Entered lands involved: 5 suits outside naval reserves_ 6 suits inside naval reserve (all in No. 2). Unentered lands involved: 14 suits outside naval reserves_ 1 suit inside Naval Reserve No. 1_. 1 suit inside Naval Reserve No. 2. Acres. 1,440. 27 1, 443. 72 2, 516. 79 160.00 480.87 Acreage and estimated future production in naval petroleum reserve No. 2. With respect to Naval Reserve No. 3, in Wyoming, known as the Teapot Dome The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me. Before you leave that No. 2, please identify it on this map [indicating]. And, as these questions are being asked by me, so far as I am concerned, they are for ascertaining the probable value of Naval Reserve No. 2 as a reason for the Navy. Mr. Williams, of the Bureau of Mines, testified that section 9, in township 32 south, range 24 east, is approximately the center of the geological dome in the eastern part of Naval Reserve No. 2. Now, the plat here shows that adjoining that section on the south is section 16, which is known as a school section and is patented land now owned by the Standard Oil Co.; and that section 10, adjoining section 9 on the east, is also patented land, to the Honolulu Oil Co.; and that section 8, adjoining the section 9 on the west, and section 4, adjoining the section 9 on the north, are claimed by the Honolulu Consolidated Oil Co. and are clear listed. What steps were taken before the Land Department before you arrived at that conclusion to clear list those two sections, 4 and 8? Commissioner TALLMAN. For the Honolulu ? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Commissioner TALLMAN. That is another story, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. I assume there was an investigation of it-I know there was-but I want it in the record. Commissioner TALLMAN. Those properties, like all the rest of the claims in this withdrawn area, were very carefully investigated in the field by special agents and mineral examiners; they were investigated along with all the Honolulu properties. The Honolulu Consolidated Oil Co. made an application for patent for 17 quarter sections, for the most part separate applications for each individual quarter. The applications for patent having been made in regular course, they were investigated in the field, particularly on the questions of whether or not there were dummy locators of the claims and whether or not oil was discovered before the withdrawal, or such diligence of operation leading to discovery before the withdrawal order and continued subsequently, as to warrant the issuance of patents as against the effect of the withdrawal. Those reports came into our office. It may have been that reinvestigation of certain features were ordered. I think it was in this case. Some things about the original investigation were not altogether satisfactory, and my recollection is that such features of this case were investigated by different men two or three different times. I can not from memory give exactly what happened in that respect. At any rate, after it was all done we took up all those reports, made a careful study of them in our office, and then is when we prepared the clear-listing memorandum which I signed, which was in effect that there was no sufficient ground, in the judgment of the land office, on which to make an attack on these entries, for the reason that there were dummy entrymen or for the reason that there was neither discovery nor diligent progress of work leading to discovery at the date of withdrawal, with the exception of four quarter sections, against which four quarter sections we preferred the dummy charge. That has gone to a hearing and the hearing has been held, and I think it is before the register and receiver now. The CHAIRMAN. Where are those four quarter sections? Mr. W. A. WILLIAMS. Section 6 is in township 32 south, range 24 east. The CHAIRMAN. I understood you to say a while ago that there was again, subsequently to that time, a protest filed against the issuance of the patents? Mr. TALLMAN. That was entirely a private protest by other people who claimed that they were entitled to have this patent issued to them. The CHAIRMAN. Did it not involve the questions you have mentioned? Mr. TALLMAN. It did not involve these questions I have mentioned here at all. The protest, I may say, was rejected on the ground that it was not a proper matter to be considered by the Land Department; that if the protestants had an interest they should go into the court and have the Honolulu declared a trustee in their behalf. The CHAIRMAN. Concerning the approximate center of this east dome in Naval Reserve No. 2, as established by Mr. Williams-and, by the way, that section No. 9 is marked as "Southern Pacific land"-section 5, section 3, section 17, and section 15, surrounding this section 9, are also marked on this map as Southern Pacific land. Do you know, approximately, the time the patents were issued to the Southern Pacific for that land? Commissioner TALLMAN. No; they were all old patents; all more than six years old when suits were started. I can give you the exact date of patents of each one of those sections if you would like to have it. The CHAIRMAN. Later on we would like to have it. Patented to Southern Pacific Railroad Co. NAVAL RESERVE NO. 1. Patented December 1, 1894: T. 30 S., R. 23 E., Sec. 13, all. T. 31 S., R. 24 E., Sec. 7, SW1 Patented January 25, 1896, T. 30 S., R. 23 E.: Sec. 17, NW1– Sec. 19, NW1 Patented March 12, 1896, T. 30 S., R. 24 E. : Sec. 17, all_. Sec. 19, E, NW. Patented December 2, 1897, T. 30 S., R. 24 E., Sec. 19, SW Sec. 29, all_ Sec. 31, all. Sec. 33, all Patented December 10, 1904, T. 30 S., R. 23 E.: (These are the lands included in the Elk Hills suit (No. 221) won by Government in district court and now pending on appeal.) Sec. 15, all.. Sec. 17, lots 1 to 12, inclusive. Sec. 19, lots 3 to 14, inclusive_ Sec. 21, all_ Sec. 23, all. Sec. 25, all. Sec. 27, all. Sec. 29, all. Sec. 33, all Sec. 35, all. . Total area patented to Southern Pacific Railroad Co. in Naval NAVAL RESERVE NO. 2. Patented December 1, 1894: T. 31 S., R. 23 E. Sec. 25, all_ Sec. 35, all. T. 31 S., R. 24 E., sec. 31, all T. 32 S., R. 23 E. Sec. 1, all_ Sec. 3, all. Sec. 11, all. Sec. 13, all. T. 32 S., R. 24 E. Sec. 3, all. Sec. 5, all_ Sec. 7, all. Sec. 9, all_. Sec. 11, all. Sec. 13, NE. 1, S. 1. Sec. 15, all. Sec. 17, all_ Patented July 27, 1895, T. 32 S., R. 24 E., sec. 13, NW. . 640.00 640. 00 672.00 642.78 641.52 640.00 640.00 632. 80 640. 12 646. 12 640. 00 640. 00 480.00 640. 00 640. 00 9, 475. 34 160.00 Total area patented to Southern Pacific Railroad Co. in Naval 15, 394. 26 Total area patented to Southern Pacific Railroad Co. in Naval 10, 770. 70 Total area patented to Southern Pacific Railroad Co. in both 26, 164. 96 Turning to the west dome in naval reserve No. 2, Mr. Williams has located approximately the center of the geological oil dome there at the intersection of sections 21, 22, 27, and 28. The map discloses that sections 21 and 27 are patented railroad lands. Now, as to sections 28 and 22, what is the condition of the title of that land so far as the Land Office records disclose the fact? Commissioner TALLMAN. I would have to look that up, Mr. Chairman. I would not want to answer your question offhand. The CHAIRMAN. You do not know with your information at present? Commissioner TALLMAN. I haven't it right here before me. I could get it in 20 minutes at the office. The CHAIRMAN. That is in township 31 south, range 23 east. In the meantime we will go to another question and ask Mr. Williams if he is familiar with the two sections spoken of-22 and 28. Mr. W. A. WILLIAMS. Yes. I might say in connection with that in the latter part of January I was in the field Senator CLARK. What year was that? Mr. W. A. WILLIAMS. 1910. And from that time up to the latter part of 1912 my headquarters were at Taft. My duties required me to make daily trips throughout this territory. In fact, I was watching the development for the Associated Oil Co., and at that time there were commercial gas wells on 26, 22, 28, and 20, to my best knowledge. The wells produced from 5,000,000 to 30,000,000 feet of gas by measurement. The CHAIRMAN. On what sections? Mr. W. A. WILLIAMS. Particularly 22, 20, 28, and 26. The CHAIRMAN. In township 30 south, range 23 east? Mr. W. A. WILLIAMS. And I think the records will bear me out in that. They had drilled one well, and had derricks on the other three quarters of each one of those other sections at that time. The CHAIRMAN. As to sections 22 and 28, Mr. Williams. Commissioner TALLMAN. On section 22, I find the following: Southwest quarter included in application for patent 02517, of the J. McLeod Co., reported November 23, 1915, adverse proceedings directed January 6, 1916, on dummy charge, and is now pending hearing report of the register and receiver on that charge. The CHAIRMAN. How many acres does that involve? Commissioner TALLMAN. One hundred and sixty. The northwest quarter is embraced in patent application 03363 and is in the same situation. The southeast quarter and northeast quarter of 22 are in the same identical shape, which makes all of section 22 embraced in the application for patent of the J. M. McLeod Co., and all pending report on hearing ordered through the register and receiver? The CHAIRMAN. On the ground of alleged dummy entries? Commissioner TALLMAN. On the ground of alleged dummy entries. If I am not mistaken, there is a suit pending against the same, is there not, Mr. Williams? Mr. S. W. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. Commissioner TALLMAN. At least, these are what are known as the McMurtry locations, and some of the McMurtry locations are being tried now in the courts. Mr. S. W. WILLIAMS. What section are you talking about? Mr. S. W. WILLIAMS. They are all in 28, all three suits involving dummy charges are in section 28, township 31 south, range 23 east, but we have information tending to show that the same people or people associated with them are making similar claims to the land in section 22. The CHAIRMAN. Did you get your information from the Land Department or your separate agents? Mr. S. W. WILLIAMS. From the Land Department and from the trial of other cases-both. The CHAIRMAN. When was this adverse suit brought? Commissioner TALLMAN. Adverse proceedings were directed by my office. The CHAIRMAN. On what date? Commissioner TALLMAN. January, 1916. The CHAIRMAN. I assume that is the notice you had, Mr. Williams, is it? Mr. S. W. WILLIAMS. I do not know whether, Mr. Chairman, that is the first notice. My information is contained in a report by our counsel, in charge of the litigation, and in support of his statement he furnished statement of the special agent of the Land Office who is assisting him. Commissioner TALLMAN. I will say, also, that in section 28, the north half of the southeast quarter, consisting of 480 acres, embraced in patent application 04655, also dummy, adverse proceedings directed January 10, 1916. The CHAIRMAN. Was the ground of that dummy entry? Commissioner TALLMAN. The ground of that is dummy entry; that is the only charge against it. Mr. FINNEY. Does that cover all the entries there, Mr. Commissioner? Commissioner TALLMAN. Oh, no; that is only 22 and 28. The CHAIRMAN. Let us see what we have with regard to section 26 in that same township-31 south, range 23 east. Commissioner TALLMAN. Of 26 the northeast quarter is in patent application No. 03361; the northwest quarter is in patent application 03362; the southeast quarter in patent application 03360-all for the same parties, proceedings pending in every case. |