OCR Text |
Show Territory to a very limited and insignificant extent nnder a contract or agreement of lease given by individual citizens of the Choctaw Nation. In view of the fact that this was the first appeal brought under the regulations and the further fact that the appellant claimed a right, under paragraph 10 of the regulations, notwithstanding the character of its title, to make a leaae in preference to the Sans Bois Company, which made it necessary to eonstrue said paragraph 10, the Of6m deemed it best to report its conclusions to the Department for depart-mental wnsideration and determination of the question rather than to make its decision, leaving the parties to their remedy of an appeal to the Secretary. In its report of July 3,1899, the office expressed the opinion that the Kansas and Indian Territory Company was a tres-passer in the Choctaw Nation, and had no right which wonld stand before the legal contract of the Sans Bois Company. Paragraph 10 of the regulations provides as follows: All leases msde prior to April 23, 1897, by any person or corporation, with sny member or members of the Choctaw or Chickasaw nations, the objeot of which was to obtain the pemisaionof such men1be.r or members to operate coal or saphalt mines within the said nations, are declared void by said agreement, mld no person, corpo-ration, or company ocoupying any lands within either of said nations, under anah individual leasea, or operating coal or other minee on sneh lands nuder color of euch leases, shall be deemed to have any right or preferenoe in the making of any lease or leases for mining purposes embracing the lands covered by such personal leaaes by reaeon thereof; but parties in possession of miners1 land who have made improv* mente thereon for the purpose of mining ahall hare s preference right to lesss the land npon whioh said improvements have been made, nnder the provisions of said agreement and these regulations. In giving its views of the intention of the Department at the time of the promulgation of above paragraph 10, the offlce stated that it understood that the clause at the conclnsion of the paragraphon which the contestant laid so much stress was inserted "merely to save the equitable rights of parties who had acquired equities nnder these illegal contracts, but the Department did not intend nor had it the power to give these parties claiming only nnder such equitable right a preference over parties with superior equities backed by a right in law." The con-clnsion reached by the office on a full consideration of the record in this case was that the inspector's judgment that the Sans Bois Com-pany had a superior right to lease was correct and should be &inned. The question is still pending in the Department. Another contest has arisen in connection with mining leases in the Cboetaw and Chictkasaw nations which was submitted iu the n%ture of a certification by Inspector Wright in his report dated Jnly 10,1899. This contest involves very important principles as to the effect of the Curtis Act upon certain acts of the Chickasaw Nation under which parties are supposed to have acquired rights to prospect for and engage in the mining of various minerals within that nation. In view of the questions involved it seems to the office that this particular contest should be discussed in this report extensively. The facts in the case |