Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1915-02-11
Enforcement of Bill Wo.
Impair Contracts for
Long Terms
WILL NOT SIGN THE
MEASURE AT ONCE
Sections > and 4 of the Pro
posed Law Attacked AS
Unconstitutional.
Snccinl 10 Tho World

Special to Tho World
NKLAHOMA CITY Feb 10
~ That tho enforcement Of the oil
conservation bill, passed by the leg
lslature and now up to the governor
for his approval or dsapproval'
would impair contracts already for
terms beyond when the bill would
go into effect, and also cause shut
down In the oil fields, was the bur
den of argument OF those opposing
executive approval of the bill, In Il
meeting before Governor Williams to-
day.
oil men from all parts of the state,
and representatives Of different feat
ures of the oil industry, appeared
and offered reasons why the bill
should not become "a law.
The question OF impairment of
contracts was raised by w. A. Led
better and George A. Ramsey, the
latter OF Muskogee and both repre-
senting oil men who have existing
contracts on long terms. The argu-
ment against the proposed legislation
was directed to sections 2 and or
the new bill, and tho provisions were
attacked rs unconstitutional The at
tempt OF the state to prohibit pro-
ducer to take oil from his own lease
under an existing contract made be-
fore the proposed measure becomes
effective. would be n big question,
said Mr.. Ramsey. and he designated
ha 1 a
powers to the corporation commits
sion, which body is given power by
the bill to enforce It's provisions. The
fact that no OIL could be taken from
a lease except at price that must be
fixed through process of determin-
ing the market value by cost of pro-
ductlon and other means would, In
the opinion Of Mr. Ramsey be an at
tempt at taxing the price that would
prohibit the producer from his free
right OF bargaining his own produc-
ton.
Could Fix Maximum Price.
At a suggestion from Governor
Williams, both agreed that the COM
mission might be sustained In fixing
a maximum price OF crude Oil but
neither they nor the state could pro-
hibit u producer from selling at a less
price than that which might be
fixed The right OF the state 10 pro-
tect It's natural resources against
wanton waste was not disputed. but
an attempt was made to define waste
as that which would occur In case
oil could be sold for a price sought
TO be fixed by deduction that might
be subject to any dispute, and less
than what might be termed a public
calamity. II was contended that tho
owners OF the leases now I'm existence
have vested right in those leases
and could not be disturbed by legisla-
tive action, that II such was at
tempted. contracts would be i'm
paired, and this the owned was safe
guarded by the state and federal con-
stitutions. one portion Of the bill In
section 4. Mr.. Ramsey construed.
would give tho corporation commits
sion the right TO suppress produc-
tlon I'm one oil field az against an
other and this would be directly dis
crimiuatory.
Loss to Rcfinerics.
Mr. Ramsey declared that refiners
were not at the present time making
any money I'm the oil business. and
being asked why by the governor, re-
piled that he might refer to the cor
poration commission for solution OF
II. Mr.. Ramsey observed that the
state might legislate to protect It's
resources I'm preventing waste. but he
did not think II could delegate such
powers to the corporation commits
sion. Governor Williams suggested
that government control of big busl-
Continued on Page Two)