Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1912-03-10

sees might turn oil instead of money
over to the Indians as payment for
their royalty. Without impugning
the motives of the lessees, he thought
they might merely traffic in the con-
troll of the lands, instead of actually
developing them.
II am inclined to believe" contin-
ued Mr. Adams, that this is the
proper time to formulate regulations
under which leases may be made in
a competitive way. Then the Osages
could execute, with the approval OF
the secretary of the interior, leases
that would be of the greatest advan-
tage to them. The drilling rights
can be disposed of by written bids or
by action. ] have not considered
that feature. The individual allottee
should be reimbursed for any damag-
es he sustains and that should be
provided for in the regulations,
"A question that must be consd-
cred is whether the leases are to be
made to cover all The territory, as pro-
posed in these four leases or whether
they are to be in smaller portions, I
do not mean to suggest leasing tracts
as small as so or 100 acres, but per-
haps in 1000 or 500-acre lots, so that
the smaller men might have a chance
to bid for the benefit of the tribe.
have not satisfied my own mind what
u, ha In
There was considerable discussion
among members of the tribe over the
provision opposed by Mr.. Adams, but
desired by the Indians for the writtea
consent of allottees before beginning
drilling operations after leases are
made. Mr.. Adams said he not only
thought the requirement for written
consent was bad business for the tribe
but believed it woul5 not be within
the law. The law reserving the min
eral rights for the tribe, he said,
would be nullified If individual allot-
tees could dictate terms on which
drilling operations could be prosecut-
ed.
Alfred II. Brown, principal chief,
said that the tribe had unanimously
opposed the wpitten consent clause
and had instructed the council TO In
sist on that clause. He said he con-
sidered the leases, as offered. were
the best leases in the country.
Mr.. Adams was unyielding in his
opposition to the written consent
Speaking of, royalty of one-sixth.
Mr.. Adams said a great many oil
men had shaken their heads over that
amount, but he was convinced that
under such terms the land would be
developed.
Representative Mcclure of Okla
homa. thought the provision that roy
alties should be paid on the basis OF
oil worth 60 cents a barrel was
good provision. although a reckless
bid on the part of the lessees.
]. F. Palmer and Harry Kohpay in
sisted upon the individual consent
provision as one the tribe was deter
mined upon, but Mr.. Adams again de-
clared his firm conviction against 1t.
both as question Of business and as
a violation Of the law. He favored
the law TO allow individ-
tal consent on land actually being
titled but on wild land and mere pas
ture land he would not consider such
a provision.
Charles ii. Merillat, of Kapler and
Merllat, counsel for the tribe. re-
marked that the law did not forbid
individual consent from Indians &C.
cupying homestesds. Mr.. Adams
agreed to that view and said he would
expect to so protect the homestead
land as we'll as cultivated land.
Harry Kohpay saying that unless
the individual consent provision al
lowed the members Of the tribe would
endeavor to protect themselves in
the courts." Mr.. Adams retorted J
sharply;