Volume 17 , Issue 22

1917 Marland Lease Controversy Is Taken To Court

Reading and searching through old newspaper, particularly The Oklahoma City Times, 21 September 1917, frontage headline, we found the following headline: "Marland Lease Controversy Is Taken To Court." The Attorney General would stop releasing of oil land.

An injunction suit to prevent the releasing of the famous Marland tracts under the preference right was filed in district court by Attorney General S. P. Freeling at the instance of Governor Williams. Members of the school land commission and lessees on the Marland tracts were named as defendants in the suit.

Although Governor Williams was opposed to the sale of the leases he was made one of the defendants in the suit because he was a member of the state land commission. Other embers of the commission who were made party defendants were J. L. Lyon, secretary of state; R. H. Wilson, state superintendent; Frank M. Gault, president of the board of agriculture; E. B. Howard, state auditor, and A. M. McKinney, secretary of the state land commission. The following lessees were also named as defendants: Kay and Kiowas Oil company, J. L. Nations, H. M. Morgan, Arkansas Valley Oil and Gas company, Devonian Oil company, Selby Oil and Gas company and J. B. Grieves.

The petition asked for a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from granting any oil leases in the Marland tract under the preference right clause and to restrain the oil company's named as the lessees from exercising any legal or preference right to these oil and gas leases.

A clash of authority at once followed the filing of the suit. The leases had been ordered advertised for releasing under the preference right by the school land commission. In the injunction suit the state asked a temporary restraining order to prevent the advertising of the leases. Ledbetter and Hayes, attorneys for Marland, declared to the court that they represented both the majority members of the school land commission and the lessees and gave assurance that a temporary restraining order was not necessary as the majority of members of the board would not allow the advertising to proceed.

Then Secretary of State J. L. Lyon and Frank M. Gault, president of the board of agriculture, both members of the school land commission, ordered the advertising stopped. This was to make a temporary restraining order unnecessary as they want the case to be argued on a permanent restraint order at once, so the case may be decided on its merits.

Mr. Lyon, after a conference with Mr. Gault, said, "We will fight the suit to the last ditch. The governor has caused this action to be taken and it puts the board in the peculiar position of facing a suit in which the attorney general's department appears as representing both sides."

"As far as I am concerned, as a member of the board, I am through with the attorney general's department. We will have a meeting tomorrow and probably at that time will select some one to appear for the board."

The removal of Governor Williams as chairman of the school land commission and the ousting of Guy F. Nelson, assistant attorney general as attorney for the board, is forecast by Mr. Lyon. He said the majority of the board probably would consider both actions.

Mr. Gault said he might employ an attorney to represent him personally in the suit. "I would rather pay for an attorney out of my own pocket than as a member of the board, to feel that I was not represented in this matter and that the interests of the state were not being protected."

The filing of the suit came with two members of the land commission out of the city, Howard and Wilson. It was expected that Mr. Wilson would return that night and upon his return a conference would be held at which the course of the board would be mapped out.

The school land commissioners had been divided into two camps on the Marland preference right question. Governor Williams had contended that the exercise of the preference right was unconstitutional and in this he had been opposed by the other four members of the commission.

There was no doubt but what the majority members of the commission would oppose the injunction suit to prevent the releasing of the land under the preference right and they doubtless would employ attorneys to represent them, because of the fact that Mr. Nelson, the assistant attorney general assigned to represent the board, had declared right unconstitutional.
  |  View or Add Comments (0 Comments)   |   Receive updates ( subscribers)  |   Unsubscribe

---