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.”
Mr. TONGUE. I have no objection to the amendment the gentleman proposes.
Mr. SHAFROTH. I have no objection to the bill if that is done.
I have no doubt this is a meritorious bill if these amendments are included. I think we ought to have considerable to say as to what shall be done with these lands.
Mr. TONGUE. I have no objection to the amendments proposed by the gentleman.
Mr. BARTLETT. The gentleman from Colorado stated a while ago that the amendment in reference to mining was in the bill.
Mr. SHAFROTH. It was in the bill one year, I know, but I did not remember whether it was in the bill introduced in this Congress or not.
Mr. MCRAE. I suggest to the gentleman that he permit this bill to go over until Monday. It is unusual and unprecendented, in my opinion, to open national parks to free mining. That carries with it the right to utilize any and all of the public timber in the park in the operation of mines, and you may defeat the very purpose of the park if you allow that to be done. I do not want to object to consideration of the bill, but I hope the matter will go over until that feature of it can be considered. I am opposed to this amendment, and will also ask some other amendments.
Mr. TONGUE. I will say to the gentleman from Arkansas that I am so well satisfied that there is no mining there that I regard any provision on that subject as of no importance one way or the other, and in order to avoid objection to the bill, I am perfectly willing to submit to the amendment.
Mr. MCRAE. The creation of a national park is a very different thing from the making of a public reserve, and we should see to it that the parks are established for public and not private purposes. To set these public lands aside as a national park, and then to allow miners to go into and work it freely and at pleasure may result in dedicating it to mining, if there is mineral there. If there is mineral in the land, it ought not be a park. The two are inconsistent.
Mr. SHAFROTH. Suppose it were discovered that there were some valuable mines on this land, that it was infinitely more valuable for mining than for any other purpose?
Mr. MCRAE. If there is a probability of that, then I say there ought not to be any park created. The idea of a national park and a mining camp are inconsistent with each other.
Mr. SHAFROTH. You can not determine that at this time, nor possibly for ten or twenty years, whether there is to be any mining done there.
Mr. MCRAE. Then if you can not determine that, you ought not to undertake at this time to make a park of the lands in question. Declare it a reservation and wait.
Mr. SHAFROTH. Then you exclude them from the privilege of having a public park there. I think they ought to have a public park there.
Mr. MCRAE. I am not certain but we are overdoing the business of establishing national parks; but I do not arise for the purpose of objecting to this one if the facts stated in the report are true and some other amendments are made as to the administration of the park.
Mr. MONDELL. I hope the gentleman will not insist on his amendment. There is not a national park in the country that is open to exploration under the mining laws. There is no reason why this national park should be so open.
The debate then moved to other topics, such as its prohibition against settlement, cost and expense to the federal government, and provisions for military policing. The course of this portion of the debate went as follows:
The SPEAKER. No amendment can be offered, as the [Crater Lake National Park] bill is not yet before the House. It is pending on a request for unanimous consent for its consideration. Is there objection?
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I have hastily glanced at this bill, and I am not prepared to say that I would object to it if I had a little more time to examine it; but I will say to the gentleman that I notice that it prohibits settlement. I notice that it binds the United States to pay all cost and expense. I am not sure but what it binds the United States to extinguish title to any lands that may be owned. It puts a troop of soldiers in there–a superintendent, full fledged. I think that the bill ought to be considered in committee; and I suggest to the gentleman that he modify his request; that it be considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole. And it seems to me that if it could go over until Monday it would be better. I do not want to object.
Mr. BARTLETT. Let the gentleman withdraw his request.
Mr. LACEY. The suggestion that the gentleman from Illinois makes ought to be acceded to, and then these matters of detail could be speedily arranged. I do not think the bill would take very long in Committee of the Whole. It is not at all a complicated bill; and I would suggest to my friend from Illinois that this land is all from six to ten thousand feet above the sea. It is a very high altitude park.
Mr. CANNON. The Government owns all the land inside of it?
Mr. LACEY. The Government owns all the land.
Mr. CANNON. Every foot?
Mr. LACEY. I understand every foot of it. It is not a very difficult proposition. In Committee of the Whole these matters could be considered as separate propositions, and could be readily adjusted.
Mr. TONGUE. I make that request.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman modifies his request and asks unanimous consent that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. CANNON. Just a word.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection?
Mr. CANNON. One word, Mr. Speaker. I suggest to the gentleman from Iowa that all after section 1 be stricken out. That reserves it as a national park and leaves to the future for Congress to say how it shall be made and policed. There it is; it is not suffering. I do not think this bill ought to pass in its present shape if it is desirable to make it a national park.
The SPEAKER. Objection is made.
Mr. LACEY. Does the gentleman object?
Mr. CANNON. Will the gentleman consent to strike out all after the first section?
Mr. TONGUE. I will not do that.
Mr. CANNON. I will have to object for the present. I do not want to be discourteous to the gentleman.
The SPEAKER. Objection is made.
