happened, though, is that many such claims have been filed for their nuisance value to force homeowners to buy up the claims.

Then again later:

In the last decade thousands of families have bought homes on such land. Every now and then one of the homeowners has awakened to find a couple of individuals with pick and shovel digging up the premises. The strangers calmly explain they are not trespassing, just prospecting.

The next article is an editorial which appeared in the Arizona Daily Star, a leading newspaper in this community, and it is the editorial writer who says the Bureau should act promptly and—

let everyone know that regardless of this technicality of a law written in another era and for a nation sparsely populated and trying to give away its land through homesteading, the Bureau will not tolerate any such situation as has sprung up today ***. Responsible mining interests will not invade any resi dential area, nor have anything to do with claims in such an area. It is the promoters who take advantage of technicalities of rules and regulations to frighten homeowners.

I might just pause to say that it would be fine if the Bureau could protect the homeowners as suggested by this editorial writer, but we not believe, without a change in the law, that the Bureau is competent to do so. The claims were outlawed here, or found invalid because there was not sufficient mineral content to profitably mine the thing, but there are areas here where there is sufficient mineralization to profitably engage in mining with respect to lands which are used for residential purposes.

I will skip the next two articles.

On October 26, 1960, the Arizona Daily Star published headlines declaring:

Tucson Homeowners at Mercy of Mining-Dwellings Can Be Bulldozed Down. That was an article that created great consternation in the area. It starts out:

Four top men from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management brought scant comfort to Tucson property owners last night when they told them their homes could be bulldozed down to the foundation by miners and all they could expect was an apology, if that.

That was a meeting held in the State building here, I believe, and it was packed to the doors. So you will see it is an important consideration that people are interested in.

The next article I have here is entitled, "Negro Mining Venture Upsets Property Owners." This was published in November of last year. The first couple of paragraphs read as follows:

An announced proposal to start a Negro investor-worker mining venture in the Casas Adobes Estates area northwest of Tucson has added to the apprehension of property owners in that vicinity already plagued by many mining claims. The proposed venture was announced yesterday by Paul Dvordza, who de scribed himself as a promoter. The project would employ some 200 persons to mine more than 5,000 acres on which Dvordza says he has obtained mining leases from Glenn Allen, president of Arizona Exploration Co.

"This threat of a Negro investor-worker operation is appalling," said Mrs. John M. Grimes today. "If it materializes, it will wreck the whole community."

The next article is entitled, "Federal Agency Finds Mining Claims Invalid." That was published in the Daily Star after the Bureau of Mines and I want to commend the Bureau of Mines of the Federal Government for what they have done here, the activity that they have

shown. They immediately got busy and they held hearings on a lot of these claims that were filed, and this is the news account in which 47 of the claims were found to be invalid because there was not sufficient mineral content to warrant mining operations.

But what happened with that? With these 47? Did they stop at that? No. The next thing, and this shows you what the community is subjected to is headed, "Mining Tiff Still Going On-Appeals Promised by Claim Holder." Here is what Mr. Dvordza said, that they would take appeals on these 47:

"We could keep this thing going for 25 years before we exhaust all the avenues of appeals," Paul Dvordza said.

Dvordza also said he plans to bring "a couple of hundred laborers from Los Angeles to work the mining claims on a cooperative basis."

"While mining the proposed placer claims for iron and possibly garnet, the laborers would live in housing tracts built on the claims," Dvordza said. He said the law allows this.

"We don't want to put a mine in someone's backyard even though we can. According to the law, we could bulldoze a home down if we hold the mineral rights under it. We'd have to put up a bond if we knocked down a fence but not if we knocked down a house," Dvordza said.

There are lots of individuals in this area who are not too well informed and hysteria is created by such publicity as that. It is not the legitimate mining interests that are coming out with this kind of propaganda as is shown by the fact that 47 of those claims, all of them that they tested, were found invalid.

you

The point is this: You might be wholly unconcerned with it, but have a law on your books here that invites that kind of activity. A man is perfectly within his legal rights in going out and exploring, exploiting, and mining, and I daresay that no one could say it is illegal to file a claim, entirely within the rights, and it lends itself to that kind of a thing by people who are not in the legitimate mining business. I say it cries aloud for relief of some kind.

Now what the relief should be, I am frank to say that I do not know. We like Congressman Udall's bill very much. I was impressed with the statements of Judge Chenoweth yesterday with regard to withdrawing certain areas from the right to file mining claims. Whether that should be it or whether you should permit the sale of mineral rights to the surface owner, that is something for you and the Congress to determine.

All we know is that we are badly in need of relief of some kind, and we hope that a bill can come out of this committee that will be acceptable to everyone. We may not be able to get all we want. People rarely do. We appreciate that, that there are practical considerations here.

The mineowners, the mine operators, the legitimate industry must be considered, their rights. I want to say in behalf of them that the good miners are not the ones that have stooped to this kind of practice (indicating newspaper article) in the area.

I think if this committee can come up with legislation that will be agreeable to the mineowners, I believe it could be to everyone. Maybe none of us would be entirely satisfied. I recognize that. Probably no legislation could be devised that would satisfy everyone.

Now, following up the Judge's suggestion of yesterday, if the land were just withdrawn from the right to file, that would leave the U.S.

Government still owning the mineral rights; it is true you do not know, you could not know, what some future Congress might do. You could not bind it. But maybe that is a good thing if the Government continued to hold the mineral rights. So far as the property owners out in the Casas Adobes area are concerned, I do not think they would be too concerned about that. If at some future time rich deposits should be found under the city of Tucson or elsewhere and the Government still owned it, the Government could write the ticket. It could say to people, miners or other--or even if it wanted to go in itself, the property owners must be indemnified-"We will let you go in there, but you will have to indemnify them. If you take a home, you will have to pay the reasonable fair market value of it."

Now the bills that are pending here before this committee would no close a single mine. Everyone wants to make money and we have no argument with the mineowners on that, and we would not wish to create a hardship on them. But to merely prevent them from going upon free land, to speak, to exploit it, does not seem to impress me as a hardship.

In other areas other than these urban areas, as defined in Congressman Udall's bill, they would still have free access. But they are getting something here for nothing.

Now that has not been true in general of lots of natural resources: oil and natural gas and things of that kind.

Now to leave it flexible so that the Department of the Interior might, the Secretary of the Interior might, designate an urban area outside of an incorporated city or village, as suggested in Congressman Udall's bill, appears to me to be well taken. We must assume that, if the Secretary of the Interior were given the power to make a designation of certain areas, someone would have to decide what should be included and what should not. This committee could not do it. The Congress would find it very difficult to do it, and we must assume, I believe, that the Secretary of Interior would be an honorable man and would provide honest judgment, sound judgment to the problem, and would do the best that he could.

In conclusion, I would just like to point out again that the Homestead Grazing Act, by its very title, shows the word "Grazing”— that is what Congress was concerned with, grazing rights at the time. It only applied to land that the Federal Government owned in 1916, and those lands were only in the West here, or principally in the West. In the East it had some parks and public places and things of that kind, but in the West is where the Government owned so much land, and the bill applies out here in the West. It gives you something for nothing, or to the prospector. Other than his labor to go out and prospect, he has free access to the land.

Now that law, as the editorial of the Daily Star said, was written for a different era; conditions and times have changed; laws must change with them. We have a Congress of the United States that is given to changing laws and simply because this law has been on the books since 1916 gives no sanctity to it. Maybe that is the very reason it should be repealed at this time if it has gotten out of kilter with the new developments in the area.

And now I have prepared copies of statements of public officials, U.S. Senators, and resolutions and letters of the community that I

have put in these two envelopes. I have some additional copies here that I would be glad to leave with the committee.

That completes my presentation unless there are some questions. Mr. EDMONDSON. I think you have covered this material very well. If there is no objection, it will be made a part of the committee file and not of the record. It will be valuable as reference material, but I do not think there is any need to repeat the substantial portions that would be repeated as record items. I think you have made a very complete and a very helpful statement to the committee, and I want to thank you for it.

Do you have any questions, Judge?

Mr. CHENOWETH. I just want to state, Mr. Paulsen, you may be inactive as a lawyer, but certainly you have lost none of your personal appeal in the presentation of a case. You have been very effective and very interesting.

Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you.

Mr. CHENOWETH. My proposal yesterday I thought was a simple and easy way to provide protection to the group you are representing here today. I thought a simple, effective solution would be for the Federal Government to withdraw this area for prospecting and leave the Federal Government holding the title to the minerals, as you say. And certainly the Federal Government is not going to take any advantage of anyone up here.

If 20 years from now and not in the foreseeable future, there is new rich ore developed, perhaps the property owners would be glad to sell out. Something might develop. I do not know. And it probably will not. In the meantime, I think it is generally conceded that the ore deposits are not of any importance there. Is that your understanding?

Mr. PAULSEN. Yes.

Mr. CHENOWETH. That is what the mining operators tell us.
Mr. PAULSEN. Yes; I think that is right.

Mr. CHENOWETH. Í still feel perhaps my solution is the simplest and the most effective and the way to provide the protection you want

here.

Mr. PAULSEN. It would avoid a great deal in the way of administrative costs and a lot of labor, and I appreciate that.

Mr. CHENOWETH. As you say, the legitimate mining industry is not making any attack on you.

Mr. PAULSEN. I think that is right.

Mr. CHENOWETH. It seems to center more or less around one individual, as I gathered your presentation and the articles you referred

to.

Mr. PAULSEN. Yes, but when one can do it it gives a suggestion to other people of the same mind. As I said, there are a lot of people who do not understand the situation. You hear people threaten, if anyone comes on my land, I will get a gun. You tell them it is not entirely their own land, you do not own the minerals, but even that does not satisfy them.

Mr. CHENOWETH. The committee is here to see if we cannot work out some solution to it, and you have been very helpful.

Mr. PAULSEN. Might I just make this comment on the suggestion that was brought up here yesterday in regard to zoning.

Sometime ago I drafted a proposed bill to introduce in the Arizona Legislature, and I finally gave up on that. This is the reason:

It seems to me that in the Homestead Grazing Act it is the policy of the U.S. Government, as it is in that statute, to encourage exploration for mineralization, the development of mineral deposits, as being in the national welfare, and I am sure that is a sound policy in general. After drafting that bill, I had such serious doubts as to its validity that it was never presented to the legislature. It seems to me that neither the State nor any of its municipalities can strike down or thwart the policy of the National Government. Now it might regulate, as it does, vehicles going up and down the street that are owned by the Federal Government, but that is a little different, or quite different than prohibiting them from using or developing the property that they hold.

Now I say it is time for the Congress to change that national policy, leave it as it is for everything except so-called urban areas, and let the Secretary of the Interior, or some other official or body decide what areas should not be opened to exploration. But I seriously doubt that the State is competent to give adequate relief here, or any of the municipalities either.

Mr. CHENOWETH. I think I suggested that zoning proposal, perhaps, as a solution, but the more I think of it the more I think perhaps that is not the proper approach. There is nothing in the situa tion, Mr. Paulsen, just a little commonsense and perhaps an act by Congress will not correct.

Mr. PAULSEN. Exactly.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Olsen.

Mr. OLSEN. This area you were speaking of, would you point it out on the map so we can see it with respect to the boundaries that were delineated yesterday?

Mr. PAULSEN. It is the Casas Adobes area. It is west there.
Mr. EDMONDSON. Range 13 east and township?

Mr. PAULSEN. Twelve and thirteen east and, yes, 11 south, 11 and 12. It goes somewhat to the east of the highway in general to the west. It would be range 14 also. Someone handed me a map-"Dust Free Thermal Belt." I will leave it with the committee.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Without objection, it will be made a part of the file.

Mr. UDALL. I want to make this comment: I want to associate myself with Judge Chenoweth's observations on the splendid presentation made by Mr. Paulsen. I think again this illustrates the value of investigations, and congressional hearings are not to give some people the power who are just inclined to criticize in blanket fashion all kind of Congressmen who go on all kind of hearing trips. This is a very valuable one, and I think will enable the Congress eventually to come up with a solution.

The zoning approach I think we are all agreed now is pretty much out of the proposal. Mr. Twitty's proposal of granting the mineral rights to the surface owners in the designated portion by act of Congress has the value of administrative simplicity, also the disadvantage of who is going to do the gerrymandering, and what we are going to do about Mr. Smith. It does not solve his problem.