The Glacier reporter. [volume] (Browning, Mont.) 1953-current, 1961-11-16
From The Sidelines
BY Iliff Mckay

ed in a controversy involving the
wrongful removal by certain oil
operators Of some $500. 900 worth
Of oil from land belonging 10 the
Tribe. Locally, this controversy
is referred TO as the Sherman
Case" or the Sherman Deal";
as the owner Of the surface rights
TO this land has been determin-
ed 10 be the heirs of Geneyieve
Sherman. an enrolled member
of the Blackfeet Tribe. Some IS
or 80 years ago. the original al
lOttee of the surface rights 10
this land exchanged the land
for other land on the Blackfeet
Indian Reservation. When the ex-
change was made. according 10
the Department of the Interior.
the trust deeds TO the land should
have shown that the mineral
rights were reserved TO the
Blackfeet Tribe; but again &C
cording 10 the Interior Depart
ment, the trust deeds showed no
such reservation. Some years
later, the land was leased for
oil and gas mining purposes In
the name Of Genevieve Sher-
man or her heirs. But two years
ego, the error made at the time
the trust deeds were issued for
the land was discovered and new
deeds issued. The new deeds
correctly showed tagain accord
ing to the Department of the
INTERIOR that the minerals to the
land rightfully belonged TO the
Blackfeet Tribe. As a result of
the discovery Of these errors, the
oil operators who had leased the
land were notified that their
lease was null and void. and that
they were in trespass when they
went upon the land and removed
oil therefrom-
One question will no doubt
arise at this point: Why wasn't
the oil operator notified in the
beginning that the mineral rights
10 the land belonged TO the
Blackfeet Tribe instead of TO
the heirs of Genevieve Sherman
The answer TO this question is
relatively simple. When you buy
property from anyone, II Is ac-
tually in the name Of the seller
and that he has the right 10 sell
IL. This is commonly called
title search" or "abstracting.
This same principle applies when
you lease land. You. the lessee
must search the records and de
p termine that the person claiming
TO be the landowner has the
right 20 lease the land.
But back to the controversy.
when the operators were noti-
fled that their lease was null and
void, the Bureau Of Indian Az
fairs asked the Tribal Council
10 sign a lease 10 the operators
without anything begin paid TO
the Tribe for the $500. 900 worth
Of oil removed from the land
The Tribal Council refused TO
do this. Then, after much nego-
tiation, the operators offered 10
pay the Tribe Sl04. 900 TO sign a
lease TO the operators ratifying
or approving the past acts of
the operators removing the oil
from the land. The Tribal Coun-
ell tentatively agreed TO accept
this settlement: but in the mean
time. the entire matter was re-
ferred by the Interior Depart
ment 70 the u. 6. Justice Depart
ment. and the U. S. Attorney was
instructed TO file suit against
the operators 10 recover the full
value Of the oil removed from
the land (which is $500. 000). When
advised OF this. the Tribal Coun-
ell went on record 10 take no
further action in the matter as
the case was in the hands Of the
U. s. Attorney.
In a letter 20 me dated October
q. 1861 Gin response 10 a letter
from mel the Assistant U. s. At
torney General IN Washington.
ID. c. informed RE that his De
partment intends 10 take APP
propriate and vigorous action TO
protect the rights and interests
OF the United States and the
Blackfeet Tribe in this controver-
sy.- In q letter dated October
Is 1861 the U. s. Attorney for
Montana. Mr.. Brockett, inform
ed me that the tribe could rest"
assured that he has az no time
time recommended nor does he
intend 10 recommend settlement
Of the claim for any figure as
Inadequate as 100000"
Mr. Brickett also said that II
was his irtention TO -file suit
for the fun amount Of the dam.
ages within the next 90 days
This means that the full amount
of $500 900 will be demanded by
the Government In the name OF
the Blackfeet Tribe.
In view Of these facts. ! am
sure that the U. S. Attorney can