Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1915-02-27


son it was stricken off or if no one
Knew of the person bearing the name
an investigation was conducted until
the person was verified. Sometimes
the name of one Indian appeared on
several different town censuses,
which was corrected when the town
rolls got to the council of sixteen.
The Dawes commission, Gregory
stated, furnished him with a roll bear
ing names about which it had no def
rite information. on 1t were the
names of Tommy and Minnie Atkins.
For the purpose of finding out about
persons bearing names on that par
ticular roll Gregory said he called
convention, wherein the leading men
sat in EuChee town. The names were
called out, and the persons who were
acquainted with those whose names
were called, or who We're relation to
them, would tell whether they were
living or dead.
Leaves Atkins on Roll.
The name of Tommy Atkins was
left on this roll together with his
other relatives, and Gregory took it
and passed it to the Dawes commits
sion at Okmulgoe as the best facts
obtainable, anent the original roll
given him by the comm, ION. He
said he always made a notation fol-
lowing the names of anyone ascer-
tained to be dead SO that the roll
might be cleared up.
Gregory said it seemed that after
most of the Euchees had filed there
was a number who did not seem to
care to file and many of these we're
. 1trt 10. h,rt 1 Ik,yxr
commission. Among them were the
rnmcs of Minnie and Tommy Atkins.
Gregory said he did not know Minnie
Atkins, but that he knew her brother
and sister, having gone to school with
her brother Her sister was Nancy
Atkins He said he did not know per-
sCnally OF Mlnnie's children. but that
his best und erstanding was she had
two or three children. He did. not
remember distinctly what their names
were, ana he understood that she lived
near Muskogee. He did not remember
that the Atkins names were ques-
toned at any of the conventions or
councils. and council for the plaintiff
were unable to shake him into deviat-
ing from his story as he first told it.
Disinclind to RcCeivcrship.
Immediately before Charles Page
testified, Judge Campbell declared that
so far there had been nothing shown
as to the situation on the land held
under lease by Page and Josey and
which was In controversy.
81 will say in this case. as / have
said in many others" declared the
court, that where it appears the
property has been handled with ap-
proXimate skill and in a workmanllke
manner In the production of oil and
IN serving the interests of the prop
Crty, and where sufficient bond Is
made, / am inclined to leave II where
1t is and not be burdened with re-
Ceivershlp.'
Then following Mr. Pages recital
Of how the lease was being handled,
the court made the remark which
leads this report of the proceedings.
Mr.. Page told the court that he and
Josey had drilled or were drilling II
wells on the Tommy Atkins lease. Five
Of these are in. while there are others
uown 10 the Bartlesville sand. He de-
scribed the Tommy Atkins and said
the Gem had no other adjoining land.
lie told OF the location of wells on
the lease. how offsets had been taken
care OF and said tankage was being
built as rapidly as possible to care
for the oil which could not be dis
posed Of He told that five wells are
making about nine thousand barrels
a day.
Tells OF Expenditures.
Minute and intricate questions were
propounded by the court as to eX-
pendltures made and efforts put forth.
Page declared that he spent from
$500, 900 to S25O,O00 on the property.
It cost. he said. about $1,000 TO put
each well down the $500 feet Many
wooden tanks have been built on the
lease. while ten 55,00O-barrel steel
tanks are building as rapidly as pos
slble. These cost s11. 900 or $4,000
each. The defense made no EFFORT to
show that the operation OF the lease
was faulty.