the rights and interests of bona fide prospectors and mine operators" will be safeguarded has been perhaps more honored in the breach than in the observance in some instances.

Since we have not yet had the benefit of the comments of the administrative agencies on the Butte cases, I do not wish to prejudge the matter, but I must confess that the mine operators appear to have made out a fairly strong prima facie case. I hope the spokesmen for the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior will be able to rebut the evidence establishing the assumption.

Unquestionably, much of the difficulty that has brought about the need for hearings on the law arises from what appears to be changes in its interpretation. Concededly, the phrase "common varieties" may be a difficult one to interpret. Is the criterion of what constitutes a common variety the areal distribution of a material, its quality, its quantity, or the end use to which it is put, or its price?

Even more difficulty, however, seems to have arisen from the changes brought about in the old rule of discovery. The Supreme Court of the United States, in the historic case of Chrisman v. Miller, found in 197 U.S. 313, states the rule as follows:

*** where minerals have been found in the evidence of such a character that a person of ordinary prudence would be justified in the further expenditure of his labor and means, with a reasonable prospect of success in developing a valuable mine, the requirements of the statute (law of 1872) have been met ***.

Recently, however, the Department of the Interior has been substituting for this "prudent man rule" theory a concept that there must be a ready, and profitable, market for a mineral before there can be a discovery of it. Had this "marketability rule" been in effect during the later years of the 19th century and the early years of this century, it is doubtful, indeed, whether our West would have been developed. What is unprofitable one day may be profitable the next as a result of a general change in economic conditions.

While I certainly don't want to control the presentations of the departmental witnesses, it is my hope that they will give us a blowby-blow description of the administrative process by which a mining claim is declared invalid or a patent application reviewed.

Then I hope they will give us a general discussion of their basic regulations and administrative philosophy with respect to the Common Varieties Act. And, of course, we will want to discuss, in detail, the cases presented at the Butte hearings.

Unless some other member of the subcommittee or Senator Metcalf wishes to make a general statement, I will proceed to call the first witness.

Senator Metcalf, would you like to make a statement?

Senator METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I think that your statement has pretty well summed up this situation. As a Member of Congress, I was an enthusiastic supporter of the Common Varieties Act.

I felt that legitimate mining claims would be protected. I feel that they were in the first days after the Common Varieties Act was passed, and yet there has been an erosion that has caused considerable concern among not only the people of the State of Montana, but also the people of our neighboring States of Idaho, Colorado, Arizona, and everywhere in the West where we have this mining business.

The Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, all of the various agencies that manage the public land have, I feel, substan

tially changed traditional and historic policies so far as the mining law is concerned. Again, I feel that you have summed it up very well.

I thought a strong prima facie case was made in Butte by those people who came in and demonstrated by the facts of each individual case that there had been an invasion of what we had considered traditional mining practice, and I certainly hope that we will have the answer here this morning.

Senator GRUENING. Senator Allott?

Senator ALLOTT. I would just like to say, Mr. Chairman, I endorse what both the chairman and Senator Metcalf have said. I have been very concerned about the diversion into different principles of administration on this matter of prudent man and marketability.

I would hope that, dependent upon the testimony of the witnesses, if necessary, we can consider legislation to bring this back in the area which I believe, and I think all of the Senators here believe, is necessary if the West and Alaska is going to continue to develop. I don't know whether Alaska

Senator GRUENING. We are the most west of all.

Senator ALLOTT. You are the most west of all, but you are the biggest of us all, too. But we almost always think of Alaska in a separate category, since it outgrew Texas as the biggest State. Senator GRUENING. Thank you very much.

Our first witness is Arthur Greeley, Deputy Chief of the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture.

Will you give your name and title and also the names and titles of those accompanying you for the record? We are glad to have you here, having had long, pleasant, and favorable experiences with your fine service in Alaska. We are happy to have you present the case here for the Department, and pursuant to the suggestion made, I wish you would outline-well, you have a prepared statement.

Go ahead with the prepared statement and then we will ask the questions afterward.

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR GREELEY, DEPUTY CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; ACCOMPANIED BY REYNOLDS G. FLORANCE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE REPORTING AND LIAISON, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. GREELEY. Thank you, Senator Gruening. I am Arthur W. Greeley, one of the Deputy Chiefs of the Forest Service. I am accompanied by Mr. Reynolds Florance, who is the Director of the Division of Legislative Reporting and Liaison of the Forest Service. I do have a prepared statement which I would like to give, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be here to discuss Forest Service actions in the application of Public Law 167 of the 84th Congress.

In the Butte hearing, questions were raised regarding the interpretation of the mining laws, especially as to what constitutes a valid discovery to support a valid location. There was also expressed an interpretation of why Public Law 167 was enacted, and the apparent lack of a clear-cut definition of what is a "common variety."

There was also the question of the qualification of the mining engineers or geologists employed by the Forest Service and the length

of time administrative agencies require to bring a case on for determination on its merits.

The interpretation of the mining law is properly, I believe, the responsibility of witnesses from the Department of the Interior and I think, Mr. Chairman, the committee will desire to hear from the witnesses of both Departments before digging very deeply into questions of interpretation.

Senator METCALF. Mr. Chairman, would the witness yield?
Mr. GREELEY. Certainly, sir.

Senator METCALF. As I understand it, you are dividing your testimony and having the Department of Interior put in the interpretation of the mining law; is that it?

You are saying to us that it is not the responsibility of the Forest Service to interpret this mining law?

Mr. GREELEY. Senator Metcalf, if I may answer to the best of my ability your question

Senator METCALF. Yes. I just want to be sure.

Mr. GREELEY. The administration of the mining law is the responsibility of the Department of the Interior. Now, we have some responsibilities with reference to what happens on the national forests, but I think that it is a fair statement to say that, for instance, a question of definition of "common varieties" is the responsibility of the Department of Interior to make and not specifically the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture.

We do not have in the administration of the mining laws on the national forests a different set of interpretations or a different set of decisions. As cases are brought on for hearing on a contest of a claim, the hearings are held before a hearing examiner of the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service people attend the hearing and appear before the BLM hearing examiner. The hearing examiner makes the decisions. Cases are appealed under the rules of the Secretary of Interior and the ultimate decision in these cases would be with the Secretary of Interior, not with the Secretary of Agriculture.

Mr. Florance would like to add a point to this, if he may.

Mr. FLORANCE. Senator Metcalf, Mr. Chairman, the rulings and interpretations of the mining law are made by the Department of the Interior. This basically is what Mr. Greeley is saying.

Now, those rulings and interpretations are binding both upon mining locators and upon the Forest Service. It is the responsibility of the Forest Service, of course, in the administration of the national forests to attempt to apply to its actions dealing with mining activities on the national forests those interpretations and decisions of the Department of the Interior, but the Department of Agriculture has no responsibility and has no authority to actually make final and binding interpretations of the mining law, so that there is a division between the two Departments of actual authority and responsibility.

Senator GRUENING. Is that arrangement satisfactory to the Forest Service in the light of the experience you have had now since the law was enacted?

Mr. GREELEY. Senator Gruening, I would say this: I think there would really be chaos if there were two sets of definitions and two sets of rules. There are some problems, but I think by and large the two Departments are working effectively in eliminating the problems that we know about.

Now, I was going to say later on in my statement that we see some problems in the administration of Public Law 167 which were not anticipated, I think, at the time the legislation was passed, but these are not problems that relate to the fact that two agencies have responsibilities, because I think that we accept the authority and responsibility of the Department of Interior to make the definitive decisions and we function within the framework of the decisions that their people make.

Senator GRUENING. Well, you accept it because the law is so written, but what we would like to find out is a completely frank exposition of how you feel about it. I mean, there is nothing final and binding about a law; it can be modified, it can be repealed.

I would say that offhand I would assume that the Forest Service would like to be master in its own domain. Now, if the actions of the BLM are entirely satisfactory and you are willing and you are content with the transfer of that authority, we would like to know that.

If you are not, if there are places where you differ, we would like to know that, too. We have no preconception about this, we would like to arrive at the best possible result.

If modification of the law is indicated or an expression of opinion by the committee is indicated, I would hope that either may be done knowledgeably. So I hope all participants will be completely frank about this and not feel bound by what now is, because what now is will be followed as long as it is, but it could be modified and, of course, interpretations can be modified. So I hope you will be frank about this and tell us exactly what you feel and not have the usual bureaucratic inhibitions that you cannot talk out and say what you really think.

We would like to get at the basic facts. This is a complex situation. It has involved a good deal of unhappiness on the part of the miners out there and we would like to straighten it out. At the same time we want to protect the public interest.

The definition of the public interest is a very wide one. Please proceed.

Mr. GREELEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment specifically on your question about whether the Forest Service is happy or unhappy with the present arrangement. By and large, I think there is no question but what Public Law 167 has been effectively administered.

We think that there are some problems, very specific problems, and the Butte hearings are an excellent portrayal of what those problems are.

I have read the record of the Butte hearings with a great deal of interest, and I think a great deal of concern. The portion of section 3 of Public Law 167 dealing with common varieties is, of course, just one section of several in Public Law 167. The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service have worked together very effectively in the administration and execution of some of the other sections of Public Law 167. I think probably, on the whole, our mineral examination organization has given more time to the administration of some of the other sections of Public Law 167 than it has happened to give to the section 3 provisions in the course of about the last 5 years. I would not like to have the record give any indication of a cleavage or a question on our part about the working relationships between.

the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture in this matter, because I think they have been excellent.

Now, we might have some different points of view about what to do in the future. I would not want to say we would not. I do think there are some problems in connection with administration of the common varieties provision; that some changes would be desirable.

I am not prepared to talk about specific legislative proposals, I am just prepared to talk about some problems and some of the alternatives we see that might be considered.

With that response made, perhaps I should continue giving my prepared statement, sir.

Senator GRUENING. Please go ahead.

Mr. GREELEY. We believe that Public Law 167 had three, purposes. These purposes were (1) to amend the act of July 31, 1947, the Material Disposal Act, so as to give disposal authority to the Secretary of Agriculture for lands administered by him, (2) to amend the mining laws to remove from location and entry common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite or cinders, except block pumice with dimension of 2 inches or more, and (3) to amend the mining laws to provide for the multiple use of the surface of mining claims by allowing the Government to manage the surface resources, and to manage and dispose of the vegetative resources.

The objective of the Forest Service is and I think we have been reasonably consistent about this-to integrate the development and use of mineral resources with the use and conservation of all other forest resources to the fullest extent possible under the laws governing mineral disposal.

We cooperate with the Bureau of Land Management and this is, of course, what we have just been talking about-in the administration. of the mining and mineral leasing laws on lands administered by the Forest Service. On national forest lands we take appropriate action to prevent unauthorized uses on mining claims.

The Forest Service examines a mining claim when (1) the claimant applies for a patent, (2) there is evidence of unauthorized use being made of a claim, (3) a claim is included in a verified statement which has been filed pursuant to the procedure for a determination of surface rights under Public Law 167, or (4) we believe the claim to be invalid and the area covered by the claim is needed for particular purposes in the management of the national forests.

Examinations are made by professional mineral examiners who are graduate mining engineers or geologists. Since 1955, we have increased the number of professional mineral examiners from 5 to 34. We believe we now have a sufficient number of competent graduate mining engineers and geologists to adequately handle the mineral load on the national forests.

In the examination of a claim, the Forest Service tries to get the claimant to accompany the mineral examiner during the investigation. The procedure used in examining a claim is in accordance with recognized professional standards of doing such examination work. We sample points made available by the claimant. We do not, however, attempt to make a discovery for the claimant.

After a claim is field examined, it is then the responsibility of the mineral examiner to evaluate the results of his examination. He must determine whether or not, in his opinion, a valid discovery has