Naturally, a question not only of law. but of fact became involved, one of the chief contentions of the Scrippers being that the land was vacant and unoccupied at the time of its selection, while the mineral locators alleged actual possession, and it is generally admitted that in most instances since the origination of the controversies over title to the lands, oil has been found thereon in paying quantities.
The present holding of the Interior Department is that a person who has made a selection under the Act of June 4. 1897, acquires no title thereto, although the land taken was "vacant land, open to settlement."' and in the condition prescribed by the statute, unless the selector at the time of selection made affidavit that the land was wholly unoccupied. It was the contention of the Scrippers that land was subject to selection under the above Act, notwithstanding it was occupied, unless the occupant had some legal right to the property, but that, even if wrong in this view, they contended that the selector acquired a good title if the land was in fact unoccupied when selected, although no affidavit to that effect was filed at the date of selection.
It would thus seem that the inception of the trouble between the mineral locators and Scrippers was due to the fact that the mining claims were required to be filed in the United States Land Office of the district where the land was situated instead of in the County Recorder's office. By the latter process the claimant in the land office did not become cognizant of any conflicting entries, because the records there showed the tract to be vacant; and the mineral locator was kept in equal ignorance of the situation, because there was nothing in the County Recorder's office showing the existence of any bona fide title to give him notice that the land was not subject to mineral entry.
It would appear that the logical remedy under the circumstances would be to make it obligatory that all claims of whatsoever character affecting title to the public domain should not only be filed in the local land office, but also placed on the records of the County where the land is situated. The forest reserve lieu land Act of June 4, 1897, has since been repealed, although the cases affecting the issues involved are still pending in the Courts. I shall only discuss them hereafter as they apply to the salient features of my story, as the details are too intricate to be properly considered in the space at my command.
Suffice to say that among those who became interested in the acquisition of title to these oil lands by process of forest reserve lieu selections were William H. Crocker, a prominent capitalist of San Francisco; William Singer, Jr., of the Southern Pacific law department, besides Charles F. Gardner, Harry V. Reardan. George E. Whitaker, a trio of San Francisco attorneys, and Wellington Gregg, Jr., and George T. Cameron, the two latter acting in the capacity of agents for Crocker, who was always a silent partner in matters of this kind, although it was common knowledge that he was the financial backer of the scheme to secure control of much of these lands by the "Scripper" process.
Through Charles E. Swezy, a land lawyer of Marysville, Cal., this combination had filed on several thousand acres of presumed oil land in the Kern River field under the "scripper law," and in each instance it produced a conflict with some mineral entry. In consequence a great many animosities were aroused, with the result that threats of violence were made frequently against the so-called "Scrippers" by the oil men.
It was during this acute stage that I was engaged by the associates of Crocker to go into the affected district and take possession of the northeast quarter and north half of the southeast quarter of Section 4, Township 29 South, Range 28 East, Alt. Diablo Base and Meridian, upon which a forest reserve lieu selection had been filed. This tract embraced 240 acres of the most valuable oil land then known in the Kern River fields, and a portion thereof was being operated by Joseph A. Chanslor and Charles A. Canfield under a lease from the mineral locators of the "June Bug" claim. They had installed a Standard rig on the ground, and were preparing to drill for oil, and in order to prevent themPage 396
