OCR Text |
Show 1 RBPORT OF THE COMNIt38IOIYER OF INDIAN AFFAlRB. 105 the mines, and wereoperating the same in good faith on Apri123,1897, which is entitled to obtain the lease? Fourth. Is any person or corporation entitled nuder the Curtis bill and the treaty to the preference right to a lease who had not developed a mine and was not in actual possession and in good faith operating the same on April 23,1897? Fifth. Is it lawful for any person or corporation under any of the leases above referred to, entered into before the adoption of the treaty, to pay royalty to the lessors? In addition to these five questions, afbr discussing the various phases of the controversy, he submitted for decision three qnestions, as follows: First. Whether the application of tho Davis 311ning C!ompany to this whole tract sho~~bldec onsidered and a lease granted them in view of the fact that thev l~arol btainrd theoricinnlcl~artrrn~le~adse d it to theseixir-ties, although never putting any i%provements on the land themsehes. Second. Whether the Rock Creek Natural Asphalt Company should ba granted a lease, inasmuch as they had gone upon the lands described, although not upon that portion covered by Mine No. 4, which they sub-leased to the Gilsonite people; or, Third. Whether the Rock Creek Natural Asphalt Company should be given a lease upon tracts where they have placed their improve-ments, ?nd the Gilsonite Roofing and Pwillg Company a lease cover-ing them improvements, as shown by the applications of each. h a report dated July 22,1899, the position taken by the office on the first three qnestions submitted by request was that the charters granted under the laws of the Chickasaw Nation, and the rights of parties thereunder, had not been dected by the provisious of the agree ment, and that the rights of parties under such charters exist the same to-day, so far as the agreement is concerned, as they were prior thereto, such charters not being leases from individual citizens of the Choctaw Nation nor contracts with the national agents of the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations. The question of whether or not parties acquired any legal rights nnder such charters would depend upon the question of whether the. Chickasaw Nation had the power (in view of the common title of the two nations in the lands occupied by them, respectively, and the grant of the right of self-government in the treaties with said nations) to establish a corporation composed of citizens of the Chickasaw Nation, with the right to prospect for and mine minerals within mid nations; and if the Chickasaw Nation had this power, the question whether or not such a corporation organized nnder the law of the nation had any authority lawfully granted to make a lease of any of the lands within the charter limits to other parties for mining purposes, md if so, whether the law of the nation granting the company such a power is a valid law under the statutes of the United States. After comparing the rule governing the occupancy and use of Indian reservations generally (where the reservations are held under the ordi-nary Indim title or occupancy right) with the tenure under which the lands of the Choctaw and Ohickasaw nations are held by said |