OCR Text |
Show I REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONEB OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. 107 conditions in a particular case where a party would have the preference right to lease on account of the improvements placed on the tract, although operations were commenced after April 23, 1897; but this preference right would not be a right under the agreement, but might arise under the regulations and the general rules of equity in the interest of justice and right. The fifth question was answered by the office in the negative, that is, that it would not be lawful for any person or corporation occupying a tract under a lease entered into before the adoption of the agreement to pay royalty to individual lessors. The agreement having annulled all individual leases, it could not be lawful for a lessee or an individual to pay any royalty to his lessor. As to the other three questions which were submitted by the inspector, the office held that the Davis Mining Company had no right to demand a lease under its charter of the tracts which the Rock Creek Company and the Gilsouite Roofing and Paving Compauy had occupied and improved; that the lease from the Davis Company to the Rock Creek Company, or to one Dennis, and the various subleases by him to the Rock Creek Compa,ny and the Gilsouite Roofing and Paving Company being invalid, contrary to law and void, said leases did not affect the rights of the parties to the tracts occupied by them, and the rights of the partiee must be determined wording to the regulations which refer-red to improvements made on the lauds. The conclusion was reached, therefore, that the Rock Creek Natural Asphalt Compauy and the Gil-sonite Roofing and Pavingcompany are both trespassers on the pi~blic domain of the Chickasaw Nation without any legal right whatever; that the partiee must be dealt with purely from the standpoint of equity as set forth in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the regulations of the Department, and that each company would be entitled under said regu-lations to lease only those tracts upon which they have, respectively, made improvements in good faith, believing that they had rights in law upon the lands thus improved, and no prior lease from one to the other would be considered as being of any effect whatever, and the rights of parties must be determined exclusively upon their improvements on the lands, each being permitted tolease the tract occupied by it respectively. Oue other matter was involved in the contest over these leases for the mining of asphalt, and that was the jurisdiction of the court to interfere with the investdgatious of the officers of the Interior Depart-ment with reference to the making of leases. In this contest it seems that Inspector Wright had made an appointment to take testimony as to the respective rights of the parties, and had proceeded to the place at the time designated, and on entering upon the investigation it was found that one of the parties-the Rock Creek Asphalt Compauy-had applied to the court and obtained an injunction against the other parties to the controversy, restraining them from making application or taking any steps to secure a lease. In view of the action of the court |