BUREAUS OF THE INTERIOR DEPARTMENT. The Department of the Interior was established by the act of March 3, 1849 (9 Stat. L., 395). GENERAL LAND OFFICE. Organized as a bureau of the Treasury Department under act of April 25, 1812 (2 Stat. L., 716). First Commissioner, Edward Tiffin, of Ohio; appointed May 7, 1812. Became a bureau of the Interior Department when that Department was organized under the act of March 3, 1849 (9 Stat. L., 395). INDIAN OFFICE. Organized as a bureau of the War Department under act of July 9, 1832 (4 Stat. L., 564). First Commissioner, Elbert Herring, of New York; appointed July 10, 1832. Became a bureau of the Interior Department when that Department was organized. BUREAU OF PENSIONS. Organized as a bureau of the War Department under act of March 2, 1833 (4 Stat. L., 622). First Commissioner, James L. Edwards, of Virginia; appointed March 3, 1833. Became a bureau of the Interior Department when that Department was organized. PATENT OFFICE. Organized as a bureau of the State Department under act of March 4, 1836 (5 Stat. L., 117). First Commissioner, Henry S. Ellsworth, of Connecticut; appointed July 4, 1836. Became a bureau of the Interior Department when that Department was organized. BUREAU OF EDUCATION. Organized under act of March 2, 1867 (14 Stat. L., 434). Became a bureau of the Interior Department July 1, 1869, under act of July 20, 1868 (15 Stat. L., 106). First Commissioner, Henry Barnard, of Connecticut; appointed March 14, 1867. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. Organized as a bureau of the Interior Department under act of March 3, 1879 (20 Stat. L., 394). First Director, Clarence King, of New York; appointed April 14, 1879. RECLAMATION SERVICE. Organized under act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. L., 388), under the Director of Geological Survey, Charles D. Walcott. First Director, F. H. Newell, of Pennsylvania; appointed March 9, 1907. BUREAU OF MINES. Organized as a part of the Interior Department under the act of May 16, 1910 (36 Stat. L., 369). First Director, Joseph A. Holmes, of North Carolina; appointed September 3, 1910. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. WASHINGTON, D. C., December 1, 1911. SIR: I have the honor to submit, for your consideration, my first annual report as Secretary of the Interior, covering the year ended June 30, 1911. I was appointed to this office by you on March 7, 1911, and qualified on March 13, 1911, succeeding the Honorable Richard A. Ballinger. Less than one-third, therefore, of the year included in this report has been covered by my administration. GENERAL STATEMENT. My predecessors have called attention to the mass and variety of important matters which are intrusted to the charge of the Department of the Interior, and which relate to The General Land Office, The Office of Indian Affairs, The Patent Office, The Geological Survey, The Bureau of Education, The Bureau of Mines, The Reclamation Service, The Territories (exclusive of the insular possessions; but including Hawaii), Columbia Institution for the Deaf and Dumb. The Secretary of the Interior is also charged with certain duties. in connection with the District of Columbia, including the protection of the public streets, avenues, squares, and reservations in the city of Washington from improper appropriation or occupation; the issuance of deeds to certain lots in that city, and special duties imposed by particular acts of Congress. My predecessor, Secretary Ballinger, called attention in his annual report for the year 1910 to the thoroughly inconsistent manner in which the work of the Government has been divided between the administrative departments of the Interior, of Agriculture, and of Commerce and Labor, with the inevitable result of duplication of governmental effort and the administrative ineffectiveness arising out 11355°- -INT 1911-VOL 1-1 of divided jurisdiction. A very substantial increase of efficiency and economy would undoubtedly result from a rearrangement of these executive departments so that work of a related character could be administered by one department, and so that the mass of work itself could be more evenly distributed among the departments. The grouping of related subjects in a single department would undoubtedly materially reduce the work of some, without greatly increasing that of others. The present situation is the quite natural outgrowth of the manner in which the Department of the Interior was first created and the inconsistent duties which were then imposed upon it. The principal bureaus which were at first placed under it were the General Land Office, the Office of Indian Affairs, the Patent Office, and the Pension Office, but as new matters were undertaken by the General Government which did not logically fall under any of the other departments they were naturally assigned to the Department of the Interior, which became a sort of administrative "catchall" and has so continued, although partially relieved by the establishment of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Commerce and Labor. It is difficult to understand why the Patent Office should not have been transferred to the latter department upon its creation, although the Patent Office is now so thoroughly organized and systematized and its work so definitely covered by statutory and administrative regulations that the matters which come up from it to the Secretary of the Interior do not add materially to his work. I am of the opinion, however, that if this bureau should be transferred to the Department of Commerce and Labor a relationship could be established between it and the head of that department which would increase its efficiency and usefulness. The local duties of the Secretary of the Interior relating to various matters in the District of Columbia should unquestionably be turned over to the Commissioners of the District. I do not feel, however, that my brief period of office qualifies me to recommend a comprehensive reorganization of the Department of the Interior. What I have said above is chiefly intended as preliminary to the statement that the real function of the Department of the Interior has been, broadly speaking, the administration and disposition of the lands and natural resources held directly or in trust by the Nation. I believe that the Department will more effectively and economically carry on this tremendously important function if it is given all of the distinctively administrative duties relating to it. PUBLIC-LAND LAWS. The general theory under which the Government has proceeded and is now proceeding is that the public domain should be utilized for actual settlement and development rather than as a source of revenue for the General Government. In my judgment this theory is entirely correct. The essential thing is to see that the theory is, in fact, carried into effect and that under the guise of settlement we do not permit mere exploitation which in the last analysis retards and prevents both settlement and development. While settlement and development afford and should afford ample opportunity for the profit of the individual settler and of all those who contribute to legitimate development, it is the conviction that exploitation under the guise of development has not been effectively prevented which has led to the great public movement for the conservation of our national resources. This movement is not in any way opposed to prompt and wise development of the public domain, nor to its immediate settlement by those who really intend in good faith to occupy and improve it and not merely to acquire it so that it may be turned over to the actual settler after an unnecessary profit has been paid to the middleman and the promoter. There is undoubtedly a legitimate field for the resident or nonresident promoter of enterprises upon which the effective settlement of certain portions of the public domain practically depends. There is a legitimate field for the expenditure of capital in the development of the land and its contents. Indeed, the bona fide settler is dependent in many instances upon the services of the promoter and the money of the capitalist. In so far as this need is properly supplied the promoter and capitalist should be protected, but there is no disguising the fact that both promoter and capitalist frequently seek and secure advantages to which they are not justly entitled. Often their efforts not only do not tend to develop, but actually retard and prevent development. Large areas of the public land, great quantities of timber and of mineral deposits, extensive water powers, are eagerly sought after, not for the purpose of immediate utilization and development, but so that they may be held to await the aftergrowth of the country, to be then transferred to those who will actually utilize them after an unearned increment has been paid to those who acquired the property from the Government under insufficient laws or lax administration. It is this sort of exploitation which should be frankly and absolutely prevented and which, if prevented, would enable us to remove many of the restrictive provisions which now irritate and hamper the bona fide settler and industrial pioneer. The man on the ground should be the object of our solicitude, and we should protect him against those who would place upon his shoulders any unnecessary burden. I believe that to this end we can profitably modify certain of the existing laws relating to the public domain. Take, for instance, our agricultural lands. The object of the law with respect to these is to ensure actual settlement. This can be accomplished only by rigid insistence upon the requirement of actual residence upon the ground with only such exceptions as are required or justified by agricultural conditions which make town residence in close proximity to the tract cultivated appropriate. The system should be flexible enough to recognize the actual differences which in fact exist with respect to the different kinds of land and the different methods of cultivation. Land adapted to dry farming, land adapted to ordinary cultivation without irrigation, and land requiring irrigation each presents differences in method of cultivation and should admit of appropriate differences in the rules with regard to residence. The law should insist upon the cultivation of agricultural lands by the entryman, but should permit the application to such lands of rules and methods of treatment suited to their differing characteristics under the general administrative supervision of the Secretary of the Interior. In other words, the laws and the administrative regulations should be made to fit actual conditions as they exist, and they should be just as stringent in the prevention of nonresident exploitation as they are liberal in the encouragement of the bona fide settler. Although substantially true of all homestead entries, this is especially true of irrigated lands under the Reclamation Service. The present law requires the man who desires to acquire a home on a Government reclamation project to reside upon the particular tract he enters for five years under the homestead law and to reclaim at least one-half of the irrigable area as well as to pay the full reclamation charge, which must be divided into not more than 10 annual installments. This law has been a perfectly natural outgrowth of the previous laws relating to the public domain, and it has worked marvelously well in spite of its disadvantages. It is now clear, however, that it contains certain serious disadvantages for which there is no longer any adequate excuse. What we desire is actual settlement. We should have no desire to impose any unnecessary hardships upon the actual settler. What has happened is that the law has failed to take into account the conditions under which the actual settler is required to work. Irrigated lands, as a rule, are in their natural state but parts of the desert. They are usually covered with the growths which the desert produces. These must be cleared and the land graded and otherwise prepared for the application of water before any crops whatever can be raised. In many instances each tract must also be fenced, and where it is adapted for actual residence on the ground itself the home must be constructed, together with the necessary outbuildings and shelters for the agricultural implements and machinery essential to cultivation. All of this requires a considerable expenditure which is usually a heavy drain upon the resources of the settler. The land itself can seldom be made to produce any immediate revenue. If it |