Mr. TESTERMAN. The Texas Rangers drove their people away on January 6, 1920.

Mr. BURTNESS. That accounts for the discrepancy.

Mr. RAKER. There had been rangers there that had driven off people in October, 1919.

Mr. LARSEN. They were not there.

Mr. RAKER. About a mile or so below.

Mr. BURTNESS. The Burk divide, and the other one a mile apart.

Mr. WICKS. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. BURTNESS. You heard nothing about the rangers incident to that at all? Mr. WICKS. No. I was there a month after that and the Texas Rangers had tents there.

The CHAIRMAN. How long will it take you to conclude?

Mr. WICKS. It will take me a very short time. I am practically through

now.

There is one other point I would like to speak about, and that is in regard to the date that is in Mr. Sander's bill, in regard to land claimed prior to October 1, 1919. I see in the original bill introduced by Mr. Sinnott that the date was February 25, 1920. That would embrace us, and the other would now, although, of course, we could go en back and say Mr. Sparks had it, but I can not see that anybody will be injured by the February 25, 1920, date, which is the date of their leasing bill, and I think it is a logical date to make this, and does not cut anybody out. We are permitted then to make our claim before the Secretary of the Interior.

I understood the Secretary of the Interior preferred the October 1 date. I went to see Mr. Finney yesterday and said. “No; February 25, 1920, is just as good and satisfactory to me as October 1, 1919." I do think that all these people have gone in here believing that they had rights--they were told they had gotten the lease from the State of Texas, and they never inquired any more than that. They were away off there; they had not heard of any suits between Texas and the State of Oklahoma, or the United States, and when they found that a State had given that lease, they natuarally thought it was good, the same as we do when we get a patent from a State--we think it is good. That is the way the people look at it, and they invested their money accordingly, and I know these people went in in good faith, and I hope that some bill can be passed here which will give them back the money they have invested in good faith.

Mr. RAKER. Do you make any distinction between the present owners of the stock and the original promoters of the company who did the business and performed the work, as to good faith?

Mr. WICKS. I do not know-I do not know what they knew. I only know what the people in Pittsburgh and Ohio knew, and what I was told myself and found out.

Mr. RAKER. You folks bought the stock, but as to the knowledge and information of the organizers, you are not familiar?

Mr. WICKS. Not at all; no, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. It is 1 o'clock now.

Mr. DYAR. I would like to ask one question. Did I understand you to say that some other wells had been returned to your possession by the receiver on the order of the court?

Mr. WICKS. One well in each company. I am glad you spoke of that.
The CHAIRMAN. Was it the well, or the proceeds?

Mr. WICKS. The well. The proceeds from the oil produced from other oil wells on the river bed they returned to us-that is, they returned to us enough to pay for the piles and drilling of the well, but two wells are out on the sand bank, which comes from that point [indicating on map]. It is about 40 feet high at this point, and slopes down. There are a series of terraces, and these wells are on the last terrace, clear down to the bottom, one of them 4, 5, or 6 feet above the flat sandy plain, and the other on the edge. The CHAIRMAN. Is it the Texas?

Mr. WICKS. That is the question. It was right on the edge of this flooded plain, and 5 or 6 feet above, and we claimed it was so close that it was really patented land, so we went in and asked to have it returned as patented land, and the Supreme Court granted that motion.

Mr. DYAR. That is part of their investment. It is not all the sand bed, but they have received back-they have other investments, and when they paid $200,000 for the stock, it was not only for the well under the Sparks lease, but the well on the flooded plain, which the Supreme Court determined to be in Texas.

Mr. WICKS. We drilled those wells, believing in good faith they were on the river bed, and came within the leases we got from the State of Texas. It was only later-the owner of the patent came in and started an action and we were forced to deal with, and we did deal with them, and gave them part of the oil, and they are getting now part of the oil from that. All our land, all that we have invested for these leases, lies beyond those two wells, where we had drilled one well almost to the time the receiver took it. Mr. RAKER. The two wells returned were on patented land?

Mr. WICKS. It was decided by the Supreme Court to be patented, because it was so close.

Mr. BURTNESS. With reference to the reimbursement that has been made to you, which you say covered the cost of some of the work you have had done there, was that returned for the purpose of reimbursing you for the cost, or is it for the natural work that comes in connection with drilling?

Mr. WICKS. I believe the Supreme Court order was made to the effect that where these wells had been started in good faith by a party, and oil sufficient to pay them back was produced, that the Federal receiver would pay them back for what they had done.

Mr. BURTNESs. It is really reimbursements, but it comes out of the proceeds? Mr. WICKS Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. We will adjourn until 2.30 o'clock this afternoon. (At 1.05 o'clock p. m. an adjournment was taken until 2.30 o'clock p. m.)

AFTER RECESS.

(The committee reassembled at 2.30 o'clock p. m.)

The CHAIRMAN. I should like to know who is here to speak on this matter this afternoon.

Mr. BARKLEY. I am here on behalf of the General Oil Co.

The CHAIRMAN. The other day we had Mr. James D. Macey and Mr. Piety. Mr. BARKLEY. Colonel Clinnen is here and Mr. Hitt is here, and Mr. Harrison is also representing certain parties.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any natural grouping of those who desire to testify, so that we can bring them in in some kind of logical order? Do you know, Colonel Roote?

Mr. ROOTE. The representative of the General Oil Co. is in a situation somewhat similar to that of the Petroleum Co., whose representative addressed

the committee before the lunch hour, and it might be well, as long as they have started, to let him go on; but it is immaterial to us in what order they are heard.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we will be glad to hear you, Mr. Barkley. Give your name, your occupation, and state whom you represent.

STATEMENT OF MR. K. C. BARKLEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW, HOUSTON, TEX., REPRESENTING RECEIVER OF GENERAL OIL CO.

Mr. BARKLEY, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is K. C. Barkley; I live in Houston, Tex., and represent the receiver of the General Oil Co., in connection with Col. John V. Clinnin, of Chicago.

The General Oil Co. was organized originally as a Texas corporation. It was later changed into a Massachusetts trust; and when its producing properties were taken over because of some other troubles, it, too, went into the hands of a receiver.

The CHAIRMAN. Taken over by whom?

Mr. BARKLEY. The Government, in this boundary dispute. Therefore we now represent the creditors and approximately 7,000 stockholders, only 450 of whom live in Texas. They are scattered all over the United States.. Because of certain charges of mismanagement brought in the district court of Harris County, Tex., against the former trustees, they were by judgment of court removed and certain others appointed, to whom the property would go for management or for distribution under the orders of the court in the event that there is some bill reported and passed that will enable them to present and have allowed their claim to the 80 acres.

The General Oil Co. bought its Texas title from Sam Sparks on July 31, 1919, and immediately went into the possession of the 80 acres purchased and commenced the erection of a derrick preparatory to drilling, and it prosecuted the drilling with due diligence until the completion of the well.

If you understand what is necessary in an oil country, especially where you commence to wildcat, you will know that you have to build the derrick and move and assemble the rig, which is difficult in a sandy soil, dig your slush pit, and set the rig up-all preparatory to what they call "spudding in "-—that is, to commence actually turning around.

This well was actually brought in-that is, it went over the top on November 10, 1919, which was 60 days before any other well in that area. This company had gone on the ground first, and it had spent the money necessary to bring in its original discovery well in first.

Now, in order that you may understand the situation, the receiver's geological map, which he has made and compiled from actual drilling, demonstrates that there are two distinct pools in Red River that are now already developed. The General pool [indicating on map on wall] would not quite reach down to that island [indicating]. The well originally drilled, as well as the well drilled by the receiver are there [indicating]; and you have the geological map showing that that island Burk-Bet and the area from there [indicating] to the bridge are dry. Senator Testerman had previously drilled a well about half a mile down there [indicating], which the geological map shows is a separate and distinct structure, the extent of which can not be determined until the title is settled and drilling in that area is resumed.

For the purpose of showing the good faith of the Texas claimants-that is, the stockholders who bought through the Texas title--I want to state this: That the Greer County case, if I recall correctly (and Major Dyar will correct

me if I am wrong) was announced in 1895, and the decree was actually entered in 1896.

One year after the Greer County case had become final, the Department of the Interior addressed a letter to the Department of Justice asking the Department of Justice for an opinion as to what constituted the boundary line between Texas and what was then Indian Territory, but is now Oklahoma.

Mr. Justice Van Devanter, then the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, after the Greer County case was decided, in his reply to the Department of the Interior, stated that the boundary was as follows:

"The boundary between the Indian Territory and the State of Texas is the line of the middle of the main channel of Red River as it existed when Texas was annexed to the United States, and subsequent sudden changes in the current or main channel of said river will not in any way affect the location or position of said boundary line as it lay upon the earth's surface when established."

The CHAIRMAN. Does he undertake to reconcile that with the decision in the Greer County case?

Mr. BARKLEY. He does not; he does not mention it.

The CHAIRMAN. It is in positive conflict with that, is it not?

Mr. BARKLEY. Absolutely so. I want to call this to the attention of the committee as affecting the equities of the bill; I am reading the concluding portion of Mr. Justice Van Devanter's opinion when he was Assistant Attorney General, in which he makes this recommendation:

"I respectively advise that the surveyors in the field should be instructed "

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). What are you reading from?

Mr. BARKLEY. I am reading from the opinon of Mr. Justice Van Devanter, which he gave to the Department of the Interior when he was Assistant Attorney General, and which was the only opinion from the Department of the Interior as to what constituted the boundary after the Greer County case was decided.

The CHAIRMAN. That is set forth in the hearing of the Senate committee, is it not? You are reading it from the bearings of the Senate committee?

Mr. BARKLEY, I am reading it from the hearings of the Senate committee, pages 113 and 114.

Mr. SMITH Justice Van Devanter at that time was the Solicitor for the Department of the Interior, was he not?

Mr. BARKLEY. He was an assistant in the Department of Justice.

Mr. DYAR. Pardon me; but he was the solicitor-I do not know exactly what the title was then-for the Interior Department, but he was nominally a part of the Department of Justice.

66

Mr. SMITH. That is the way it is now. He is Assistant Attorney General, assigned to the Interior Department, but he takes the title of Solicitor" of the Interior Department.

The CHAIRMAN. You are reading from a portion of the Senate committee hearings, called "Exhibit A," on page 113, are you?

Mr. BARKLEY, Yes, sir. Now, that is set out in 24 Land Decisions, page 372. The CHAIRMAN. What part of this do you say is the material part of his decision?

Mr. BARKLEY. Well, the syllabus that I read to you represents the holding of the case; but I desire in addition to call your attention to a quotation on page 115 containing these recommendations

The CHAIRMAN. Let me call your attention to this language:

"I therefore assume that the boundary between the Indian Territory and the State of Texas is the line of the middle of the main channel of Red River as it meandered in 1845, when Texas was annexed."

Mr. BARKLEY Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Why does he make that comment "I assume "? Is he really deciding that in this decision?

Mr. BARKLEY. The inquiry was made of him as to what constituted the boundary?

Mr. RAKER. What page of the Land Decisions is that? You say it is in 24 Land Decisions?

Mr. BARKLEY. Page 372.

Now, let us see what was in his mind. In the concluding part of the decisions, page 115 of the Senate committee hearing, he said:

"I respectfully advise that the surveyors in the field should be instructed to trace, survey, meander, and mark with appropriate monuments (1) the line of the middle of the main channel of the river as it formerly ran; (2) the left bank of the old channel; and (3) the left bank of the new channel." Now, this was upon an evulsion; but it shows that he was then fixing the boundary as the middle of the old channel-that they would "meander each bank, and, by appropriate monuments, they would mark the middle of it as the boundary between the two States.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you consider this opinion superior to the decision of the United States Supreme Court?

Mr. BARKLEY. It was so considered at that time; and I might digress here to explain why:

Greer County was created as a political entity with defined boundaries. The south boundary was the middle of the South Fork of the Red River; and the north boundary was the middle of the North Fork. Congress instructed the Attorney General of the United States to sue, in behalf of the Government, for Greer County. There were two issues presented and hotly contested in the Greer County case; and in the beginning of the decision of that case the court said

Mr. RAKER (interposing). Now, just tell me the date of the decision in that case, the opinion of the court itself?

Mr. BARKLEY. The opinion of the court was delivered March 16, 1896.
Mr. RAKER. And this other decision was rendered April 29, 1897?

Mr. BARKLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. And they are just as diametrically opposite as two things could possibly be?

Mr. BARKLEY. Now, without taking the time of this committee, I can state the substance of it-the Greer County decision

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). It is not apparent from this decision that Mr. Van Devanter had before him the decision of the United States Supreme Court at least from a hurried reading of it. He does not refer to that decision, does he?

Mr. BARKLEY. He does not. But I will follow that out without reading from the decision:

There were two things litigated with a great deal of voluminous testimony. What were they?

One was, whether the one hundredth true meridian was meant in the treaty with Spain, or whether the one hundredth meridian as laid down on Mellish's map.