Evening star., 1930-12-01
OIL CONSERVATION
POLICY OF HOOVER
UPHELD IN COURT
(continued From First Page.) )

dent" He also attacks the applicable
| ity Of the decisions relied on In the ma
jority opinion and points out that the
| applicant, Barton, possessed all the
qualifications necessary under the leas-
ing act to entitle him to a permit, and
but for the order of suspension Wilbur
! would have been obliged to grant his
application.
THE court rs ca:.ed upon here" says
Justice Van Orsdel in his dissent, Ito
determine purely questions of law, and
it is irnmaterial whether or 5000
or 10000 applicants would be affected
by the courts decision. Neither in the
agitated state Of the public mind should
the fact that this is an oil case entitle
it to any particular sanctity in the
eyes of the law or furnish adequate
private property rights by judicial de-
cree"
The opinion was rendered in the case
of Roy G. Barton, who had filed an ap-
plication at Las Cruces, N. Mex, and
who was represented by Attorney James
Conlan and Attorney Lewis E. Hoffman,
formerly connected with the Depart
ment Of the Interior. Four other cases
involving the same subject-matter are
affected by the courts opinion.
These cases attracted such interest
that the attorney generals of the
States of wyoming, New Mexico and
Colorado obtained consent of the court
and filed briefs as friends of the
court" in opposition to the action OF
Secretary Wilbur.
May Go to Supreme Court.
The District or Columbia Supreme
Court, in opinions by Justice Frederick
L. Siddons and Justice Jennings Bailey,
I, Ator 6od nNnon6nfi
authority by the order of suspension,
and directed writS of mandamus re-
curing the reinstatement Of the appll-
carlts for permits. The United States
Supreme Court will probably be called
ON to review today's decision.
The question to be decided, says the
majority opinion of Justice Robb. are
whether the orders of the Secretary
amounted to a temporary withdrawal
of the public land from location, entry
and exploration for the purpose OF dis
covering oil or gas and assuming the
withdrawal did the mere filing OF an
application for a prospecting permit
initiate a right III the applicant that
could not be affected by the with
drawal. He quotes decisions sustaining
the Presidents right to make with
drawals and the right Of the Executive
to speak through the heads OF the
several departments and reaches the
conclusion that the orders Of Secretary
announced policy of the President were
acouiesced in by him and were In legal
contemplation the acts Of the Presi-
dent.
AS to the right of the applicant, JUS
tice Robb points out that under the
general mining laws citizen was free
to 90 upon the public domain. He did
the work necessary to discover min
erals. staked lis claim, recorded notice
in the mining district or county rec
ords and his rights became nxed.
!, This was true as to public lands con-
tanning oil and gas until the act of Feb
ruary Is, 1920, under which he no
longer had the right to go upon public
lands to prospect for Oil or gas unless
permitted to do so by the Secretary OF
the Interior. Under the new law he
must apply for the privilege and until
a permit is granted he has no vested
interest.
"It is apparent" says Justice Robb.
that Congress recognized tnat tne mere
confers no vested rights upon the ap-
plicant, but that If permit be issued
and he goes on the land and makes
discovery he has such an interest, as
must be recognized. Congress, of course,
knew that II changed conditions rem
dered advisable the temporary with
drawal by the Executive of the public
lands from further exploration, thou
sands Of such applications for permits
might be pending. 1t was careful,
therefore, to distinguish between an ap-
plication for a permit and the rights
that might be acquired under an issued
permit"