The Washington times., 1915-12-23

These persons or companies, in the
view of the department, are made tres
passcrs under present law. The depart"
ments statement on the subject declares
that II the trespasses were merely TECH
nical, a temporary suspension Of prose-
cutions might be eXcusable; but 1t Is
declared that some Of the trespasses in
volve continuing, enormous. and irrep-
arabic losses to the country.
There Is a sharp conflict between the
views of the Oil Industry Associs ton
OF California and those Of the depart
ment concerning the results to be At
tanned through the prosecutions. The
oil people have argued that continued
prosecutions. csmpelln. the suspen-
sion OF operations, might result in let
ting water into the ol-bearinc strata
and ruin the field by drowning it. ON
vigorously insists that in many in
stances only through the intervention
Of tn" courts can the disposal and waste
of oil, and the damage to remaining
deposits due to negligent operation. he
in any wise checked or mitiga ted"
Tho Oil Industry association petitio'.-
ed the Attorney General to make pub
lie announcements that would he r'-
assuring to the oil and general business
interests Of the coast. Referring TO the
suits already begun, ii asked the At
torney General to announce that '"N-
Cept in such special instances as a."
unavoidably necessary. no further suiis
will he brought or receivers appointed.
pending a settlement Of the difficulties
in this situation by Congressional legiS-
lation." This. the department felt NJ
able to promise: and its explanation
of it's reasons indicates that there VIII
hc vigorous opposition to what the oil
men regard as absolutely necessary re-
lief legislation.
Legality Not Doubted.
rfI Of
the withdra walls Of 1909 and subsequent
ones are OF such established Legality
that there can be no question on this
point. 1t argues thus:
The first withdrawal was in Septem-
Der, 1909. But many companies and
individuals declined to respect this ac-
ton, and entered upon the lands and
began taking Oil. Others. who had
| planned TO explore some of these with
| drawn lands. deferred their operations
and treated the Presidents order as
| valid. Some OF thes" were superacded
and II the departments information is
| correct We're ousted by more adven-
| tnrous competitors who were willing to
stake their Investments on the specula
| tive hope that the withdrawal would
| be held void
But the supreme Court. In the Mid
| West Oil case. held that the Withdrawals
were valid: while Congress in June. 1910
passed the Picket bill specifically au-
| thorizing the President to make such
| withdrawal. Immediately after this
| ma ssed the President made new orders
| withdrawing more lands and reaffrm-
ing the former orders.
To complete the showing OF Congress
! sional intent II Is pointed out by the
| department that onlv last March Con
gross appropriated $50. 100 ito enable the
Attorney General to represent and pro-
| tect the interests OF the United States In
! matters and suits affecting withdrawn
| oil lands" AS the Departments views II
! this is tantamount 10 a direction that
| the lands be protected from unlawful in
| trlsion and Is the latest expression OF
| Congress on the subject. An Attorney
General who remained passive under
| such circumsta nces and failed to protect
| the interests OF the Government would
| he subject to proper and severe criti'
! Cism."
Question Concerns Merits.
Thus. from the technical legal side. the
Government Ia in a position that the law