act which was signed into law, saying that any lands that had not then been selected could be taken having minerals.

So Alaska would be the first State-leaving Hawaii out of consideration, because I do not suppose they have any minerals-that would enter the Union with the right to take lands mineral in character.

Senator JACKSON. It is correct, then, that in the case of States admitted prior to 1928-the last State admitted was Arizona in 1912— there were stipulations in the statehood bill or other appropriate legislation concurrent with it that reserved to the Federal Government that area of the public domain that was mineral in character?

Delegate BARTLETT. Yes.

Mr. SLAUGHTER. Yes. The general scheme in those earlier acts was that the State got the 16th and 32d sections only if those sections were not mineral in character. If they were mineral in character, then the State could select new land

Senator JACKSON. "Mineral" had a broad meaning, I take it, and included oil?

Mr. SLAUGHTER. Yes. Of course, "mineral in character" is determined as of the time of the survey, and therefore there are numerous cases in which the State got land because at the time of the survey they were not known to be mineral in character.

Senator CORDON. What you meant to say in the first place was "lands known to be mineral," not "mineral lands." There is a very great difference between the two.

Mr. SLAUGHTER. Yes.

Senator JACKSON. In other words, to apply it to Alaska it would be violating precedent-not that that is important for us to turn over the northern tier of Alaska, which has been set aside as a naval reserve. That is a known mineral area.

Likewise, this grant to the Phillips Petroleum Co. is presumed, I guess, to be known as mineral in character, and other known mineral areas.

Delegate BARTLETT. No. Because the congressional policy that stands is that of the late twenties, where the earlier rules were thrown aside. It was then said that States could take land known to contain minerals.

Senator CORDON. Will you please furnish that for the record?

(STAFF NOTE.-The Alaska Delegate referred to the fact that public lands States have been precluded by the terms of their admission from obtaining through their grants lands known to be mineral in character or even suspected of being so. When mineral lands were within a grant, the State was required to take "in lieu" lands. However, the act of January 25, 1927 (44 Stat. 1026, as amended; 43 U. S. C. 870, 871) provided that as to grants in aid of education, the State could take title to mineral lands. The State was required, by the terms of the law, to retain title to the minerals, on pain of forfeiture.)

Mr. SLAUGHTER. The 1928 act said that even though the original enabling acts limited the States to nonmineral land, nevertheless for the future, to the extent their grants had not been satisfied

Senator JACKSON. You mean if they had a residue left in which to exercise selection, they could in fact select known mineral areas if they had not previously been set aside in a reservation?

Mr. SLAUGHTER. That is correct.

Senator JACKSON. The way it stands now, Territories previously admitted to statehood with that handicap now have the right to select their own mineral areas if there is a residue unappropriated, of land unappropriated.

Mr. SLAUGHTER. And if the land has not been otherwise reserved.

Mr. BENNETT. At that point, I believe, Mr. Slaughter, if the Federal Government has issued a lease on that land at the time it is surveyed, that land is not available. It is said to have been reserved by the act of the Federal Government in issuing the lease.

Mr. SLAUGHTER. I think that is true, Ben. I would like to check on that point.

Mr. BENNETT. I think that issue came up in Congressman Dawson's hearings on the House side with respect to the State school land problem, where oil as well as special gas wells had been coming in within the last few months.

Senator JACKSON. I would think in any event there ought to be some statement of policy in the bill-I do not know how much of it would be mandatory-that the land should be managed in a way to bring about the widest possible use.

Senator SMATHERS. And diverse ownership.

Senator JACKSON. And diverse ownership to prevent monopolization.

Delegate BARTLETT. I think that last recommendation is very good. Senator JACKSON. I do believe some thought ought to be given to that point. I believe that is in line with what you had in mind. Senator SMATHERS. Yes.

Senator CORDON. It would be a good statement of policy. It would be hardly an enforceable covenant. That would be the difficulty. Senator JACKSON. I agree with you, Senator Cordon. I am just wondering whether we might not want to give consideration to some recourse that might be had in the event of violation.

Delegate BARTLETT. Before the committee does that, I am sure you will examine carefully the fact that the State won't be able to get under any process that you might establish some of the land which is considered the very best because it will be continued in Federal ownership. Senator JACKSON. I think the State ought to get good land.

Senator SMATHERS. We are of the opinion that you should get more than has been provided for in the House bill.

Delegate BARTLETT. You mean even some of the land included in these Federal reservations?

Senator CORDON. Yes.

Senator SMATHERS. Yes indeed.

Delegate BARTLETT. Oh.

Senator JACKSON. Do you object to that?

Delegate BARTLETT. No objection. Hearty concurrence.

Senator CORDON. Very well, let us have another thing to turn over in our minds between now and tomorrow and maybe the next day. Is it advisable, rather than making an absolute or even a conditional grant of this vast acreage suggested in this bill, to grant a smaller acreage but with respect to a larger acreage provide that a homestead law, whether it be one that is now in existence or one to be written, shall be applicable to it and the lands remain in Government owner

ship but open to homestead entry, with any moneys accruing from it or any proportion of those moneys-and I would say it should be all but the cost, and we might even be willing to absorb the cost-going to Alaska for public purposes. I am not suggesting that we do that. I just want you to think it over. The present Bureau of Land Management of the United States has had many, many years of experience in administering the public domain under the old trust theory, where the lands were alienated just as rapidly as anybody wanted them and were willing to show good faith in getting them. That is something that we ought to think about.

We have a homestead act, but it is substantially a dead duck because there is nothing to homestead at the present moment.

Delegate BARTLETT. Did you mean in respect to the land that might be turned over to the new State?

Senator CORDON. We have a suggestion here I do not like to mention this to you but I will have to-of something around 100 million acres being turned over to the new State.

Delegate BARTLETT. I heard tell of acreage on that order.

Senator CORDON. We are talking in terms of trying to set up here an economic backlog for a new State which, if properly handled, will permit it to be self-sufficient and capable financially of handling its own business. That is what we are trying to do.

Delegate BARTLETT. Senator, seeing that map there reminds me of one situation that we have in Tongass National Forest, for example, which roughly encompasses all of southeastern Alaska. That is 16 million acres in extent and contains, I believe, only about 5 million acres of merchantable timber, leaving 11 million acres that probably ought not to be in the national forests at all. I suppose Governor Heintzleman, when he comes here, since he was regional forester before, will tell you that the noncommercial timberland is on the mountaintops, and so forth. I suggest that merely to point up the problem that is going to face you in connection with that particular area.

Senator CORDON. Do you have any specific suggestions, Delegate Bartlett, with respect to a grant to the new State of any portion of what is now the Tongass National Forest, and if so, for what purpose and why. I know that is a new question to you and you may not be prepared to answer it, but we would like to get your views and the considered views of anybody else in Alaska.

Delegate BARTLETT. It is a new question to me, and if I were going to make an answer offhand, with the right to change it in 5 minutes, it would be to throw out this suggestion:

If you are going to diminish the size of Tongass National Forest by conveying some of it to the State, would it or would it not be better to do so by fixing upon some arbitrary east and west line and saying that all the land north of this point shall belong to the new State and leaving that to the south in the national forest. You would have an excellent example, it seems to me, there of comparative State and Federal management policies and how it worked out. I mentioned the area to the south as one that might well remain in Federal ownership because there we have the situation where the Federal Government has already entered into contract with the Ketchikan Pulp & Timber Co. Senator JACKSON. Delegate Bartlett, may I supplement that by suggesting that when Governor Heintzleman makes an appearance before

the committee maybe he could point out or give to us an economic unit of the forest that could be managed as a unit and as an entirety. In that way it would be in shape for the State to manage and to sustain it properly over a period.

Delegate BARTLETT. That would be a very good idea and I would like to add to that by saying that Mr. Greeley, the present regional forester of Alaska, who comes from Portland to Juneau, is now in town and perhaps he would have a contribution to make.

Senator SMATHERS. Mr. Chairman, is that not the kind of suggestion that you want on all these reservations? For example, how much of the present reservation do Delegate Bartlett and his people think the present reservation should be reduced by—a half, a quarter, and so on? Then we can hear from the park people, the forest people as to why they do agree or do not agree.

Senator CORDON. Senator Smathers suggested earlier that the Statehood Commission possibly had given consideration to this question of the cession of land to the new State and that it might be well to hear from them.

Delegate BARTLETT. By way of this withdrawal matter?

Senator CORDON. Yes..

Delegate BARTLETT. No. The Statehood Committee has not considered that as such. I should be very glad, though, to direct their attention to it immediately. Of course they are spread all over the landscape of Alaska. I could get word to the members of the executive committee right away-Bob Atwood and Mildred Hermann and the others who are on the executive committee-or if you want them, I can get one or more of them here, I am confident.

Senator SMATHERS. Here is the thing that I do not understand: If you people do not do that, how are we going to know exactly what to give you? We can take the Park Service's word for it or the Forest Service's word for it, but it may be that the particular land which they want to keep is the desirable farmland, for example, and would not be useful to you people in building up the State.

Delegate BARTLETT. I agree with you.

Senator SMATHERS. It seems that we have to have some recommendation from you people concerning what lands will help you in building up a good State.

Delegate BARTLETT. We will be glad to give that to you. The reason we did not approach that specific problem before was that not until this very hour, just a few minutes ago, in fact, when you suggested to me that you were considering that phase of it, did we know that there was any possibility of the State's receiving title to any of these withdrawn lands.

(The following letter was later received for the record:)

Hon. GUY CORDON,

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C., February 20, 1954.

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR CORDON: On January 30, when your subcommittee was considering the Alaska statehood bill, you directed me to obtain the views of the Alaska Statehood Committee as to the amounts of land which should be taken from existing Federal withdrawals and turned over to the new State.

I am now empowered to note on behalf of the Alaska Statehood Committee that the committee is substantially in agreement with the action of your subcommittee

concerning this problem as is reflected in committee print 3. We appreciate the high desirability of striking from each and every Federal reservation every square foot of land not actually required; notwithstanding, we understand the tremendous difficulty in accomplishing that, withdrawal by withdrawal, in an enabling act for statehood.

The Alaska Statehood Committee does believe that the suggestion heretofore made that a commission should be appointed to determine the necessity for Federal reservations has much merit. Obviously, that could be done independently of the enabling act. It is probably correct to state that every last member of the statehood committee entertains the conviction that Federal withdrawals in Alaska have not only been too numerous but too large in extent; notwithstanding, it would be mighty difficult for the committee as a group to state that particular reservations should be reduced in acreage by amounts arbitrarily fixed upon by the committee. There would almost necessarily have to be meetings with every Federal agency concerned and probably this would be outside the scope and certainly outside the ability of the Alaska Statehood Committee to do, at least within existing time limitations.

So it can be said that the committee acquiesces in the action determined upon by your subcommittee.

Sincerely yours,

E. L. BARTLETT.

Delegate BARTLETT. I have some firm views on that personally, but I would like to check them. For example, Katmai National Monument. Over 2 million acres was set up years ago after the Katmai explosion, when the Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes was created, beautiful scenery, and so forth. Now I think there are four smokes left. The people can't mine there, as they can in McKinley National Monument and the area is simply too big for the purpose. The Federal Government has never spent a dime on it.

Senator CORDON. A Valley of Four Smokes is not sufficiently unique, you feel?

Senator JACKSON. It is no longer the Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes but is down to 4; not 4,000, but just 4?

Delegate BARTLETT. Yes. I think, Senator Jackson, that that area has the qualities that lead to the establishment of a national monument. It is beautiful, but it doesn't have to be 2 million acres.

Senator JACKSON. You should be here tomorrow when we have the Park Service people up because that is under their jurisdiction.

Senator Cordon, it would occur to me that in drafting any reservation of land for the State there ought to be some flexibility where the State can select later on specific pieces of land. I have a hunch that all of the good lands for agriculture and so on are not necessarily known at this time.

Senator CORDON. That may well be.

Senator JACKSON. Am I correct in that, Delegate Bartlett?

Delegate BARTLETT. Yes. It goes further than the agricultural part of it. I remember over in the House committee years ago when we were discussing a statehood bill, one member proposed that everything north of the Yukon be cut off and be left in the Territory. At that moment the Navy was moving in there and for all we knew then and know now, as a matter of fact, that might be the most valuable part of Alaska on account of oil. We don't know.

Senator JACKSON. Senator Cordon, there is one other area that I think we ought to check into a bit. I would like to have someone from the Bureau of Mines to get their views with reference to assistance that they might be able to give to the Territory. Next to fisheries, I think the mining industry over the past years has been the most