John Marshall Harlan II

“ Unlike a land patent, which divests the Government of title, Congress under the Mineral Leasing Act has not only reserved to the United States the fee interest in the leased land, but has also subjected the lease to exacting restrictions and continuing supervision by the Secretary. ”

“ For in cases where there had been no breach of a lease, statute, or regulations by the lessee, the factor which alone brings § 31 into play (p. 475, supra) , the Secretary would be powerless to cancel the lease even if the lessee had not been the first qualified applicant. Thus, a local land office manager might, without fault on the part of the lessee, inadvertently or purposefully issue a lease to a nonqualified applicant. Yet under petitioner's view of the law the Secretary would be wholly unable, either in administrative or judicial proceedings, to remedy such illegal action. ”

“ In short, a mineral lease does not give the lessee anything approaching the full ownership of a fee patentee, nor does it convey an unencumbered estate in the minerals. [7] Since the Secretary's connection with the land continues to subsist, he should have the power, in a proper case, to correct his own errors.
The dispositive question in this case, therefore, is whether this general administrative power of cancellation was withdrawn by § 31 of the Mineral Leasing Act. To that question we now turn. ”