THE NATIONAL CONSERVATION CONGRESS 323 



$10 to $2,000 an acre, and in the Eocky Mountains $10 to $500 an acre. 

 The demand for coal on the Pacific coast is for about 4,500,000 tons a 

 year. It would encounter the competition of cheap fuel oil, of which 

 the., equivalent of 12,000,000 tons of coal a year is used there. It is 

 estimated that the coal could be laid down at Seattle or San Francisco, 

 a high-grade bituminous, at $4 a ton, and anthracite at $5 or $6 a ton. 

 The price of coal on the Pacific slope varies greatly from time to time 

 in the year and from year to year — from $4 to $12 a ton. 



With a regular coal supply established, the expert of the geological 

 survey, Mr. Brooks, who has made a report on the subject, does not 

 think there would be an excessive profit in the Alaska coal mining be- 

 cause the price at which the coal could be sold would be considerably 

 lowered by competition from these fields and by the presence of crude 

 fuel oil. The history of the laws affecting the disposition of Alaska 

 coal lands shows them to need amendment badly. Speaking of them, 

 Mr. Brooks says : 



" The first act, passed June 6, 1900, simply extended to Alaska the 

 provisions of the coal-land laws in the United States. The law was 

 ineffective, for it provided that only subdivided lands could be taken 

 up, and there were then no land surveys in Alaska. The matter was 

 rectified by the act of April 28, 1904, which permitted unsurveyed 

 lands to be entered and the surveys to be made at the expense of the 

 entrymen. Unfortunately, the law provided that only tracts of 160 

 acres could be taken up, and no recognition was given to the fact that 

 it was impracticable to develop an isolated coal field requiring the ex- 

 penditure of a large amount of money by such small units. Many claims 

 were staked, however, and surveys were made for patents. It was rec- 

 ognized by everybody familiar with the conditions that after patent 

 was obtained these claims would be combined in tracts large enough 

 to assure successful mining operations. No one experienced in mining 

 would, of course, consider it feasible to open a coal field on the basis of 

 single 160-acre tracts. The claims for the most part were handled in 

 groups, for which one agent represented the several different owners. 

 Unfortunately, a strict interpretation of the statute raised the question 

 whether even a tacit understanding between claim owners to combine 

 after patents had been obtained was not illegal. Eemedial legislation 

 was sought and enacted in the statute of May 28, 1908. This law per- 

 mitted the consolidation of claims staked previous to November 12, 

 1906, in tracts of 2,560 acres. One clause of this law invalidated the 

 title if any individual or corporation at any time in the future owned 

 any interest whatsoever, directly or indirectly, in more than one tract. 

 The purpose of this clause was to prevent the monopolization of coal 

 fields; its immediate effect was to discourage capital. It was felt by 

 many that this clause might lead to forfeiture of title through the acci- 



