Thereafter, an extended debate ensued over the matter of mining in the proposed park. Participants in the debate were Representatives John H. Stephens of Texas, Eugene F. Loud of California, John F. Shafroth of Colorado, Joseph G. Cannon of Illinois, Thomas C. MacRose of Arkansas, and Franklin W. Mondell of Wyoming. The course of the debate, which ultimately led to amendments providing for development and location of mining claims in the park bill, proceeded as follows:
Mr. STEPHENS of Texas. Does this [park] contain any mineral lands?
Mr. TONGUE. No mineral lands. Nothing of any value. It will simply preserve the curiosity of the scenery and of the growth of animals and vegetation, trees, flowers, and so forth, for scientific purposes.
Mr. STEPHENS of Texas. Is there any provision for the lease of mineral lands?
Mr. LOUD. It prohibits that.
Mr. TONGUE. There is none.
Mr. SHAFROTH. Does the clause remain in this bill that permits prospecting? We had that matter up when the bill was considered once, I know, and I offered an amendment allowing prospecting.
Mr. LOUD. If I understand the bill correctly, it prohibits that and imposes a penalty, both minimum and maximum, for entering the reserve for this purpose.
Mr. SHAFROTH. I think you will find that it allows prospecting and the locating of mineral claims. At least that was an amendment that was put in the bill at my suggestion one year.
Mr. LOUD. If you think it is there, you had better find it.
Mr. CANNON. I do not think this bill ought to pass, I will say to the gentleman.
Mr. SHAFROTH. I think that amendment must be in the bill.
Mr. CANNON. Does the bill stand on a request for unanimous consent?
Mr. TONGUE. Yes.
Mr. STEPHENS of Texas. Do you not think this reservation ought to be thrown open for the location of mining claims under the mineral laws of the United States?
Mr. TONGUE. There is no mining in that vicinity or in that range of mountains or near that locality
Mr. STEPHENS of Texas. Suppose there should be. We do not want to lock it up perpetually.
Mr. TONGUE. If there should be, I have no doubt there would be means and methods found to get it mined. At the same time, if it is thrown open indiscriminately for prospectors, then it will be of little use to undertake to preserve the natural conditions.
Mr. STEPHENS of Texas. It would be impossible to ascertain whether there are any minerals there or not unless prospecting is allowed.
Mr. TONGUE. This is close to one of the oldest settled sections of Oregon. It is in one of the counties where the first mines in that State were discovered and where the most prospecting has been done; but the mining is in the other range of mountains opposite from this. None has ever been discovered here, so far as I ever heard of.
Mr. LOUD. Why do you prohibit mining if there is no mining there?
Mr. TONGUE. The object is to prohibit people from coming in under the name of prospecting and destroying the natural conditions of the park and the natural objects of beauty and interest.
Mr. LOUD. Then you provide for a deputy United States marshal. Is not that something unusual? Mr. TONGUE. The deputy United States marshal is simply proposed as the cheapest way of arresting people who violate the law. This is simply a provision to give him authority to make arrests. Mr. LOUD. Is not such a provision new in the establishment of reservations of this kind?Mr. TONGUE. I could not say as to that. That provision was placed in the bill by the Department of the Interior.
Mr. LOUD. The gentleman will admit that the prohibition in regard to mining should not be in that bill. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. SHAFROTH] seemed to think that there was an amendment in the bill allowing prospecting. He has evidently had to do with the bill before. There is not a park in this country set aside in this way that you can not go into for mining purposes. Now, it will not do to say that there is no mining land there, because if this provision is put in the bill they never will be able to enter this park to find out whether there is or not.
Mr. TONGUE. So far as mining is concerned, I am just informed by a gentleman at my right that mining is prohibited in all the national parks, including the Yellowstone. Mr. LOUD. The gentleman is mistaken; that is all. I had occasion to read this law yesterday, in response to an inquiry of one of my constituents. If I did not know, I would not say anything about it.Mr. SHAFROTH. Would the gentleman from Oregon object to inserting after the word “seekers,” in line 3, page 3, the words “and for the development and location of mining claims?”Mr. TONGUE. I have no objection.
Mr. SHAFROTH. And also strike out the words in line 16, page 2, “or to engage in any mining.”
