OCR Text |
Show 104 - REPORT OF THE COMMIS8IO~ER OF INDIAN AFFAIR8. are briefly these: By a Iaw of the ChickasawNation citizensof that nation were authorized to form themselves into wrporations for the purpose of prospecting for and engaging in the mining of minerds in a designated territory within the nation; this right of prospect-ing for and mining minerds within such territory was not, however, regarded or held as exclnsive, inasmuch as it appears that many such corporations held charters authorizing them to operate within the same territory, some wrporations having authority to operate within a small tract, totally surrounded by and embraoed in 8 larger traet secured to another corporation. The Davis Mining Company, it seems, was originally composed of citizens of the Chickasaw Nation, but after associating noncitizens in interest therein it obtained a charter covering a tract of country within which is embraced the lands now occupied and improved by the Qilsonite Roohg and Paving Company, containing avery rich deposit of bituminous limestone. A lease was made by the Davis Mining Company to parties who in turn leased to the Rock Creek Natural Asphalt Company, which company on its part made a lease or granted a license to other parties, from whom the Gilsonite Roofing and Paving Company obhined its rights within the tract now occupied and oper-ated by it. The Rock Creek Company, it seems, is engaged in operating asphaltum mines within another tract embraced in the charter limits of the Davis Mining Company. The controversy arose on the application of the Gilsonite Roofing and Paving Company for a lease of 960 acres, embraoingimprovements made by that company for the purpose of min-ing asphaltum and limestone, to which they claim rights partly under an agreement with the Rock Creek Natural Asphalt Company. This right was contested by the Rock Creek Company, and the right of both com-panies is contested by the Davis Mining Company. The Davis Min-ing Company claims the right under its charter from the Chickasaw Nation, and the other two companies claim the right by reason of the various transactions and agreements between the several parties involved in the controversy and by virtue of the improvements placed by the Gilsonite Roofing and Paving Company on the tract sought to beleaaed by that company. In his report on the controversy Inspector Wright submitted five questions, by request, as follows: First. Do the act of Congress and the treaty referred to abrogate and nullify the charters granted by the Chickasaw Nation where the charter members had not up to April 23,1897, taken actual possession of and developed the mines? Second. In cases where these chax%ered companies had leased the mines claimed to other parties who took possession under such leases and developed the mines and were in possession of themines, operating the samein good faith on April 23,1897, which has the preference right to make the lease from the mining trustees? Third. In cases where the Indian-chartered company leased to so-called capitalists and the capitalists in turn subleased the mining claims to other partias who took possession under such lease, developed |