Learn the basics of the Transfer of Public Lands! This presentation will help answer questions such as: why transfer lands? Has this been done before? And Can we afford to transfer the lands? You will also learn what you can do to help American Lands Council move this important effort forward.

1. The Basics of the Transfer of Public
Lands

2. “Public Lands”
"[t]he words ‘public lands’ are
habitually used in our
legislation to describe such as
are subject to sale or other
disposal under general laws."
Barker v. Harvey, 181 U.S. 481,
490 (1901).

3. “Where socialized
ownership of land
is concerned, only
the USSR and
China can claim
company with the
United States.”
John Kenneth Galbraith,
Economist

4. www.AmericanLandsCouncil.org
Facebook:American Lands Council
@AmericanLandsCn
801.ALC.6622
This Nation Needs YOU
To “Hire & Inspire” Leaders to Battle For
The Only Solution Big Enough

5. Men & Women of Good Faith, From All Walks
Await Your Invitation to Join Together
To Hire & Inspire
Local, State & National Representatives
with
The Knowledge & Courage
To Battle For
The Only Solution Big Enough!

7. Land with Limited/No Access

10. Wallow Fire 2011
Dave Williams (left) and Michael Demlong, both with the Arizona Game and Fish
Department, give water to a female baby red-tailed hawk that was found in Eagar during
the Wallow Fire on June 14, 2011. The bird appeared to be dehydrated and starving.
PHOTO BY: Tom Tingle/The Arizona Republic

18. Why the Difference??

19. U.S. Constitution Article IV, Section 3 –
New States
The Congress shall have power
to dispose of and make all needful rules
and regulations respecting the Territory or
other property belonging to the United States;
and nothing in this Constitution shall be so
construed as to prejudice any claims of
the United States, or of any particular State.

20. Madison Constitutional Debates
Tuesday, August 30, 1787
Mr. WILSON ... There was nothing in the Constitution affecting one
way or the other the claims of the U. S. & it was best to
insert nothing leaving every thing on that litigated subject in statu
quo.
Mr. MADISON ... He thought it best on the whole to be silent on
the subject. He did not view the proviso of Mr. Carrol as dangerous; but
to make it neutral & fair, it ought to go farther & declare that the
claims of particular States also should not be affected.
Mr. CARROL withdrew his motion and moved the following. "Nothing
in this Constitution shall be construed to alter the claims of
the U. S. or of the individual States to the
Western territory, ...."

21. Article IV
Power to Create “States”
“The power of Congress in respect to
the admission of new states is found in
the 3d section of the 4th article of the
Constitution. That provision is that,
‘new States may be admitted by the
Congress into this Union.’” Coyle v.
Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (1911)

22. Article IV
Power to Create “States”
“But what is this power? It is not to
admit political organizations which
are less or greater, or different in
dignity or power, from those political
entities which constitute the Union. It
is a ‘power to admit
states.’” Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S.
559 (1911)

23. Federal Government Holds
Public Lands “In Trust” for the
States
The federal government holds territorial
lands “in trust for the several states to be
ultimately created out of the territory."
(Shively v. Bowlby, 1894)

24. Federal Govt is Duty-Bound
to “Execute These Trusts”
"Whenever [i.e. once] the United States
shall have fully executed these trusts, the
municipal sovereignty of the new states
will be complete, throughout their
respective borders, and they, and the
original states, will be upon an equal
footing, in all respects whatever.” Pollard
v. Hagan, (1845)

25. Federal Govt Holds Public Lands
for “Temporary Purposes” to
“Execute The Trusts”
“. . . the United States never held any
municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction or right of
soil in and for the territory ... of the new States ...
except for temporary purposes, and to
execute the trusts created by the acts of the
Virginia and Georgia Legislatures, and the deeds
of cession executed by them to the United States,
and the trust created by the treaty with the
French Republic of the 30th of April, 1803,
ceding Louisiana.” Pollard v. Hagan, (1845)

26. Why the Difference??

27. Myth:
“You Didn’t Want Your Lands”
(“forever disclaim all right and title”)

28. Forever Disclaim All Right and Title ...?
“that the people inhabiting the said territory, do agree
and declare that they forever disclaim all right and
title to the waste or unappropriated lands lying within
the said territory; and that the same shall be and remain
at the sole and entire disposition of the United
States...”
ALABAMA
2.7% PUBLIC LANDS

29. Forever Disclaim All Right and Title ...?
“That the people inhabiting said proposed States do
agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right
and title to the unappropriated public lands lying
within the boundaries thereof, … and that until the
title thereto shall have been extinguished by the
United States, the same shall be and remain
subject to the disposition of the United States, …;”
NORTH DAKOTA (3.9%)
SOUTH DAKOTA (5.4%) PUBLIC LANDS
(THEY SHARE THE SAME ENABLING ACT)

30. Forever Disclaim All Right and Title ...?
“That the people inhabiting said proposed States do agree
and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title
to the unappropriated public lands lying within the
boundaries thereof, … and that until the title thereto
shall have been extinguished by the United States, the
same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of
the United States, …”
Montana (30%)
Washington State (30%)
Public Lands
They Share The Very Same Enabling Act Document As ND & SD!

31. The Promises are the Same!
Forever Disclaim All Right and Title ...?
Utah
66.5% Public Lands
“That the people inhabiting said proposed State do
agree and declare that they forever disclaim all
right and title to the unappropriated public
lands lying within the boundaries thereof; ... and
that until the title thereto shall have been
extinguished by the United States, the same shall
be and remain subject to the disposition of the
United States,...”
Section 3, Utah Enabling Act, July 16, 1894

32. Enabling Acts are
“Solemn Compacts”
Enabling Acts are "solemn compacts"
and "bi-lateral [two-way] agreements"
that are to be performed "in a timely
fashion" (Andrus v. Utah, 1980)

33. 2009 U.S. Supreme Court
Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs
(Unanimous Decision)
“‘[T]he consequences of admission are
instantaneous, and it ignores the uniquely
sovereign character of that event … to suggest
that subsequent events [acts of Congress]
somehow can diminish what has already been
bestowed.’ And that proposition applies a fortiori
[with even greater force] where virtually all of the
State’s public lands . . .are at stake.”

34. It’s Already Been Done Before!

35. Does this sound familiar?
The federal government is not disposing of our
public lands as it promised;
We can’t tax the lands to adequately fund
education;
Our ability to grow our economy and create
jobs is stifled; and
The federal government is hoarding our
abundant minerals and natural resources.

36. IL, MO, IN, AR, LA, AL, MS, Fl, were as much as 90% federally
controlled for decades ...

37. One Man...
One LEADER...
Refused To Be Silent or Take
“NO”
for an Answer

38. “... my election to the Senate of the United
States ... found me doing battle for an
ameliorated system of disposing of our
public lands; and with some success. I
resolved to move against the whole
system ... I did so in a bill, renewed
annually for a long time; and in speeches
which had more effect upon the public
mind than upon the federal legislation ...”
U.S. Senator
Thomas Hart Benton
(D-MO)

39. “They were as a stepmother, instead of a
natural mother: and the federal government
being sole purchaser from foreign nations,
and sole recipient of Indian cessions, it
became the monopolizer of vacant
lands of the West: and this monopoly,
like all monopolies, resulted in hardships
to those upon whom it acted.”
U.S. Senator
Thomas Hart Benton
(D-MO)

40. “But the members in Congress
from the new States should not
intermit their exertions, nor vary their
policy; and should fix their eyes
steadily upon the period of the
speedy extinction of the federal
title to all the lands within the limits of
their respective States ...”
Thirty Years View, Thomas Hart Benton
U.S. Senator
Thomas Hart Benton
(D-MO)

41. It’s The Only Solution Big
Enough!

42. Arizona’s $31.5 Billion Annual Revenues
Arizona’s
Looming
$16.3 Billion
Budget Hole
51.7%
The $16.3 Billion
of “Federal Funds”
Arizona Spends Annually
Source: Intergovernmental Financial
Dependency: A Study of Key
Dependency Measures for the 50 States,
CliftonLarsenAllen, LLP, 2012

43. Washington’s $43.6 Billion Annual Revenues
Washington’
The $18.3 Billion of
s “Federal Looming
Funds”
Washington Spends
$18.3 Annually
Billion
Budget 42%
Hole
42%
Copyright (c) 2011 Ken Ivory All Rights Reserved
Source: Intergovernmental Dependency: A Study of Key Dependency
Measures of the 50 States, 2012 CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP

44. We Can’t Afford Not To
Secure the Transfer of our
Public Lands

46. Why The difference?

55. What Do We Do About It?

56. TPL Legislative
Summit
Next Steps:
Educate
Negotiate
Legislate
Litigate

57. What Can You Do
Now?
Educate
Donate
Delegate

58. • Educate
• Know & Share Key Points from
www.AmericanLandsCouncil.com
• Think Benjamin Franklin with a Facebook Page, Twitter,
YouTube, email, etc….
• #TransferPublicLands & #HonorThePromise
• Will YOU Be The ONE … to Open The Next Door?

59. Follow & Share!
Facebook.com/AmericanLandsCouncil
Twitter.com @AmericanLandsCN
Youtube.com/AmericanLandsCouncil
Instagram.com @AmericanLandsCN
Pinterest.com/americanlandscn/

60. • Donate
• Money and Manpower
Make the Difference

61. • Delegate
• “Hire & Inspire” local, state, and national
representatives who have the Knowledge &
Courage to Battle For the Only Solution Big
Enough - #TransferPublicLands

62. www.AmericanLandsCouncil.org
Info@AmericanLandsCouncil.org
American Lands Council
@AmericanLandsCn