Mr. HARRISON. I do not know of one. I am not prepared to say that there are none. But we want the chance for some tribunal to find that out. We want a chance somewhere to introduce evidence of our investment here. The Government of the United States has received one and a half million dollars due to the enterprise and push of oil men that went down there. They are bound to receive their royalties. This land has got to be leased to somebody. Why should it not be leased to those who have an equitable interest in it? That is what I think the committee wants to do. We will take our chances to perfect our equitable interest in our properties, all of them that I speak for, and if we do not make good on that before the Secretary of the Interior we will not blame Congress. All we want you to do is to give us the opportunity.

Mr. RAKER. That does not give the committee any chance to determine where the right lies at all. If there is any conflict we might put a provision in there that a man like yourself may have a most just claim, but the provision would cut him out because he can not be heard; somebody might have a prior claim. The question is that we ought to know whether there are any that overlap on your claim.

Mr. HARRISON. I think your criticism of me is correct.
Mr. RAKER. I am not criticising.

Mr. HARRISON. It ought to be constructive.

If I may say so, I will say

that I think the Sinnott bill takes care of us and I have gone over it. Mr. DYAR. Are you content with the 20-acre lease that the Sinnott bill provides?

Mr. HARRISON. No. The Sinnott bill does not provide for 20 acres alone, but permits the leases under this shall be made as nearly as practicable 20 acres, section 2 reading as follows:

"That permits or leases under this act shall be made as nearly as practicable in 20-acre units, and no person or corporation shall be entitled to a permit or lease for lands exceeding in the aggregate 160 acres, etc."

Mr. RAKER. Are you satisfied?

Mr. HARRISON. One hundred and sixty acres. The Searight claims have a little more than that. You have got to fix a preference. Four hundred is too much.

Mr. RAKER. We have not put anything anywhere yet.

Mr. HARRISON. It is in there. My answer is that the Sinnott bill is, in my opinion, sufficient for our purposes. The other bill ought to be amended by

fixing the date in there and taking out at least from lines 18 to 24.

Mr. RAKER. What is your view as to what the Government should get out of these claims that you people are asking the Government to give you a right to handle this property of the Government? What is your view as to what the Government should receive first in royalty?

Mr. HARRISON. The Government has been to the expense of litigation. I do not know what that expense amounts to. The figures have been asked for. I take it that you want me to state whether I think the Government ought to be given a bonus over the usual one-eighth royalty. I do not think so. Mr. RAKER. What ought the royalty to be?

Mr. HARRISON. One-eighth.

Mr. LARSEN. Plus expense of litigation and receivership.

Mr. HARRISON. Plus expense, probably; yes.

Mr. RAKER. Why should there not be some method of fixing a bonus?

Mr. HARRISON. Because the Government did not discover the oil. You can not make these people hold here by anything you could do. You can not make my company hold, because you are not going to pay me for a dead well. You can

not do it. Why should these men after they have gone down there and developed this territory and because they have brought in one well lose all this other investment and at the same time pay the Government a bonus? We have already paid one bonus on it.

Mr. RAKER. If the Government would do like a private individual, standing on its rights, giving the most favorable interpretation to good faith, allowing payments for their improvements, they would just cut you right off, pay your expense, take the land, and handle it.

Mr. HARRISON. I do not think so.

Mr. RAKER. Would not a private individual do it under the law.

Mr HARRISON. A private individual? That is a pretty serious legal question you have asked me, my friend. That depends a whole lot on the situation.

Mr. SANDERS of Texas. I just want to suggest, Judge Raker, that in the bill which I introduced, which is before the committee, so far as the future production is concerned, the production is not less than 123 per cent.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything new you desire to give to the committee that you have not covered?

Mr. HARRISON. No; I have nothing more.

Mr. DRIVER. What is the acreage that you claim under the assignment of the Texas permit?

Mr. HARRISON. About 300 altogether, or 320 acres.

Mr. DRIVER. How is that divided, in order that we may have it in the record? Mr. HARRISON. I am sorry I can not give you that. I know what the claims are and came prepared to discuss that. In my individual case we had 10 acres ; that is, in the bank. We had 5 other acres that we paid $62,500 for, which is an evidence of the insanity of somebody on our side.

Mr. CLINNIN. Mr. Barkley and I both spoke of a brief. Mr. Barkley wanted to give you the reference, and it appears in the Senate hearings of the subcommittee of the Senate, and I want to give this reference and incorporate it into the record here, and Mr. Barkley suggested it will cover the points that he had. The CHAIRMAN. Let Mr. Barkley put it in his statement.

Mr. CLINNIN. He did ask that permission. It is on page 111 of the Senate hearings.

The CHAIRMAN. Give it to the reporter.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

BRIEF FOR THE RECEIVER OF GENERAL OIL CO., OF HOUSTON, TEX., IN SUPPORT OF HOUSE BILL NO. 12233, INTRODUCED BY MR. SINNOTT (BY REQUEST OF DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR).

STATE OF TEXAS, Harris County, ss:

To the Committee on the Public Lands:

SEPTEMBER 11, 1922.

The General Oil Co., a common-law trust, through John V. Clinnin, solicitor for the receiver, respectfully petition the members of the Public Lands Committee of the House of Representatives to report favorably upon the aboveentitled bill and urge the enactment of said bill by the House of Representatives and Senate of the United States.

The petitioner is the holder of title to certain oil lands in the Red River district acquired under a grant from the State of Texas for a mineral lease on 80 acres of unsurveyed land lying and being in the bed of the Red River south of section 5, township 5, south of range 14, west of the Indian meridian, Tillman County, Okla., having been in possession of said 80 acres from and after July 31, A. D. 1919, under an oil and gas lease issued to Mr. Sam Sparks, marked "Gas permit No. 3131," issued by the general land office of the

State of Texas, April 30, A. D. 1919, and partially assigned to the General Oil Co. on the same date. Previous to the acquiring of said lease, Mr. Sam Sparks obtained a permit from the said State of Texas to prospect for oil and gas on certain lands lying between the patented surveys on the south and the medial line of the Red River, or what was thought to be the middle line of the river. On April 30, 1919, Mr. Sam Sparks assigned to the General Oil Co. a portion of his permit on 981.9 acres, being the 80 acres heretofore described.

The General Oil Co., in making the purchase of the lease, heretofore described, relied upon the evidence of title submitted and particularly upon an opinion by Assistant Attorney General Van Devanter (now judge of the United States Supreme Court) approved by the Hon. C. W. Bliss, Secretary of the Interior, in 1917, which was based upon the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Texas (162 U. S. 1), also known as the Grier County case, which said opinion was reaffirmed and transmissed from the Department of the Interior to the land commission of Texas in 1914. Said decision stated in substance that the boundary between the Indian Territory and the State of Texas "is the line in the middle of the main channel of the Red River as it existed when the State of Texas was annexed to the United States" (copy of decision attached and marked "Exhibit A"). In accepting this decision as a partial basis for negotiation of the lease the said company believed the United States was acting in good faith in its interpretation of the land laws of the Government.

Immediately after securing title to the 80 acres the General Oil Co. proceeded to drill an oil well and struck oil in great quantity on November 10, 1919, this being the same date that the State of Oklahoma requested leave of the United States Supreme Court to file a bill against the State of Texas to determine the boundary between the two States. Leave was granted and said bill was filed December 8, 1919, and the marshal's return shows service upon the proper officers of the State of Texas January 7, 1920.

The General Oil Co. was the original discoverer of oil in this district and after their "discovery well No. 1" came in an oil boom developed and with it came the conflicting claims of claimants who attempted by various and divers methods to secure possession of the river bottom lands, the General Oil Co., as further protection to its title filed an application under the placer-mining laws (copies of said application attached and marked "Exhibit B").

The riparian landowner on the south of land owned by the General Oil Co. claimed an overlapping of survey with the boundaries staked out for the 80 acres, and thereafter the said company acquired a conditional lease from the patented landowners on the two surveys on the south. After the leasing act of February, 1920, was passed the General Oil Co. filed an application for a preference lease with the Department of the Interior (copy attached and marked "Exhibit C").

The General Oil Co., therefore, has the following titles to the 80 acres : 1. A lease emanate from the State of Texas.

2. Whatever title the riparian owners on the south derived from patented titles from the State of Texas.

3. Application under the placer-mining act.

4. Application under the leasing act of February, 1920.

The claim of the General Oil Co. for equitable consideration by the United States has been clearly set forth in a brief for the interveners in the suit of the State of Oklahoma v. The State of Texas, Original No. 23, in the United States Supreme Court (copy attached and marked "Exhibit D"), and the claims are similar to many other claimants who have spent great sums of

money in developing the resources of this oil field. The General Oil Co. was the pioneer and had risked the money of its shareholders in purchasing a lease and sinking a well. It was the enterprise, daring, and financial expenditures of this company that discovered the Red River oil pool. It was easy enough, after the discovery well led the way, to develop the pool with some degree of financial success. The General Oil Co. had drilled some 12 or 14 wells-so-called "wildcat' wells-before locating in this district and producing a paying pool.

The honorable members of the House of Representatives comprising the Public Lands Committee are not concerned with the various overlapping claims and disputed titles of the claimants. The Supreme Court of the United States will determine the boundary of the States of Oklahoma and Texas. The remaining problem is one of administration which properly rests with the land department of the Department of the Interior. A number of bills have been introduced by various interests, but these bills are colored with favor to the claimants responsible for their being presented to Congress. The General Oil Co., through its representative, indorses the bill heretofore described and believes that sufficient laws are now in effect to protect the interests of all claimants having equitable and just grounds for preference, and therefore prays the approval of this committee of House bill No. 12233. This bill grants the requisite powers to the Department of the Interior to carry out the mandates of the United States courts and provides a full and equitable remedy for the adjustment of all claimants entitled to consideration.

It has been the policy of the United States to reserve all mineral in its public lands, but in 1872 Congress passed the so-called mineral act, by which minerals belonging to the United States Government could be explored and appropriated and all lands valuable for minerals could not be homesteaded, preempted, and scripped, but had to be acquired under the mineral laws. In 1897 Congress enacted a law whereby oil was so classified (25 Stat. L. 526).

Congress also provided that mineral laws would not apply to the States of Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Missouri, Kansas, Alabama, and Oklahoma (17 Stat. 465; 19 Stat. 52; 22 Stat. 487; 26 Stat. 1026; 31 Stat. 660). Afterwards Congress made the mineral laws applicable to the Indian lands in Oklahoma, known as the "big pasture lands," which were evolved in the suit between the States of Oklahoma and Texas and the boundary fixed by a partial decision in said case.

A recent case in the Circuit Court of Appeals in the State of California confirmed the title of oil operators to certain lands withdrawn by the United States Government, wherein the oil prospectors had started work but had not made a real discovery prior to the withdrawals, holding that said prospectors had an equitable title but not a legal position. In many cases they had spent considerable money in good faith. The position of the General Oil Co. and many other prospectors in the Red River district is stronger than equitable, because this company actually discovered and produced oil; in fact, the General Oil. Co. prospected, discovered, and developed the oil pool which is the real subject matter of the contested litigation and now appears in the form of enabling legislation for the consideration of Congress.

The Supreme Court of the United States will no doubt refuse to pass upon the validity of placer claims in the pending suit, leaving the question to be settled by the Department of the Interior, where it rightfully belongs; therefore it is imperative that proper legislation be enacted which will empower this department to adjust the claims of various claimants based upon their equitable and legal position as fixed by law. Therefore, inasmuch as the Gov

ernment of the United States has always shown a preference for those who have in good faith settled upon the land and by industry, thrift, and honest financial investment improved the resources of the country, it is prayed by your petitioner that your honorable committee approve House bill No. 12233.

GENERAL OIL CO.,

JOHN G. LEAVELL, Receiver.
JOHN V. CLINNIN,

Solicitor for Receiver.

EXHIBIT A.

STATE BOUNDARY-RIVER-CHANGE OF CHANNEL OPINION.

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 the 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 then established.

Assistant Attorney General Van Devanter to the Secretary of the Interior (J. L.):

I have received by reference from your office certain letters referred to you by the director of the Geological Survey, as follows, to wit:

Four letters from C. H. Fitch, topographer in charge, dated, respectively, February 24, March 27, April 3, and April 5, 1897.

A letter from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, dated March 16, 1897. Two letters from Oscar Jones, United States surveyor, dated, respectively, March 7, March 29, 1897.

A letter from W. S. Post, topographer, dated April 1, 1897.

Also two diagrams showing cut-offs in the course of the Red River, which is the boundary between the Indian Territory and the State of Texas.

And I am requested to answer the following question: "Where the Red River, which constitutes a boundary of the State of Texas, has changed its course, will the old bed of the stream remain the boundary, or must the present channel be regarded as such?"

DECISIONS RELATING TO THE PUBLIC LANDS.

The diagrams show the locations of four cut-offs within a distance of less than 40 miles west of the boundary of the State of Arkansas. The most easterly, marked "C." is in T. 11 S., R. 27 E., and it transferred in the year 1895 from the Territorial to the Texas side of the river, a very considerable body of Indian land in the shape of a pear with a narrow neck or stem. The most westerly (called the "Watson cut-off") is in T. 7 S., R. 21 E., and it transferred, probably in the year 1890, from the Texas to the Territorial side of the river a body of Texan land of similar shape. The other two cut-offs (marked “A” and “B,” respectively) are situated in T. 8 S., R. 22 E., and T. 10 S., R. 25 E., and both transferred in the year 1866 Texan land to the Territorial side of the river. The letters before me show that all of the cut-offs were caused suddenly by floods and overflows of the waters of Red River, aided probably in one instance by a ditch which the occupants of the land had cut across the narrow neck of the peninsula.

66