committee on the Public Lands and printed on page 2 of the same report. ence is also made to the views of the minority of the Committee on the Public Lands which are included as part 2 of this report.

It may be added that the government of the Province of Ontario have informed His Majesty's Government in Canada that they consider that the proposed legislation overrides in effect the provisions of the boundary waters treaty of 1909, and that in consequence its passage should be opposed.

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient humble servant,

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

H. H. WRONG
(For the Minister).

« ÎnapoiContinuă »