| OCR Text |
Show 122 REPORT OF THE OOYKIBSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. should beprotected in the right to continue the operation thereof and have the right to renew the same. A further provision of said paragraph is as follows: * * * And all corporations which,under chsrters obtsined in eecordsnce with the laws of the Chieknssw hation, ha l enrlrocl lrplo ancl ~ p m r waln d r e r e nr<!>pyingn rbd op~rdtillg8 "). mine GI coal, w~halrc,. rrlhrr mineral within mid Ch!eka*aur KnriGn shell haven prcferenvt. righi lh lesre themloes orrnnicd and uoerdred bvaurh rurvurarirnr, elltlirct t ,811 rhreeneral i8rort:iullruf *id weement and of these regulations: RwXded. That should there arige s contmversy between two or mow of mch corlnranom the rcrwcnve nghaof ewh shall tc ~hrpmttned sfreran i~mvr,rigntion hy thc I ~WCCWIIw dled ilk the Indian Tenrtrjry, subject 10 spwal to the Con.mirioltrr of Iudmo , l R a i h and IN,", htm tu thes,vn.ran of tbe 1nrr.tior. In pamgaph 10 of aid regulations it is pointed out that all leases made prior to April 23, 1897, by individual members of mid nations were, by the agreement, declared void, and hence that no preference right could he asserted by reason of such a lease, and then it is mid: But parties in possemion of mineral land who have made improvements thereon for the purpose of mining shall have a preferenoe right to lease the land upon wbich aaid impmvemnts hsve been made under the provisions of a i d sgreement and these reguI&tims. While these provisions of the regulations as to claims not based upon a lease rati-fied by aaid agreement are not specifically authorized by any provision of the law, yet the Department having charge of the matter of mineral leases had authority to adopt the plan to the end that parties who had in good faith expended money in the develooment of mininr claims might secure the benefit of such exoenditurea. Ttwrr appii,mre uot lla\-ing an). clilixu to tht. land which io rontirn.rd a.nd ratified tv enid agrecn.mt, the ~ r a n t i ~a~ l~eaosef r ese in the ss)uud discmtionof thr tuinentl Gnstees, &ting under and in conformity with the regulations and subject to the appmvd of the Secretary of the Interior. There being a controversy as to a part of the land, the right to a lease of the tract thua in controvenry, or to the different suh-divisions thereof, should he considered and determined in the mode prescribed by the regulations, and in acwrdance therewith. If, upon the inveatigation by the inspector, as provided in the regulations, no w o n in disclosed for refusing a leaae to either of these partiea for land not claimed by the other, the application shonld be allowed to that extent, and as to the land about which there is a controversy, the fa& as to possession and improvements should be ascertained, to determine the equities of the parties, to the end that each may be given a lease to cover, if possible, the ground upon which he has in good faith made improvement.. Another contest arose in the application of the Brunswick Asphalt Company for a lease to certain land^ in the Chickasaw Nation. W. S. Nelson, of Kansas City, Mo., protested against the leaae being granted to said company. He represented that the lease, if granted at all, should be made in the name of the Hays, Turner &Cooper Mining Company, in which company he claimed an interest, and of which company it appears the Brunswick Asphalt Company is the successor. From the papers submitted by Mr. Nelson it appeared that he entered into a contract with H. A. Kemble & Co., the owners of the stock of the Haya, Turner & Cooper Mining Company, to sell the stock of that concern, and that he went to New York for that pnrpose; that he was about to make a sale of said stock, and so advised H. A. Kemble & Co.; that one Mr. D. J. Calkins, who was a member of the firm of Kemble & Co., went to New York and agreed with Mr. Nelson that if he would surrender his contract with H. A. Kemble & Co. for the sale of the stock of the Hays, Turner Br, Cooper Mining Company, the |
