Mr. HUNTER. My recollection is-and, Senator, I am not sure about this-that that was mailed to me, but I could not be positive about it. There was a disagreement about the matter at the time, and I know this came into my mind this morning. I had forgotten all about that case. My mind is just a little hazy about it; but there was some discussion about where that one well would be located. No one wanted to deny me the right to drill a well, but there was a difference in the value of the location, whether it was put on one or the other end of this long strip, and the men who were fighting it naturally were insisting that I should be shoved off into a dry position, and I was insisting that I should be allowed to drill it where there was some oil. They were just trying to deny us the right of drilling because it was in conflict with rule 37. It was not 300 feet wide. Senator WATSON. They owned the adjoining well? Mr. HUNTER. Yes. Senator WATSON. This was not a question of drilling an offset well? Mr. HUNTER. It would be an offset. You see, Senator, they had the adjoining property and they were drilling on it, and we had a narrow strip lying alongside of it. We were seeking to drill three wells, one at each end and one in the middle of that strip, which was 600 feet long. The commission allowed us to drill one well: and then the question of where the permit would designate the well to be drilled came up, and I was insisting that it should be drilled in the most productive end, and the folks in opposition were insisting that it be drilled down there where it would likely be dry. Mr. NICKELS. If the commission had not granted a permit to somebody else to drill this narrow strip, would the adjoining owners, who were opposing the granting of that permit, have been able to drain the oil from this strip? Mr. HUNTER. They would have, had it been productive. We were mistaken in it, and we drilled a $25,000 dry hole there. Senator WATSON. That sounds natural. Senator KING. But they were opposing it because they feared that a well there might drain their land, and it was clear if there was oil there, this would drain this land? Mr. HUNTER. They were seeking to keep us off, and we were asking to go up where we would have as much advantage in the drainage as they did. Senator KING. It was not a conflict, then, between the owners of the properties? Mr. HUNTER. I do not know whether I understand you. Senator KING. There was no conflict as to the ownership of the properties? Mr. HUNTER. No; the ownership was not in question. Senator KING. Your clients had the ownership of the property. and they were seeking permission from the commission for the right to drill? Mr. HUNTER. Yes. Senator KING. I suppose your clients would have paid the owners a royalty for the drilling? Mr. HUNTER. Yes. Senator NEELY. Speaking of your own knowledge, was there anything in the relationship of cause and effect existing between your contribution, Mr. Hunter, for Senator Mayfield's primary, and the granting of these permits by the commission of which Senator Mayfield was a member? Mr. HUNTER. Not the least in the world. It took two members of the commission to grant it. Mr. ZUMBRUNN. How many sat on the commission? Mr. HUNTER. Three. Mr. NICKELS. Mr. Allison Mayfield was not present at that hearing, was he? Mr. HUNTER. He was in bed. That refreshes my recollection some more about that case. I made a special trip over to his sick bed, and got his attending physician to go with me. I had been denied a permit altogether until I made that trip to Allison Mayfield's sick bed. I got his doctor to go over there with me, and paid him a calling fee, to go with me, and they allowed me five minutes, and he signed my permit. Mr. NICKELS. Had anybody signed it up to that time? Mr. HUNTER. No, sir. Mr. NICKELS. He signed it as chairman? Mr. HUNTER. As chairman, and I took it back; and I do not know whether the others signed it or not, but I know Mr. Allison Mayfield did before I left at that time. He was very sick. Mr. NICKELS. Did you go to see Mr. Allison Mayfield directly after this hearing at Austin? Mr. HUNTER. I went home first. Mr. NICKELS. First and last, have you had a considerable amount of practice before the railroad commission of Texas with reference to permits? Mr. HUNTER. I have not; no, sir. Mr. NICKELS. How many had been granted to you individually, up until the first of January, 1923? Mr. HUNTER. Do you mean in which I was personally interested? Mr. NICKELS. In which the application was made in your name? Mr. HUNTER. I Would be guessing at it. They were very few, how ever. Mr. NICKELS. You got No. 86, did you not? Mr. HUNTER. I do not know it by number. If you will tell me what tract it is on, I will tell you. Mr. NICKELS. The date is December 28, 1921. Mr. HUNTER. Do you know what land it affects? Mr. NICKELS. No. Mr. HUNTER. I could not identify it by number. Mr. NICKELS. I have got a list of six, here. What is your judgment about that being about the number that you secured in your own name? Mr. HUNTER. Well, that is one or two more than I would have guessed if you had let me take a guess at it. Mr. NICKELS. All right. How many will you say you got, from your best collection? Mr. HUNTER. I was going to say four or five. Mr. NICKELS. Four or five? Mr. HUNTER. However, if you have six, you likely have examined the records. Mr. NICKELS. Did you or not frequently practice before the commission in the interest of the Danziger brothers in relation to this class of permits? Mr. HUNTER. I did some correspondence, and it was not necessary at all times to come down. When there was no contest, no fight, I never went in person; but I was always there in person, as I recall, on the two occasions for the Danzigers-possibly three-and I think twice only for myself, when there was no one else interested, and then once in which I was interested. It would be possibly four or five times that I have appeared before the commission altogether. Mr. NICKELS. What, if anything, did Danziger brothers, or either of the Danzigers, contribute to the campaign fund through you? Mr. ZUMBRUNN. Just a minute. Mr. NICKELS (continuing). If any? Mr. MCLEAN. On the question of campaign funds, let him state the facts. We have not any objection to the facts. Mr. ZUMBRUNN. That is what I am getting at. Mr. NICKELS. Perhaps I used the wrong term, there. Mr. HUNTER. I called on Danziger to reimburse me, and as I recollect, the amount I gave awhile ago includes the amount Danziger gave me. My recollection is that I credited it, and that I included that when I said $750. Mr. NICKELS. Do you remember how much you got from Danziger? Mr. HUNTER. $250. Mr. NICKELS. You represented Lanning, Munger & Newby before the commission, did you not? Mr. HUNTER. At one time. Mr. NICKELS. How much did Ross Lanning or his firm or any member of the firm pay in the same way? Mr. HUNTER. He gave me the $50, or $100, I do not now recall which. It was $50 or $100. Mr. NICKELS. Did you represent the Cline Oil Co. before the commission? Mr. HUNTER. I did not. Mr. NICKELS. Or anybody else other than those you have named? Mr. HUNTER. I have represented others before the commission, but not in a contested hearing. Most of the work before the commission down there was done by correspondence, unless there was a contest. It was a matter of formality, of fixing the papers and filing them for the permit. Mr. NICKELS. Did or not any of these other people whom you represented in that way make any payment of the kind we have been talking about through you? Mr. HUNTER. Those two are the only moneys that I collected. The balance of it I paid myself. I think that answers you, if I understood your question. Senator KING. And you stated that the total was $750? Mr. HUNTER. That is my recollection of the total amount; yes, sir. Senator KING. That included the Danziger contribution? Mr. HUNTER. Yes, sir. Mr. NICKELS. Mr. Hunter, to refresh your memory if I can, do you recall going back to Wichita Falls the night of the day of this hearing, and of taking this permit that has been referred to as having been granted to Danziger, and exhibiting it to anybody on the train? Mr. HUNTER. I was on that train with Dan Boone and Ross Lanning-T. R. Boone and Ross Lanning. Mr. NICKELS. Do you remember whether or not you showed that permit to Lanning? Mr. HUNTER. I am very confident that I did not have it at that time. I know I made two trips on that permit., I made one to Austin, and went to Allison Mayfield's home, and my recollection is that the trip to Sherman was after the one to Austin, after I had been denied there; and if it was I could not have had it, because I did not get my permit until after I made my trip to Sherman. The CHAIRMAN. Am I right, Mr. Hunter, in understanding that when you first made your application for this permit on the narrow strip there were only two members of the commission present? Mr. HUNTER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And it was denied you? Mr. HUNTER. Yes, sir The CHAIRMAN. And then you went to Sherman and had a conference with Mr. Allison Mayfield, who was the chairman of the commission? Mr. HUNTER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And he approved of your permit? Mr. HUNTER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Did you take that trip in consultation or on the advice or in conference with any of the two members of the commission? Mr. HUNTER. NO. The CHAIRMAN. Or did you do it on your own initiative? Mr. HUNTER. I did it on my own initiative. The CHAIRMAN. Entirely on your own initiative. Then when you brought that signed approval of the chairman back, then another member of the commission, Mr. Earle B. Mayfield, concurred? Mr. HUNTER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And then you got your permit? Mr. HUNTER. Yes, sir. Now, I feel sure that my trip to Sherman was after I went to Austin. I had forgotten about this transaction altogether until this morning, when my mind was refreshed about it. It had not occurred to me that that application was mentioned while I was down there. I was associating with Lanning altogether, because Lanning was with me on the trip. The CHAIRMAN. So far as you know, did Mr. Earle B. Mayfield know that you were going to Sherman to consult with Mr. Allison Mayfield? Mr. HUNTER. I am not sure. I did not go on his advice. He might have known that I was going. Senator KING. Had he disapproved the application until you got Allison Mayfield's approval? Mr. HUNTER. He had not disapproved it. 101521-24-PT 1-7 Mr. HUNTER. He could not approve it. It took two members to approve it, and the other commissioner had refused to act on it, and was holding it under consideration. Mr. NICKELS. Was that Commissioner Gilmore that you are referring to? Mr. HUNTER, Gilmore; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Then the two members when they were sitting together had not disapproved of your permit, but were still considering it? Mr. HUNTER. Yes, sir; they had not approved it. The CHAIRMAN. What made you think that if you got the consent of the chairman at Sherman you would be in a different situation before the other two members? Mr. HUNTER. Well, there were several reasons. I say "several "_ in the first place, Allison Mayfield had been on the commission a number of years. He was a very strong man. He was a friend of mine, and I knew his way of thinking, and I knew the commission was accustomed to following him. Senator NEELY. He was really the dominating figure on the commission, was he not? Mr. HUNTER. He was as 1 considered it; yes, sir. Senator KING. Was there anything improper in the granting of that permit? Mr. HUNTER. Not a thing in the world. Senator KING. Was it for the best interests of the State and of the parties concerned that it should be granted? Mr. HUNTER. It was, Senator, as it then existed. The property was dry, nonproducing, and nobody profited and nobody suffered by it. Senator KING. Except those who lost their money in drilling? Mr. HUNTER. That was our hard luck. Senator KING. Did you think that it was quite proper in a quasi judicial body to have the members act when they were not together? Mr. HUNTER. That was the only occasion that I ever asked them to act when they were not together. I do not know whether I am clear on that or not. Both of the commission who were there were willing to grant me a permit for one well on that tract. Mr. Gilmore would not consent to locate the well to the productive end of the tract, and Mr. Earle Mayfield seemed to leave it a great deal to him. Mr. ZUMBRUNN. Meaning Mr. Gilmore when you say "him"? Mr. HUNTER. Well, it was really left to the chief of the oil and gas department, who was at that time Mr. Hassell. That was who the location was left to, if he and I could agree. Senator KING. He was the oil expert for the commission? Mr. HUNTER. Yes. I went with Mr. Hassell, and I insisted that my well be located on what I deemed the productive end of the strip, and he took me into Mr. Gilmore's office. I might have gone to Mr. Mayfield's office first had I not been going with Mr. Hassell, but he took me there first after he and I failed to agree. They had adjourned, and they were in their private office. Senator KING. It was rather informal? Mr. HUNTER. And while we were in there Mr. Gilmore announced that so far as he was personally concerned he would be controlled by the chief's recommendation. |