[283 U.S. 414, 415] Messrs. Lewis Edwin Hoffman and Chester I. Long, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner McLennan.
Mr. Homer R. Hendricks, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner Simpson.
Mr. James Conlon, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner Barton.
Messrs. James G. Leovy, of Los Angeles, Cal., and John W. Fisher, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner Pyron.
Mr. J. A. Greenwood, of Cheyenne, Wyo., for State of Wyoming.
Mr. Clarence L. Ireland, of Denver, Colo., for State of Colorado, as amici curiae by special leave of court.
The Attorney General and Mr. Seth W. Richardson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
All these causes turn on the same point of law; the records disclose facts not materially different; one opinion will suffice.
The Act of Congress approved February 25, 1920, 41 Stat. 437, intended to promote certain mining operations, contains thirty-eight sections.
Section 1. 'That deposits of coal, phosphate, sodium, oil, oil shale, or gas, and lands containing such deposits owned by the United States , ... shall be subject to disposition in the form and manner provided by this Act. ...' 30 USCA 181.
Section 9 (30 USCA 211) authorizes the Secretary to lease lands containing deposits of phosphates under such general regulation as he may adopt. By section 17 (30 USCA 226) unappropriated deposits of oil or gas situated within the known geologic structure of a producing oil or gas field 'may be leased by the Secretary of the Interior to the highest responsible bidder, ...' such leases to be conditioned upon the payment by the lessee of such bonus as may be accepted and of such royalty as may be fixed in the lease, etc. Section 21 (30 USCA 241) authorizes the Secretary to lease deposits of oil shale under such regulations as he may prescribe, for indefinite periods.
Section 2 (30 USCA 201) declares that the Secretary 'is authorized to, and upon the petition of any qualified applicant shall, divide any of the coal lands or the deposits of coal, classified and unclassified, owned by the United States, outside of the Territory of Alaska, into leasing tracts of forty acres each, ...' and thereafter 'shall, in his discretion, upon the request of any qualified applicant or on his own motion, from time to time, offer such lands or deposits of coal for leasing, and shall award leases thereon by competitive bidding or by such other methods as he may by general regulations adopt, to any qualified applicant. ...'
Section 23. That the Secretary 'is hereby authorized and directed, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, to grant to any qualified applicant a prospecting permit which shall give the exclusive right to prospect for chlorides, sulphates, carbonates, borates, silicates, or nitrates of sodium. ...' 30 USCA 261.
These provisions quite plainly indicate that Congress held in mind the distinction between a positive mandate to the Secretary and permission to take certain action in his discretion. Also, the difference between applicants for mere privileges and those persons who, because of expenditures, or otherwise, deserved special consideration.
The petitioners, acting separately and as directed by the general rules and regulations, either filed or sought to file applications for permits to prospect for oil and gas under section 13 (30 USCA 221). In order to effectuate the conservation policy of the President, the Secretary of the Interior by a general order either rejected or refused to receive their applications. Thereupon these proceedings were begun in the Supreme Court, District of Columbia. They seek writs of mandamus to compel the Secretary to receive or reinstate the applications and act upon each according to its merits. [283 U.S. 414, 419] Answering, the Secretary admitted issuance of the general order and action thereunder. All this he claimed was done in pursuance of the authority vested in him by law. The Supreme Court of the District held against him, and ordered receipt or reinstatement of petitioner's applications followed by definite action thereon. The Court of Appeals reached a different conclusion and reversed the judgments. 46 F.(2d) 217, 224.
The answers aver 'that under the Act, (1920) th gra nting of a prospecting permit for oil and gas is discretionary with the Secretary of the Interior, and any application may be granted or denied, either in part or in its entirety as the facts may be deemed to warrant.' Having examined the act, we cannot say that by any clear and indisputable language it refutes his position. Certainly there is ground for a plausible, if not conclusive, argument that, so far as it relates to the leasing of oil lands, it goes no further than to empower the Secretary to execute leases which, exercising a reasonable discretion, he may think would promote the public welfare.
It is unnecessary now to declare the precise meaning of the relevant provisions of the act. It was passed when according to a widely accepted view decline of petroleum production in the United States was imminent. In fact, there has been an enormous increase and a consequent troublesome surplus. Looking only at its words, one may interpret section 13 as the Secretary says he did. And this conclusion is aided by consideration of his general powers over the public lands as guardian of the people, section 441, Rev. St. (5 USCA 485); United States v. Grimaud, 220 U.S. 506 , 31 S. Ct. 480; Williams v. United States, 138 U.S. 514 , 11 S. Ct. 457; Knight v. Association, 142 U.S. 161 , 12 S. Ct. 258; also the right of the President to withdraw public lands from private appropriation, United States v. Midwest Oil Co., 236 U.S. 459 , 35 S. Ct. 309; Withdrawal Act, 1910, 36 Stat. 847. [283 U.S. 414, 420] Under the established rule, the writ of mandamus cannot be made to serve the purpose of an ordinary suit. It will issue only where the duty to be performed is ministerial and the obligation to act peremptory and plainly defined. The law must not only authorize the demanded action, but require it; the duty must be clear and indisputable. United States ex rel. International Contracting Company v. Lamont, 155 U.S. 303, 308 , 15 S. Ct. 97; Louisiana v. McAdoo, 234 U.S. 627, 633 , 34 S. Ct. 938; Work v. Rives, 267 U.S. 175 , 45 S. Ct. 252.
The judgments under review must be affirmed.