The Washington times., 1905-02-25
The Foster Lease.

Congress has asked OF the Interior
Department all the information in
its possession concerning the much
discussed Foster lease of certain oil
lands in the Usage Indian Reservation.
When that information reaches the
Capitol and has been carefully
scanned in committee, there will be
much ground for surprise If Congress
does not oppose renewal OF the
lease.
A certain Edwin B. Foster per-
suaded the Interior Department TO
issue this lease in 1896 It's term was
defined in the instrument itself as ten
years. Since then it has been twice
conveyed away, so that the present
holders-whoever they may be-staGd
in the light of purchasers, with their
eyes open, Of ali the rights granted
by the lease, and of nothing more
This third lessee has subdivided the
ground covered in the lease and sub
let those subdivisions to practical oil
we'll operators; and these operators,
: AAt NAtSA4 Soi As hGfO WC1iS anu
erected the machinery incidental TO
the production of oil.
For the use Of this ground and the
right to produce oil the present lease
holding company pays the Indians a
royalty Of 10 per cent of all the value
of the oil produced and the actual
operators pay to the holders of the
lease royalty of 16 2-3 per cent.
The President and his Cabinet have
determined to renew this ten-yeaf
lease. They base their decision on
the fact that the well operators have
spent large sums in sinking their
shafts and erecting other structures.
But this contention does not con-
vince The Times that it IS wise TO
renew the lease. On the contrary it
points clearly to an altogether differ
ent course
In the first place the men or the
companies which sank those shafts
and set up the other structures did so
with the termination OF the Foster
lease clearly before them They did
not buy the right to occupy ground
indefinitely. They bought the right
to occupy it. with whatever machin-
cry they chose to install. only for the
unexpired years of the original lease.
And they knew it
Nothing could be better established
under the law than that the erection
OF buildings on leased ground gives
the lessee no new right to the ground.
Indeed, nothing could be better estab-
lished than the contrary principle,
that all fixed buildings erected In
leased ground pass to the owner OF
the ground on the expiration Of the
lease.
The Government is, therefore, un-
der no obligation whatever to protect
these operators. But, If it chooses to
do so, why must it be through the
medium of parent" company at an
avoidable cost to the operators Of
6 2-3 per cent? Why not lease the
ground to the operators themselves
Or why not give the Indians this roy
why not assess the operators the gen
eral rate elsewhere in force, which
IS u IL per cent, and. thus give the
Indians the royalty paid elsewhere?
Furthermore, would it not be bet
ter to destroy this Foster lease alto
gether? It has been often denounced
by the department. 1t has always
been under suspicion and the depart
ment once went so far as TO abrogate
1t. AS for the Indians they have pro-
tested against it from the very day it
was executed.
e the Administration thinks it best
TO continue the privileges now held
by these operators let it do so direct
ly. Further tinkering with this mall
odorous Foster lease is akin to invit-
ing scandal.