No. 3, and that as to said strip of lands covered by the proposed double line of offset wells they would not surrender their possessory title thereto, except and only in event a lease was by said corporations secured thereon, and that as to remaining lands to which they held possessory claims they would secure leases wherever possible or would otherwise dispose of said claims and rights to the best advantage to themselves and plaintiff, and as to said offset wells lands would make no sale or other disposition of their mining titles without consent of this plaintiff and as to such lands would grant plaintiff a full and undivided 5 per cent nonassessable working interest in any lease or contracts which they should obtain from the United States of America to drill and develop said lands by said double row of offset wells (after first deducting the amount of oil or other royalties reserved to the United States); and as to the remaining lands, they would give to this plaintiff 5 per cent undivided working interest in any interest they might acquire in any contract or lease obtained by them, or either of them, under their said mineral claims or upon their lease applications; or in or to whatever interests they might ultimately obtain from said lands, all in consideration that plaintiff would release said Doheny from said contract of January 7, 1921; and defendants further represented to plaintiff and agreed that plaintiff would be required to and given opportunity in person to continue and assist in negotiations with the Navy and Interior Departments in securing said proposed contracts and leases, and that said defendants, by reason of the control of the oil production and transportation in Wyoming then had by the Standard Oil Co. of Indiana, and its subsidiary corporations, could, and that they would, develop and market the oil deposits within the said naval reserve No. 3 to the mutual profit and advantage of said subsidiaries and plaintiff, and to greater advantage of plaintiff than he could hope to secure from his then existing contract with Doheny, and that Doheny desired release from said contract.

Plaintiff believed and relied upon each of said representations and agreements, and in consideration thereof and of the representations and agreements of the parties to said contract as in the contract recited, plaintiff entered into that certain contract and agreement by and between plaintiff and Pioneer Oil & Refining Co. and Societe Belgo-Americaine des Petroles du Wyoming of date December 31, 1921, a true copy of which contract of December 31, 1921, is hereto attached, marked "Exhibit 1," and made a part of this complaint, and plaintiff thereupon, in behalf and in reliance upon each of said representations, did release said Doheny from all obligation and liability to plaintiff under and by reason of said contract of January 7, 1921. Plaintiff and Doheny have each duly performed and observed all the terms and conditions of said contract, including specifically all terms and conditions set forth in paragraph 4 thereof. 4. Defendants (except Pioneer Oil & Refining Co.) at the time of making said representations set forth in paragraph 3 hereof, and at time of making said contract, Exhibit 1 hereof, in violation of their duty to plaintiff in the premises and intending maliciously to injure plaintiff and wrongfully to benefit themselves, did secretly, wrongfully, and unlawfully confederate and conspire to cause said Pioneer Oil & Relning Co. and said Societe Belgo-Americaine des Petroles du Wyoming to wholly abandon all their said applications for leases, to refuse and neglect to apply for a lease upon said double row of offset wells land, and to surrender and abandon all their oil placer mining locations without consideration and otherwise to wholly break and violate said contract of December 31, 1921, Exhibit 1 hereof, and thereafter said defendant, Pioneer Oil & Refining Co., having full knowledge of the purpose and malice of said conspirators, did for the sole purpose of aiding said conspirators to so injure plaintiff and so wrongfully benefit themselves consent to and actually break and violate said contract, Exhibit 1, as hereinafter alleged; and so to maliciously injure plaintiff and so wrongfully to benefit defendants as herein charged, and in pursuance of said conspiracy, defendants (except Pioneer Oil Refining Co. and Mammoth Oil Co.) had already agreed among themselves that said lease applications and titles should be abandoned and defendant Sinclair or his nominee should secure leases from the United States upon said lands.

And said defendant Aitken, for himself and as agent and spokesman for the other defendants (except Mammoth Oil Co.), from time to time between January 1 and April 1, 1922, advised plaintiff that such defendants were actively proceeding and favorably progressing in the efforts to secure the leases and contracts contemplated and agreed for in said contract Exhibit 1, when in truth and in fact defendants, as said Aitken well knew, had already agreed to cause said defendant Pioneer Oil & Refining Co., and Societe Belgo-Americaine des Petroles du Wyoming to abandon and surrender their mineral claims and lease

applications in said Exhibit 1 mentioned, without adequate or just consideration and to permit defendant Sinclair to negotiate and secure a contract or lease upon all said lands in naval reserve No. 3, which said lease or contract, as defendants well knew, could not be granted except upon a surrender of title to said mineral claims to the United States; from time to time during the months of February, March, and April, 1922, plaintiff requested of defendant Aitken that he be sent to Washington to continue his previous negotiations and to aid and assist in carrying on the (as he supposed) negotiations with the Navy and Interior Departments to secure the leases provided for in his contract, Exhibit 1 hereto attached, and as agreed between plaintiff and defendants (except Sinclair and Mammoth Oil Co.), but said defendant Aitken, acting for himself and his coconspirators, assured plaintiff that satisfactory progress was being made in such negotiations when in truth and in fact, as said Aitken then well knew, defendants had already agreed among themselves that no such contract or lease should be taken and no effort was being made to secure such contracts or leases; plaintiff is informed and believes and so charges the fact to be that during the month of March, 1922, the defendant Aitken and his coconspirators then well knowing the terms of said contract Exhibit 1 and the duty, promises, and agreements of defendants to plaintiff in relation thereto as alleged in paragraph 3 hereof, did appear before the Secretary of the Interior, and in order to aid and assist said Sinclair to secure a lease upon said naval reserve No. 3 lands, and to defraud plaintiff, as above alleged, did represent to said Secretary that defendant Sinclair had acquired all right, title, and interest in and to the mineral claims mentioned in the contract Exhibit 1, and said Secretary of the Interior in belief and reliance upon said representations agreed to and did award defendant Mammoth Oil Co. the lease to it hereinafter mentioned, and said Mammoth Oil Co., well knew the terms, conditions, and obligations of the contract Exhibit 1, hereof, and the conspiracy and wrongful acts herein charged in relation thereto, and so knowing received and accepted said lease.

Defendants herein secretly and without knowledge or consent of plaintiff procured the Pioneer Oil & Refining Co.,. and Societe Belgo-Americaine des Petroles du Wyoming to execute and deliver to the United States of America in support of the lease to be and thereafter granted to Mammoth Oil Co., deeds conveying and quitclaiming to the United States all right, title, and interest in and to lands referred to in said contract of December 31, 1921, falsely and fraudulently concealing from the Secretary of the Interior the existence of said contract and the rights and equities of plaintiff therein and thereunder; plaintiff is informed and believes, and so alleges the fact to be, that after the execution of said contract Exhibit 1, and with full knowledge thereof defendants (except Pioneer Oil & Refining Co. and Mammoth Oil Co.) and certain other persons to plaintiff now unknown, but plaintiff will hereafter apply to the court to make said persons parties defendants hereto, contracted and agreed among themselves that defendant Pioneer Oil & Refining Co. and Societe Belgo-Americaine des Petroles du Wyoming should be caused to relinquish to the United States all claim to said naval reserve No. 3 lands in order that a lease thereon might be granted by the United States to a corporation to be created by them or their associates and for their individual benefit and profit, and in consideration of such relinquishment and the procuring of said lease said defendants (other than Mammoth Oil Co. and Pioneer Oil & Refining Co.) and their unknown associates were to have and secure control of said corporation and secret profits from or interests in said lease, and in pursuance of their said agreement such defendants caused to be incorporated under the laws of Delaware the defendant Mammoth Oil Co. for the purpose of taking title to said lease, and said defendants and their coconspirators by their ownership in and to stock certificates and participating units or subscriptions therefor, and by secret and intentionally concealed understanding arrangements in relation thereto, the exact details of which are to plaintiff unknown, do in fact control said Mammoth Oil Co., and through said company do control said lease hereinafter referred to as issued to the Mammoth Oil Co., and in carrying out said agreement such defendants caused the directors and officers of Pioneer Oil & Refining Co. and Societe Belgo-Americaine des Petroles du Wyoming to release and pass resolutions (which said directors did pass) releasing to Mammoth Oil Co., without adequate or just consideration to them, all claim to said naval reserve No. 3 lands, and likewise caused the directors and officers of defendant Pioneer Oil & Refining Co., and Societe Belgo-Americaine des Petroles du Wyoming to authorize and execute, respectively, deeds and releases to Mammoth Oil Co. and to the

United States, whereby and whereunder said defendant Pioneer Oil & Refining Co. and Societe Belgo-Americaine des Petroles du Wyoming were and are divested of title and power to keep and perform their contract of December 31, 1921, with this plaintiff.

And in aiding and procuring the issuance of said lease to Mammoth Oil Co. said defendants agreed to among themselves and did, secretly and wrongfully appropriate to themselves and their unknown associates the rights and profits belonging and accruing to plaintiff under his contract of December 31, 1921. During the month of March, 1922, in furtherance of said conspiracy to defraud plaintiff and in order to lull plaintiff into a false sense of security and to prevent plaintiff from proceeding to Washington, D. C., as his interest and protection required and as his contract with defendant Pioneer Oil & Refining Co., and said Societe Belgo-Americaine des Petroles du Wyoming contemplated, the defendant Aitken advised plaintiff that defendants' attorneys at Washington, D. C. had the matter of procuring leases and contracts for defendant Pioneer Oil & Refining Co. and Societe Belgo-Americaine des Petroles du Wyoming in good shape when in truth and in fact as said Aitken and his co-conspirators then well knew, attorneys for said defendant Pioneer Oil & Refining Co. and Societe Belgo-Americaine des Petroles du Wyoming were at that time actually engaged in preparing and drawing a form lease to be presented to the Secretary of the Interior by defendant Sinclair and to be thereafter signed and granted by the United States to said Mammoth Oil Co., all by direction and request of defendants herein. On or about April 7, 1922, the United States of America, acting by and through the Secretary of the Interior Department and for the Secretary of the Navy, with consent of and at request of defendants, and without the knowledge or consent of plaintiff and while plaintiff believed and relied upon each and every one of the promises, agreements,and representatons made to him by defendants as herein alleged, issued, granted, and delivered to the defendant Mammoth Oil Co., the lease and development contract of that date, a true copy whereof is hereto attached and marked "Exhibit 2," and at like request and consent of defendants and without knowledge or consent of plaintiff, and while plaintiff believed and relied upon defendants' said representations, said Secretary did receive and accept from defendant Pioneer Oil & Refining Co. and Societe Belgo-Americaine des Petroles du Wyoming, deeds of conveyance and quitclaim to the United States of all their right, title, and interest in and to the lands within naval reserve No. 3, including all the lands and rights mentioned in the contract of December 31, 1921, Exhibit 1 hereof, thereby intending to and in fact depriving plaintiff of power or remedy to assert in any tribunal his contractural right and equity in and to said lands and mining claims, in that the United States is not suable or compellable at the suit of plaintiff. Said lease granted defendant Mammoth Oil Co. covers approximately 9,000 acres of valuable oil lands included in plaintiff's contract of December 31, 1921, Exhibit 1 hereof, and said lands have an estimated recoverable oil content in excess of 900,000,000 barrels of high-grade crude oil, and said lease is of the reasonable value of $500,000,000. Said lease was granted to the defendant Mammoth Oil Co. without competitive bidding solely and only because and by reason of the fact that defendants voluntarily and wrongfully surrendered and caused to be surrendered to the United States the possessory mining claims set forth in plaintiff's contract of December 31, 1921, and in so doing said defendants wrongfully and fraudulently conveyed away plaintiff's equity in the title to said possessory mining claims as to the lands described in paragraph 1 hereof covered by the double row of offset wells and wrongfully and fraudulently appropriated to themselves plaintiff's right to secure a 5 per cent nonassessable working interest in and to all of said lands as more particularly set forth in said contract Exhibit 1, to the damage of the plaintiff in the sum of $5,000,000. By reason of the wrongs and frauds by said defendants done and committed against plaintiff as hereinbefore in this complaint alleged this plaintiff has been wrongfully deprived of a property interest of the reasonable value of $5,000,000.

Wherefore, plaintiff prays: That plaintiff have judgment against defendants for the sum of $5,000.000, together with plaintiff's costs and reasonable attorneys' fees to be fixed by the court.

JOHN LEO STACK, Plaintiff.
H. H. SCHWARTZ,

JOHN T. BOTTOM,

Attorneys for Plaintiff.

STATE OF COLORADO,

City and County of Denver, ss:

On this 24th day of June, 1922, before me, the undersigned notary public, appeared John Leo Stack, to me personally known, who being by me sworn on oath, said he is plaintiff in and subscribed the foregoing complaint and knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true of his own knowledge except as to the matters which are therein stated on his information and belief, and as to those matters that he believes said complaint to be true.

My notarial commission expires September 1, 1924. [SEAL.]

EMMA L. HARLOW, Notary Public.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Now, Mr. Bonfils, I will endeavor to summarize the averments of this complaint now as I understand them.

Senator ADAMS. In what court was that filed? I didn't catch that.

Senator WALSH of Montana. The district court, State of Colorado, city of Denver.

Senator ADAMS. That complaint was filed, was it?

Senator WALSH of Montana. Well, I will inquire about that a little later.

Stack had this contract in the first place with Mr. Doheny, under which Stack would endeavor to secure for Doheny leases within this Teapot Dome. That contract was taken over, and with some modifications it became a contract between Stack and the Pioneer Oil Co. under which the Pioneer Oil Co., claiming to be entitled to leases within the Teapot Dome of certain producing oil wells, and being desirous of securing such leases, as well as leases upon the entire Teapot Dome, and particularly leases for a double row of offset wells, Stack undertook to help the Pioneer Oil Co. get these leases under this agreement by which he was to have a 5 per cent interest in any leases which might be obtained. That proceeding to carry out that contract by doing what he could to get these leases, the Pioneer Oil Co. entered into a conspiracy with Sinclair by which it withdrew practically all of its applications for leases, surrendered all of its rights to Sinclair, and allowed Sinclair to get the leases, thereby defeating the just claim of Stack under this contract.

Mr. BONFILS. I think that is a fair statement, Senator. That is the way I understand it. I may add this to that, however, that the Pioneer and the Belgo companies had done some valuable development work on the Teapot Dome, and they had really brought in three wells, producing wells, before that Teapot Dome was constituted a reserve and withdrawn from any exploitation or any application to be utilized by oil companies; they had three wells there that they had brought in. But at that time, or very shortly after the Pioneer and Belgo both were absorbed by the Midwest companies, that chain of companies, a number of them and the Midwest and its allied companies having all the leases they were entitled to hold under the leasing bill in acreage, I think it was then that they began negotiating with Doheny and Sinclair, who did not have their acreage in that field, or the Wyoming field, to get them to enter, and being willing at all times to step out if they would come in. Now, there may have been an understanding between these companies the Doheny and the Sinclair and the Midwest crowd-that there would be a friendly relation or a friendly cooperation between all of those companies.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Now, that is your understanding of the situation?

Mr. BONFILS. That is my conclusion from certain facts.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Well, let me say, Mr. Bonfils, for the further understanding of the situation, that the testimony before the committee is to the effect that no producing wells were drilled upon this ground by any of these companies at any time prior to the year 1914, and that between that time and 1920 three wells were drilled to the shallow Shannon sands, all of them coming in, as my recollection is now, at least after the whole area had been set aside by the Executive order, and at least two of them after the area had been made a naval oil reserve by the Executive order of President Wilson in 1915. That the Pioneer Oil Co. had prosecuted applications before the Department of the Interior for leases upon these three so-called producing wells, under the provisions of the act of February 25, 1920, and that the application for lease upon those three so-called producing wells had been denied by the Department of the Interior for the reason that they were not producing wells, as found by the Secretary. That thereafter an application for a rehearing was made, and that application was denied by the Department of the Interior, so that every right which the Pioneer Oil Co. had or could assert to these claims had been already denied by the Department of the Interior. Now these three claims were the only ones, so far as the evidence before this committe goes, which had any basis whatever in fact, either with respect to the Pioneer Oil Co. or the Belgo Co. So that apparently at the time that this contract was entered into, at least during the time it was being prosecuted, every right that these companies had to the lands had already be adjudicated against them by the Department of the Interior. Were you aware of these facts?

Mr. BONFILS. No; I was not. Senator, who brought those three alleged wells in, what company?

Senator WALSH of Montana. The Pioneer, I think, brought two and the Belgo Co. one. These wells drilled at a cost of some seven hundred to one thousand dollars.

Now, perhaps, we have misunderstood this, Mr. Bonfils. This complaint appears to be verified on the 24th day of June, 1922, but it contains no filing mark, and I suppose that it was, perhaps, an office copy of the original on file in the office of the clerk of the district court. Can you tell us whether, as a matter of fact, a complaint ever was filed?

Mr. BONFILS. I could not tell you that, Senator.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Senator Adams, will you kindly advice the members of the committee what the procedure is in the commencement of a lawsuit under the practice in your State?

Senator ADAMS. There are two ways; one of filing the complaint the other the issuance of a summons. However, the complaint must be filed within 30 days after the summons is issued.

Senator WALSH of Montana. So that a summons may be issued at the outset ?

Senator ADAMS. Yes.

Senator WALSH of Montana. The attorney keeping the copy of the complaint?