Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1914-06-09
OIL DECISION
IS OF Interest
IQLOCA men

San Francisco papers make extens-
i've quotations from Federal Judge
Dcoling's recent decision against the
government, in which the right of the
executive to withdraw oil lands is
denied. AS previously reported here,
the question is now before the su-
preme court upon a similar Case from
Wyoming.
According to the reports there is
likely to be a great deal Of fresh liti-
cation upon the relation of entries
upon lands involved to the dates Of
presidential orders. The order Of
President Taft held by the Wyoming
and the California judges to be in
valid was made September q, 1909
without authority of Congress, but he
made an. order of withdrawal of the
same lands on July 2, 1910. but this
time with the authority of Congress
voted to him a few days previously.
On May 80 l:sst the senate passed a
bill authorizing the government to
lease oil and gas lands, but not in ex-
cess of 1860 acres u ole person, as
ISOLATION or corn)ril!ioI. The royalty
to be charged is hot to exceed one
eighth of the oil or gas extracted or
produced. This is measure for the
relief of such operators as may be
found illegally holdiug and developing
oil and gas lands. Following are some
Of the expressions OF Judge Dooling.
which have reference to the order OF
September, 1909:
THE PRONUNCIATION of the order in
question I bei:eve &c be but one mani
sestation of c. growing tendency to
concentrate liz tie executive more of
power than can be traced to any spe-
Cific constitutional or legislative pro-
vision. AS this tendency, in the pres
emit instance leads 10 an encroach-
ment upon the domain of the Con
gress, / am not wiring to further 1t
by any decree OF this court.
1T is clear that no general power
OF withdrawal exists, and while
withdrawal orders have been fire.
quently upheld, find no case broad
enough to cover the withdrawal of
over 5000 600 acres of laad from the
operation of the mineral land laws,
whether in aid of proposed legisla-
tion,' as stated in1 the order, or. for
the purpose VI securing a supply of
fuel oil for the navy, as stated in
the bill"
While the bill declares the pur-
pose of the withdrawal To have been
Oil, the order itself makes no such
declaration, but states tie purpose to
De in aid of proposed legislation af-
feeting the use OF tie petroleum depo-
sits of the pubic domain. The bill
as originally fled contained no ref
elence to the Use Of the oil by the
navy, but this Iyerment vas added by
an amendment made on The very day
the motion % dismiss was called for
argument, although the bill itself had
beer filed mora than year before.
Il am fully aware Of the import
ance of this and kindred cases be-
cause of the magnitude of the inter-
ests involved. But they are still
more important because of the legal
principles upon which they must be
determined. The effect of the order
of withdrawal of September q, 1909,
whatever it's purpose. was practically
to suspend the operation OF the min
eral law as applied to the petroleum
deposits of the public domains. If
such rover exists, the plaintiff should
be able to point to some clear legis-
lative or constitutional provision upon
which it rests. l am not content to
seek for it in the dicta of decisions,
or in some shadowy twilight zone
lying between the powers expressly
granted 70 the Congress- and the DOW
ers expressly granted to the presi-
dent"