El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1910-09-21
WEST TT1As OH. MIDDLE.
Big Springs, Tex, Sept.

Big Springs, Tex, Sept IL
Editor Ell Paso Herald:
To have two owners of the same land
In west Texas is an absurdity, and I'M
constitutional, says almost every prom
inent attorney in the state, ana
breeder of much contention and blood
shed.
Is if right and just for the state to
advertise her lands, sell them, and In
many cases before the three years OF
hardship have been lived out. the state
will attempt to sell the bottom OF
your land to a stranger.
Even if the state had such right
to resell this land, should not the first
purchaser who was living out his full
| three years on the land, have the first
privilege to purchase the bottom Of
| his own land, over a stranger who is
not REQUIRED to live even one hour on
the bottom Of this land.
What will this complication, this in
| Justice, lead to, if continued? 1t VIII
cause more contention, and more blood
| shed in west Texas, than anything that
/ cou1d happen. Could anyone blame
west Texas for desiring that the state
be divided, when she sees that her
| neighbors. her citizens are not being
| fairly treated?
! We admit that the state has right
to reserve her mineral grounds. and al
| lot it to prospectors in claims OF bOo
bv 1900 feet, for $500 worth of work
! done on each claim, or at any price she
NAV desire to charge, or on royalty
| basis But the state has no right 10
first sell this mineral land, as grazing
land or as dry farming land, requiring
| thai three wears shall be lived on same
! bv the purchaser, then later sell 1t as
! mineral land. If such ridiculous ideas
| prevail. an ownership can as well De
| declared on the top and bottom OF the
! pure air that is above these sections
and the top man of the land could then
be charged by the bottom man OF the
air for the pure air that he breathes.
| MANY prominent attorneys claim that
II IS unconstitutional to sell and de-
! liver title to two distinct ownerships
! Of the same land, and that the one who
| first STARTED such an idea, had wheels
| in his head" and the further such an
! idea goes, the larger the wheel grows.
To show those interested and those
| in authority at Austin how ridiculous
! Is such an idea; the right or 1ngress
! and egress being claimed reserved for
the bottom man. If such a sale was
cor stitutionaI and legitimate, then the
hottorn man should have complete con-
troll of the bottom. In like manner the
ton man should have complete control
| of the top And the top man has the
right to say in what manner the bot
tom man may come on the top land
and in what manner the bottom man
NAV go out; also If the bottom man
NAV enter afoot, or by horseback. OF
hv train or balloon, or biplane. Also
II is at the option and full privilege
of the top man to say how long the
bottom man may stop on the top man
land. Also it Is the privilege and right
of the top man to allow, or not allow
snv improvements desired to be made
by the bottom man, on the top mans
land.
If the state owns any land that Is
not already sold, she can put her price
of SO or $4,000 per acre on same; but
she has no right to sell the bottom
of land already sold.
Well No of the Texas company was
shot on the eve of September IA, using
24O quarts Of nitro. and the oil gushed
so feet above the "a foot derrick. At
ter flowing oil some six or eight min
utes the valve was turned and the well
was under complete control. This well
! is very near the south line of section
No s. A noted expert has reported that
every acre of land in sections No s. II
and IL was worth $4,000 per acre. and
that the dip of this oil basin was south
| towards section No. A, in block No
80. and on south towards sections No
~, 43, A and 45, in block No. II, and