OCR Text |
Show 120 REPORT OF THE COXKISSIONER OB INDIAN AFFAIRS. was made of the application of the Sans Bois Cod Company for twenty-eight leases, and of the contest existing between that company and the Kansas and Indian Territory Coal Mining Company, represented by Mr. W. S. Nelson, as to certain tracts embraced within some of the applications, the matter being then pending before the Department. Subsequently the subject waa referred by the Department to the Assistant Attorney-General for an opinion, and October 18,1899, he rendered an opinion, which was approved by the Department the same day, in which he held t h a t neither of eaid companies is, as a matter of law, entitled to a preference right to a leaee of these lands, and that in instance of anch rim1 application the Secretary of the Interior must, in the exercise of a sound discretion, determine to which applicsi tion a lease will be given. The Kanaas and Indian Territory Coal Company ha~ng the only improvements on these lands, and having made a prior application for a lease, seems to me to be in a poaition to reasonably argue that ita application be first considered. Subsequently, George Hayden, attorney for the Sans Bois Coal Com-pany, requested the Department to refer the matter to the Assistant Attorney-General for an opinion as to whether or not the San Bois Coal Company "has not, by fair interpretation, legally earned its right to the leases asked for." The leases involved in the contest, however, were not included in those which Mr. Hayden desired to have sub-mitted. The Assistant Attorney-General rendered an opinion Decem-ber 14, 1899, which was approved by the Department the same day, in which he held "that the applicant is not in position to demand as a matter of right the approval of the leases in question." Subseqnently six 1- were granted to the San Boii Coal Company, and the Kan-st~ sa nd Indian Territory Coal Company was advised that it could sub-mit an application for one lease. Another contest mentioned in my last annnal report was that gener-ally known as "The Davis Mining Company contest." This controversy arose over asphalt lands in the Chickasaw Nation. The Davis Mining Company had been granted a charter or license by the Chickasaw Nation to mine asphalt on a certain tract. A lease was made by that company to other parties, who sublet to the Rock Creek Natural Asphalt Company, which company made a lease to other parties, who in turn sublet their right to the Gilsonite Roofing and Paving Com-pany. The Assistant Attorney-General, March 10, 1900, rendered an opin-ion in this case, which was approved the same day by the Department, in which he held that none of the parties had acquired any legal right to have the land and that the granting of a lease rested in the diecre-tion of the mineral trustees subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. The opinion says: As pointed out by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, the Choctaw and Chicka-saw nations are joint owners of the lands occupied by them, respectively, the Choc- |