surate with the public need, demand, and value for recreational purposes requiring that these waterways be left in an unmodified natural state. EFFECT OF LEGISLATION (1) Public lands of the United States within the area described are withdrawn from entry under the public land laws, but subject to prior existing legal rights under those laws. (2) Sets forth legislative policy and establishes principle of conserving natural beauty of shore lines or recreational use of Federal lands bordering upon waters within the area. (3) To carry out the policy and principle certain logging restrictions upon Federal lands are prescribed. (4) To further carry out the principle and policy no official or commission of the United States is to have authority to grant by permit, license, or otherwise, any further alteration of the natural water levels of any of these waters until specific authority therefor shall have first been obtained by special acts from Congress. This legislation is supported by innumerable organizations not only in Minnesota but throughout the Nation. The State of Minnesota has officially indorsed it as indicated by the memorial adopted by the 1929 session of the Minnesota Legislature: STATE OF MINNESOTA ▲ CONCURRENT RESOLUTION—S. F. NO. 166, INTRODUCED BY MESSRS. MACLEAN, LILYGREN, Anderson, anD SWENSON-MEMORIALIZING CONGRESS TO PASS THE (8.3913) SHIPSTEAD-NEWTON (H. R. 12780) BILL Whereas there has been introduced, and is now pending before the Congress of the United States, introduced in the Senate by Senator Henrik Shipstead, as Senate bill 3913, and introduced in the House by Congressman Walter H. Newton, as House bill 12780, that certain bill now commonly known as the Shipstead-Newton bill which prohibits any and all further alteration of the natural water level of any lake or stream within or bordering upon the area now known as the Superior National Forest, and all other public lands of the United States situated north of township 60 north in the counties of Cook, Lake, and St. Louis, in the State of Minnesota, including the natural shore lines of Lake Superior and of the lakes and streams forming the international boundary so far as they lie within this area, which will result in flooding lands of the United States therein, without the consent of Congress, and places restrictions upon logging and upon all forms of entry or appropriation under the public land laws of the United States in such area; and Whereas this region, a part of the 14,500 square miles covered by the Rainy Lake watershed, lying in Ontario and Minnesota, and the immediately adjacent lands and waters, constitutes the only remaining vast wilderness area in the central part of North America; and Whereas this region contains the only remaining extensive coniferous forests in the Middle West with unusual potentialities for the development of a future continuous supply of forest products; and Whereas this region is blessed with precious international historic values, rare scenic qualities, and unique recreational facilities within easy reach of 100,000,000 residents of both Canada and the United States; and Whereas this area affords an unusual opportunity to preserve, perpetuate, restock, and increase various species of wild life of invaluable economic and aesthetic importance to both nations; and Whereas this region is now a great and beautiful pleasure grounds for lovers of nature and wild life, visited annually by ever increasing thousands of recreationists; and Whereas the unrestricted development of this region may destroy or substantially injure the said forests, lakes, and streams for recreational purposes, and may hinder the enactment of proper regulatory legislation for the development of this region consistent with the general purposes of such recreational area. Now, therefore, be it Resolved, By the Senate of the State of Minnesota, the House of Representatives concurring, that the Congress of the United States be memorialized that it is the sense of the members of the Legislature of the State of Minnesota, that such bill should be enacted into law, and such action be taken before the adjournment of Congress now sitting: Be it further Resolved, That the secretary of the senate forthwith_transmit a copy of this resolution to the President of the United States, to the Secretary of the Interior, to the Secretary of Agriculture, to the United States Senate, to the House of Representatives, to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, to the House Committee on Public Lands, and to each Senator and Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota. Passed the Senate the 21st day of February, 1929. W. I. NOLAN, President of the Senate. G. H. SPAETH, Secretary of the Senate. Passed the House of Representatives the 28th day of February, 1929. Approved March 8, 1929. Filed March 9, 1929. JOHN A. JOHNSON, Speaker of the House. JOHN S. LEVIN, Chief Clerk, House of Representatives. THEODORE CHRISTIANSON, WM. W. HOLM, This memorial was adopted by a vote of 59 to 6 in the senate and 119 to 5 in the house. A copy of a telegram from the Governor of Minnesota appears below and indicates the sentiment of the State of Minnesota: Hon. W. I. NOLAN, MARCH 15, 1930. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Minnesota sentiment overwhelmingly favors prompt passage of ShipsteadNolan bill to prevent exploitation of border waters by private interests. There is no present need for the sacrifice of these scenic and recreational values. If the time comes when it becomes necessary to sacrifice them in the interest of industrial development the use of these waters should be reserved to the people. There is no justification for permitting their exploitation by private interests. THEO. CHRISTIANSON, Governor of Minnesota. REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENTS The Department of State, Department of the Interior, and Department of Agriculture report either that they have no objections to the enactment of the legislation or that they approve of the same. Their letters so doing are as follows: Hon. DoN B. COLTON, Chairman Committee on the Public Lands, House of Representatives. MARCH 18, 1930. SIR: I refer again to your letter of January 30, 1930, concerning proposed legislation in regard to the boundary waters between the United States and Canada, especially those lying along the northern border of Minnesota. I have received inquiries concerning H. R. 6981, introduced by Mr. Nolan at he present session of Congress, and I believe that, on account of our treaties with Canada, it would be advisable to add a proviso in section 3 of the bill, page 4, line 20, after the word "project," reading as follows: "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." Very truly yours, J. P. COTTON. Acting Secretary of State. In the report submitted by the Secretary of the Interior it is suggested that the legislation await the report of the Public Land Commission. The Secretary, however, recalled this suggestion and indorses the bill. The letter recalling his first suggestion follows the report: Hon. DoN B. COLTON, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Chairman Committee on the Public Lands, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In response to your request of January 21, for an opinion as to the merits of H. R. 6981, there is transmitted a memorandum submitted by the Commissioner of the General Land Office. I think the general purposes behind this legislation are to preserve an area in northern Minnesota and southern Canada for recreational and other public purposes. I am quite in sympathy with this general line of endeavor but feel that we should not at the present time handle piecemeal the problems of the public domain when there is such a good prospect that the whole question can be dealt with constructively by the Commission on Public Lands. Very truly yours, RAY LYMAN WILBUR. MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY I have by departmental reference request of the chairman of the Committee on the Public Lands for report on H. R. 6981. The purpose of the bill as set forth in its title is 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. It proposes to reserve from all forms of entry or appropriation under the public land laws, subject to existing rights thereunder legally maintained, the public lands of the United States in Cook, Lake, and St. Louis Counties, lying between township 60 north and the Canadian boundary. The greater portion of the area is within the boundaries of the Superior National Forest, which contains most of the Federal lands involved. The Secretary of Agriculture is therefore primarily interested in the proposed legislation in so far as it would affect the administration of the national forest. The records of this office show that there are, however, within the area approximately 26,000 acres of unreserved public lands in scattered tracts which would be permanently withdrawn from all forms of entry or appropriation under the terms of the bill. These scattered tracts were temporarily withdrawn by Executive order of May 26, 1928, in aid of the similar legislation then proposed, upon request of members of the Minnesota delegation in Congress, and remain so withdrawn. There is now pending before the Congress a bill (H. R. 6153) authorizing the appointment of a commission to study and report upon the conservation and administration of the public domain, which passed the House January 24 with an amendment requiring submission of the report to Congress not later than the first Monday in December of this year. It would therefore seem consistent with the policy so indicated that consideration of this and other conservation measures which would affect public lands not within any existing reservation should be deferred until the proposed commission has had opportunity to report to Congress. I therefore recommend that H. R. 6981 be not enacted unless it be amended to exclude from its operation the unreserved public lands involved. If it is deemed desirable to enact the legislation with respect to the reserved lands, I would suggest that the bill be amended by inserting the words "within that portion of the Superior National Forest" before "situated," in line 3 of page 3. The area contains portions of Rainy Lake and of a number of other boundary lakes and streams. Section 3 of the bill would prohibit any further alteration of the natural water level of any lake or stream within or bordering upon the area designated which would result in flooding lands of the United States within or immediately adjacent to the Superior National Forest without a special act of Congress so authorizing. It is noted from Report No. 2814 of the Committee on the Public Lands on the similar bill (H. R. 12780) of the Seventieth Congress, that the State Department in its report on that measure suggested an amendment which would prevent limitation of the authority conferred upon the International Boundary Commission created pursuant to the convention relating to boundary waters between the United States and Canada concluded January 11, 1909. It is therefore recommended that the bill be referred to the Departments of State and Agriculture for report as to matters under the jurisdiction of such departments. C. C. MOORE, Commissioner. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Hon. DoN B. COLTON, Chairman Committee on the Public Lands, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: With further reference to your request of January 21 for a report on H. R. 6981, to promote the better protection and highest public use of certain Minnesota lands, I have to advise that the report of this office made to you on February 13 was pursuant to an understanding between the Departments of Interior and Agriculture to defer action on the disposition of all public-land areas until after the study of the Commission on the Conservation and Administration of the Public Domain has been completed. As indicated in my report, however, 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. Very truly yours, RAY LYMAN WILBUR, Secretary. FEBRUARY 17, 1930. Hon. DON P. COLTON, Chairman Committee on the Public Lands, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. COLTON: Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of January 21, requesting a report from this department upon the bill (H. R. 6981) to promote the better protection and highest public use of the lands of the United States and adjacent lands and waters in northern Minnesota for the production of forest products, the development and extension of recreational uses, the preservation of wild life, and other purposes not inconsistent therewith; and to protect more effectively the streams and lakes dedicated to public use under the terms and spirit of clause 2 of the Webster-Ashburton treaty of 1842 between Great Britain and the United States; and looking toward the joint development of indispensable international recreational and economic assets. This department, in reporting on earlier bills of similar nature and in other communications, has consistently approved the principle embodied in the bill H. R. 6981. 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 I of the bill is satisfactory and no change is suggested. Section 2, in substance, prescribed 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 hereafter be 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 the improved appearance of shore lines 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 routes are frequently too low to permit the free movement of logs or other timber, and to meet this condition it is necessay 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 3, line 16, after the word "any" insert the word "other." Page 3, line 17, after the word "area" insert "which is now or eventually to be in general use for boat or canoe travel." Page 4, line 5, after the word "infested," insert the word "dying." Page 4, line 7, 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." Page 4, line 25, change the period to a 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 |