All in the Day's Work — Chapter 12: Muckraker or Historian?

I was never to see Mr. Rogers again, for in May of 1909 he suddenly died—two years before the Supreme Court dissolved the Standard Oil Company.

12 MUCKRAKER OR HISTORIAN?

It was inevitable that my visits to 26 Broadway should be noised among critics and enemies of the Standard Oil Company curious about what _McClure’s_ was going to do.

It was not infrequent for some one on the independent side to say with a wise nod of the head: “Oh, they’ll get around you.

You’ll become their apologist before you get through.

” It was quite useless for me to insist that I was trying to be nobody’s apologist, that I was trying to balance what I found.

At least two people of importance whose experiences I was anxious to hear from their own lips refused to see me.

I learned later that Henry D. Lloyd had written them after he learned I was seeing Mr. Rogers that they had better not talk, better not show me their papers, that inevitably I should be taken in.

Now I had already talked with Mr. Lloyd, already had help from him, but the Rogers association evidently upset him for a time.

My first article seemed to reassure him, for he wrote me at once on its appearance: “I read your first installment of the story of the Standard Oil Company with eager curiosity, then intense interest and then great satisfaction.

” He seems to have divined at once where I was heading.

The suspicion of my relations with 26 Broadway cut me off for some two years from one of the most interesting independent warriors in the thirty years’ struggle.

This was one Lewis Emery, Jr. , whom I had known from childhood.

He had grown up in the oil business, side by side with H.

H.

Rogers; he had been a producer and a refiner as well as one of the powerful factors in building up the Pure Oil Company, the integrated concern in which my brother was carrying on.

From the start Mr. Emery had fought the Standard’s pretensions, individually and collectively, politically and financially.

He had a gift for language—a marvelous vituperative vocabulary—and he had no restraint in using it.

He was a feature of almost every investigation, every lawsuit, a member of every combination of producers and refiners.

Where he was, there were sure to be lively exchanges between him and the representatives of the other side.

His particular abomination was John Archbold, vice president of the Standard Oil Company, a person as free with charges and epithets as Lewis Emery himself.

“You are a liar,” he shouted one day in an investigation when Mr. Emery had made an exaggerated charge.

Joseph H. Choate was Mr. Archbold’s lawyer.

“There, there, Mr. Archbold!

” he said.

“We’ll put Mr. Emery on the stand and convict him of perjury.

” Without noticing Mr. Choate’s remark Mr. Emery called across the table, “Young man, if this table wasn’t so wide I would tweak your nose for that.

” Such exchanges were not infrequent.

Henry Rogers, who really liked Lewis Emery, was always trying to calm him down.

“Can’t you stop this, Lew?

” he said one day.

“Come with us, and it will be better for you.

There is no hope for you alone, but with us there is a sure thing.

” Mr. Emery, who told me of this offer, said: “Henry, I can’t do it even if I wanted to.

They would mob me in the Oil Region if I went back on them.

” They would not have mobbed him, but they would have done what would have been worse for a man of his temperament, his passion for free action whether wise or unwise—they would have ostracized him.

The most tragic effect I had seen in my girlhood of “going over to the Standard,” as it was called, was partial ostracism of the renegade.

When a man’s old associates crossed to the other side of the street rather than meet him, when nobody stopped him on the street corner to gossip over what was going on, few men were calloused enough not to suffer.

It was worse than mobbing.

The Oil Region as a matter of fact never mobbed any man so far as I know, though it did occasionally destroy property and once at least hung Mr. Rockefeller himself in effigy.

By this time Lewis Emery had fought his way to a substantial position in the oil world; but to the end he prided himself on being a victim.

When he finally talked to me after he learned from Mr. Lloyd that the embargo against me had been raised, he said, with what seemed to me considerable satisfaction: “I have been tortured.

I am a wounded man because of them, and I hate them.

” In spite of this he was getting a good deal out of life.

He was a rich man, and he was making the most of his money.

He never let money stifle his personality.

His success in being himself was in striking contrast to that of most of the successful oil men of that day whom I knew.

Most of them, independent and Standard, submitted to an application of veneer, a change of habits which destroyed much of their natural flavor.

They took little part in politics and social agitation; they remained regular in all things; they made their investments only in sure enterprises.

You knew always where to find them.

But not so Lewis Emery, Jr. He continued to wear his clothes naturally, to go on his own erratic way.

He threw himself into political movements, wise and unwise, and he never lost his pioneering spirit.

After he was seventy years old, as a final fling, he took on a gold mine in Peru, a gold mine which was reached by climbing mountains and descending narrow paths cut out of rock, crossing swaying rope bridges—approaches fit only for the most daring mountain climbers.

Yet there he was when nearly eighty charging up and down those mountains and trotting his mule across those bridges when younger men led their mules and crept.

The degree to which he was reconciled to me after two years of ostracism was proved by his annual invitation to come along to Peru with his party.

And I would have gone and told the story of his mine as he wanted me to do if it had not been for the pictures he sent me—those pictures of unprotected swaying bridges suspended from mountain side to mountain side, hundreds of feet above the rushing rocky streams.

I had not the head for that, and so gave up what would have been, I am sure, one of the most amusing adventures that ever came my way.

Not a few of the personal experiences in gathering my materials left me with unhappy impressions, more unhappy in retrospect perhaps than they were at the moment.

They were part of the day’s work, sometimes very exciting parts.

There was the two hours I spent in studying Mr. John D. Rockefeller.

As the work had gone on, it became more and more clear to me that the Standard Oil Company was his creation.

“An institution is the lengthened shadow of one man,” says Emerson.

I found it so.

Everybody in the office interested in the work began to say, “After the book is done you must do a character sketch of Mr. Rockefeller.

” I was not keen for it.

It would have to be done like the books, from documents; that is, I had no inclination to use the extraordinary gossip which came to me from many sources.

If I were to do it I wanted only that of which I felt I had sure proof, only those things which seemed to me to help explain the public life of this powerful, patient, secretive, calculating man of so peculiar and special a genius.

“You must at least look at Mr. Rockefeller,” my associates insisted.

“But how?

” Mr. Rogers himself had suggested that I see him.

I had consented.

I had returned to the suggestion several times, but at last was made to understand that it could not be done.

I had dropped his name from my list.

It was John Siddall who then took the matter in hand.

“You must see him,” was Siddall’s judgment.

To arrange it became almost an obsession.

And then what seemed to him like a providential opening came.

It was announced that on a certain Sunday of October 1903 Mr. Rockefeller before leaving Cleveland, where he had spent his summer, for his home in New York would say good-bye in a little talk to the Sunday school of his church—a rally, it was called.

As soon as Siddall learned of this he begged me to come on.

“We can go to Sunday school; we can stay to church.

I will see that we have seats where we will have a full view of the man.

You will get him in action.

” Of course I went, feeling a little mean about it too.

He had not wanted to be seen apparently.

It was taking him unaware.

Siddall’s plan worked to perfection, worked so well from the start that again and again he seemed ready to burst from excitement in the two hours we spent in the church.

We had gone early to the Sunday-school room where the rally was to open—a dismal room with a barbaric dark green paper with big gold designs, cheap stained-glass windows, awkward gas fixtures.

Comfortable, of course, but so stupidly ugly.

We were sitting meekly at one side when I was suddenly aware of a striking figure standing in the doorway.

There was an awful age in his face—the oldest man I had ever seen, I thought, but what power!

At that moment Siddall poked me violently in the ribs and hissed, “There he is.

” The impression of power deepened when Mr. Rockefeller took off his coat and hat, put on a skullcap, and took a seat commanding the entire room, his back to the wall.

It was the head which riveted attention.

It was big, great breadth from back to front, high broad forehead, big bumps behind the ears, not a shiny head but with a wet look.

The skin was as fresh as that of any healthy man about us.

The thin sharp nose was like a thorn.

There were no lips; the mouth looked as if the teeth were all shut hard.

Deep furrows ran down each side of the mouth from the nose.

There were puffs under the little colorless eyes with creases running from them.

Wonder over the head was almost at once diverted to wonder over the man’s uneasiness.

His eyes were never quiet but darted from face to face, even peering around the jog at the audience close to the wall.

When he rose to speak, the impression of power that the first look at him had given increased, and the impression of age passed.

I expected a quavering voice, but the voice was not even old, if a little fatigued, a little thin.

It was clear and utterly sincere.

He meant what he was saying.

He was on his own ground talking about dividends, dividends of righteousness.

“If you would take something out,” he said, clenching the hand of his outstretched right arm, “you must put something in”—emphasizing “put something in” with a long outstretched forefinger.

The talk over, we slipped out to get a good seat in the gallery, a seat where we could look full on what we knew to be the Rockefeller pew.

Mr. Rockefeller came into the auditorium of the church as soon as Sunday school was out.

He sat a little bent in his pew, pitifully uneasy, his head constantly turning to the farthest right or left, his eyes searching the faces almost invariably turned towards him.

It was plain that he, and not the minister, was the pivot on which that audience swung.

Probably he knew practically everybody in the congregation; but now and then he lingered on a face, peering at it intently as if he were seeking what was in the mind behind it.

He looked frequently at the gallery.

Was it at Siddall and me?

The services over, he became the friendly patron saint of the flock.

Coming down the aisle where people were passing out, he shook hands with everyone who stopped, saying, “A good sermon.

” “The Doctor gave us a good sermon.

” “It was a very good sermon, wasn’t it?

” My two hours’ study of Mr. Rockefeller aroused a feeling I had not expected, which time has intensified.

I was sorry for him.

I know no companion so terrible as fear.

Mr. Rockefeller, for all the conscious power written in face and voice and figure, was afraid, I told myself, afraid of his own kind.

My friend Lewis Emery, Jr. , priding himself on being a victim, was free and happy.

Not gold enough in the world to tempt him to exchange his love of defiance for a power which carried with it a head as uneasy as that on Mr. Rockefeller’s shoulders.

My unhappiness was increased as the months went by with the multiplying of tales of grievances coming from every direction.

I made a practice of looking into them all, as far as I could; and while frequently I found solid reasons for the complaints, frequently I found the basic motives behind them—suspicion, hunger for notoriety, blackmail, revenge.

The most unhappy and most unnatural of these grievances came to me from literally the last person in the world to whom I should have looked for information—Frank Rockefeller—brother of John D. Rockefeller.

Frank Rockefeller sent word to me by a circuitous route that he had documents in a case which he thought ought to be made public, and that if I would secretly come to him in his office in Cleveland he would give them to me.

I knew that there had been a quarrel over property between the two men.

It made much noise at the time—1893—had gone to the courts, had caused bitterness inside the family itself; but because it was a family affair I had not felt that I wanted to touch it.

But here it was laid on my desk.

So I went to Cleveland, where John Siddall had a grand opportunity to play the role of sleuth which he so enjoyed, his problem being to get me into Mr. Rockefeller’s office without anybody suspecting my identity.

He succeeded.

I found Mr. Rockefeller excited and vindictive.

He accused his brother of robbing (his word) him and his partner James Corrigan of all their considerable holdings of stock in the Standard Oil Company.

The bare facts were that Frank Rockefeller and James Corrigan had been interested in the early Standard Oil operations in Cleveland and had each acquired then a substantial block of stock.

Later they had developed a shipping business on the Lakes, iron and steel furnaces in Cleveland.

In the eighties they had borrowed money from John D. Rockefeller, putting up their Standard Oil stock as collateral.

Then came the panic of ’93, and they could not meet their obligations.

In the middle of their distress John Rockefeller had foreclosed, taking over their stocks, leaving them, so they charged, no time in which to turn around although they felt certain that they would be able a little later, out of the substantial business they claimed they had built up, to pay their debt to him.

Their future success proved they could have done so.

I could see John Rockefeller’s point as I talked with his brother Frank.

Frank Rockefeller was an open-handed, generous trader—more interested in the game than in the money to be made.

He loved good horses—raised them, I believe, on a farm out in Kansas; he liked gaiety, free spending.

From his brother John’s point of view he was not a safe man to handle money.

He did not reverence it; he used it in frivolous ways of which his brother did not approve.

So it was as a kind of obligation to the sacredness of money that John Rockefeller had foreclosed on his own brother and his early friend James Corrigan.

He was strictly within his legal rights and within what I suppose he called his moral right.

But the transaction left a bitterness in Frank Rockefeller’s heart and mind which was one of the ugliest things I have ever seen.

“I have taken up my children from the Rockefeller family lot.

[Or “shall take up”—I do not know now which it was.

] They shall not lie in the same enclosure with John D. Rockefeller.

” The documents in this case, which I later analyzed for the character sketch on which we had decided, present a fair example of what were popularly called “Standard Oil methods” as well as what they could do to the minds and hearts of victims.

The more intimately I went into my subject, the more hateful it became to me.

No achievement on earth could justify those methods, I felt.

I

had a great desire to end my task, hear no more of it.

No doubt part of my revulsion was due to a fagged brain.

The work had turned out to be much longer and more laborious than I had had reason to expect.

The plan I had taken to Mr. McClure in the fall of 1890, which we had talked over in Salsomaggiore, Italy—I still have notes of our talk on a yellow piece of the stationery of the Hôtel des Thermes—called for three papers, possibly twenty-five thousand words.

But before we actually began publication Mr. Phillips and Mr. McClure decided we might venture on six.

We went through the six, and the series was stretched to twelve.

Before we were through we had nineteen articles, and when the nineteen were off my hands I asked nothing in the world but to get them into a book and escape into the safe retreat of a library where I could study people long dead, and if they did things of which I did not approve it would be all between me and the books.

There would be none of these harrowing human beings confronting me, tearing me between contempt and pity, admiration and anger, baffling me with their futile and misdirected power or their equally futile and misdirected weakness.

I

was willing to study human beings in the library but no longer, for a time at least, in flesh and blood, so I thought.

The book was published in the fall of 1904—two fat volumes with generous appendices of what I considered essential documents.

I was curious about the reception it would have from the Standard Oil Company.

I had been told repeatedly they were preparing an answer to flatten me out; but if this was under way it was not with Mr. Rockefeller’s consent, I imagined.

To a mutual friend who had told him the articles should be answered Mr. Rockefeller was said to have replied: “Not a word.

Not a word about that misguided woman.

” To another who asked him about my charges he was reported as answering: “All without foundation.

The idea of the Standard forcing anyone to sell his refinery is absurd.

The refineries wanted to sell to us, and nobody that has sold or worked with us but has made money, is glad he did so.

“I thought once of having an answer made to the McClure articles but you know it has always been the policy of the Standard to keep silent under attack and let their acts speak for themselves.

” In the case of the Lloyd book they had kept silent, but only because Mr. Rockefeller had been unable to carry out his plans for answering.

What he had proposed was a jury of the most distinguished clergymen of the day to consider Mr. Lloyd’s argument and charges.

Certain clergymen invited refused unless there should be a respectable number of economists added to the jury.

That, apparently, Mr. Rockefeller did not see his way to do, and the plan was abandoned.

So far as I know Mr. Lloyd’s book was never answered by the Standard Oil Company.

But I wanted an answer from Mr. Rockefeller.

What I got was neither direct nor, from my point of view, serious.

It consisted of wide and what must have been a rather expensive anonymous distribution of various critical comments.

The first of these was a review of the book which appeared in the _Nation_ soon after its publication.

The writer—one of the _Nation’s_ staff reviewers, I later learned—sneered at the idea that there was anything unusual in the competitive practices which I called illegal and immoral.

“They are a necessary part of competition,” he said.

“The practices are odious it is true, competition is necessarily odious.

” Was it necessarily odious?

I did not think so.

The practices I believed I had proved, I continued to consider much more dangerous to economic stability than airing them, even if I aired them in the excited and irrational fashion the review charged.

As I saw it, the struggle was between Commercial Machiavellism and the Christian Code.

The most important of the indirect answers was an able book by Gilbert Holland Montague.

It separated business and ethics in a way that must have been a comfort to 26 Broadway.

As soon as published, Mr. Montague’s book became not exactly a best seller but certainly a best circulator—libraries, ministers, teachers, prominent citizens all over the land receiving copies with the compliments of the publisher.

Numbers of them came back to me with irritated letters.

“We have been buying books for years from this house,” wrote one distinguished librarian, “and never before was one sent with their compliments.

I understand that libraries all over the country are receiving them.

Can it be that this is intended as an advertisement, or is it not more probable that the Standard Oil Company itself is paying for this widespread distribution?

” The general verdict seemed to be that the latter was the explanation.

Some time later there came from the entertaining Elbert Hubbard of the Roycroft Shop of East Aurora, New York, an essay on the Standard extolling the grand results from the centralization of the industry in their hands.

I have it from various interested sources that five million copies were ordered printed in pamphlet form by the Standard Oil Company and were distributed by Mr. Hubbard.

They went to schoolteachers and journalists, preachers and “leaders” from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

Hardly were they received in many cases before they were sent to me with angry or approving comments.

For a couple of years my birthday and Christmas offerings were sure to include copies of one or the other of these documents with the compliments of some waggish member of the McClure group.

I had hoped that the book might be received as a legitimate historical study, but to my chagrin I found myself included in a new school, that of the muckrakers.

Theodore Roosevelt, then President of the United States, had become uneasy at the effect on the public of the periodical press’s increasing criticisms and investigations of business and political abuses.

He was afraid that they were adding to the not inconsiderable revolutionary fever abroad, driving people into socialism.

Something must be done, and in a typically violent speech he accused the school of being concerned only with the “vile and debasing.

” Its members were like the man in John Bunyan’s “Pilgrim’s Progress” who with eyes on the ground raked incessantly “the straws, the small sticks, and dust of the floor.

” They were muckrakers.

The conservative public joyfully seized the name.

Roosevelt had of course misread his Bunyan.

The man to whom the Interpreter called the attention of the Pilgrim was raking riches which the Interpreter contemptuously called “straws” and “sticks” and “dust.

” The president would have been nearer Bunyan’s meaning if he had named the rich sinners of the times who in his effort to keep his political balance he called “malefactors of great wealth”—if he had called them, “muckrakers of great wealth” and applied the word “malefactors” to the noisy and persistent writers who so disturbed him.

I once argued with Mr. Roosevelt that we on _McClure’s_ were concerned only with facts, not with stirring up revolt.

“I don’t object to the facts,” he cried, “but you and Baker”—Baker at that time was carrying on an able series of articles on the manipulations of the railroads—“but you and Baker are not _practical_.

” I felt at the time Mr. Roosevelt had a good deal of the usual conviction of the powerful man in public life that correction should be left to him, a little resentment that a profession outside his own should be stealing his thunder.

This classification of muckraker, which I did not like, helped fix my resolution to have done for good and all with the subject which had brought it on me.

But events were stronger than I. All the radical reforming element, and I numbered many friends among them, were begging me to join their movements.

I soon found that most of them wanted attacks.

They had little interest in balanced findings.

Now I was convinced that in the long run the public they were trying to stir would weary of vituperation, that if you were to secure permanent results the mind must be convinced.

One of the most heated movements at the moment was the effort to persuade the public to refuse all gifts which came from fortunes into the making of which it was known illegal and unfair practices had gone.

“Do not touch tainted money,” men thundered from pulpit and platform, among them so able a man as Dr. Washington Gladden.

The Rockefeller fortune was singled out because about this time Mr. Rockefeller made some unusually large contributions to colleges and churches and general philanthropy.

“It is done,” cried the critics, “in order to silence criticism.

” Frequently some one said to me, “You have opened the Rockefeller purse.

” But I knew, and said in print rather to the disgust of my friends in the movement, that there was an unfairness to Mr. Rockefeller in this outcry.

It did not take public criticism to open his purse.

From boyhood he had been a steady giver in proportion to his income—10 per cent went to the Lord—and through all the harrowing early years in which he was trying to establish himself as a money-maker he never neglected to give the Lord the established proportion.

As his fortune grew his gifts grew larger.

He not only gave but saw the money given was wisely spent; and he trained his children, particularly the son who was to administer his estate, to as wise practice in public giving as we have ever had.

That is, it did not take a public outcry such as came in the early years of this century against the methods of the Standard Oil Company to force Mr. Rockefeller to share his wealth.

He was already sharing it.

Indeed, in the fifteen years before 1904 he had given to one or another cause some thirty-five million dollars.

If his gifts were larger at this time than they had ever been before, his money-making was greater.

If they were more spectacular than ever before, it may have been because he thought it was time to call the public’s attention to what they were getting out of the Standard Oil fortune.

At all events it seemed to me only fair that the point should be emphasized that it had not taken a public revolt against his methods to force him to share his profits.

I could not escape the controversies, hard as I tried.

Nor could I escape events, events which were forcing me against my will to continue my observations and reports.

My book was hardly published before it was apparent that the oil field which it had covered and which for so long had been supposed to be the only American oil field of importance was soon to be surpassed by those in the Southwest.

The first state to force recognition of the change on the country at large was Kansas, where suddenly in the spring of 1905 there broke out an agitation as unexpected to most observers as it was interesting to those who knew their oil history.

Kansas, we old-timers told ourselves, was duplicating what the Oil Creek had done in 1872. It was putting on a revolt.

How had it come about?

For a number of years “wildcatters” with or without money had been prospecting for oil in the state.

Only a modest production had rewarded them at first, but in 1904 oil suddenly poured forth in great quantities.

On the instant Kansas went oil-mad, practically every farmer in the state dreamed of flowing wells.

As soon as it was proved that Kansas was to be a large field the Standard took charge.

It leased, drilled, and, most important, it threaded the state with its pipe-line system.

No sooner was oil proved to be on a farmer’s land than the pipe-line people were there caring for it at market rates.

But they began not only to develop and handle scientifically and efficiently, but quite as scientifically and efficiently they began to get rid of all the small fry that in the early days of small wells had been refining and marketing.

They would take all the oil that Kansas could produce, they said, but on their own terms: they wanted no interference.

As soon as this became clear to Kansas the state rose in revolt.

The Populists, who for six years now must needs grumble in a corner, came out to inveigh with all of their old fervor against the trust.

Women’s clubs took it up, political parties took it up.

A program was developed, the gist of which was that Kansas would take care of its own oil.

Bills were introduced into the legislature calculated to control railroad rates, pipe-line rates, competitive marketing.

To the joy of the Populists and to the horror of the conservatives a bill for a state refinery was presented by the governor himself.

Kansas had a hemp factory in the state penitentiary not doing so badly.

Why should not the penitentiary run an oil refinery, too?

The legislature agreed to do it.

The excitement grew and so attracted the attention of the country that the office concluded that I must go out and see what I could make of it.

I did not much want to go, not only because of my desire to free myself of the subject but because my heart was too heavy with personal loss to feel enthusiasm for any task.

In the spring of 1905 my father had died after a long slow illness.

To me he had always been everything that is summed up in the word “dear.

” Modest, humorous, hard-working, friendly, faithful in what he conceived to be the right, he loved his family and friends and church, and asked only to serve them.

His business associates held him as a man of honor and a gentleman.

Father’s death for a time darkened my world.

Later I began to realize that the dearness of him was to remain as a permanent thing in my life.

But in 1905 this sense of continued companionship was something which came slowly out of a dark sea of loss.

So it was with a heavy heart that I went to see what was happening in Kansas.

First I wanted to see with my own eyes if the fields I had been hearing about were as rich as advertised; so I spent some ten days driving about southeastern Kansas and northeastern Oklahoma, then just coming in with the promise of great wells.

It was about as exciting a journey as I ever have made.

It was on one of these trips I saw my first dust storm.

Driving in a buckboard behind two spirited horses across a practically unbroken prairie, my companion suddenly looked behind him.

“Jehoshaphat!

” he shouted.

“Wrap your head up.

” I turned to see the sky from horizon to zenith filled with dark rolling clouds.

It was not from fire.

What was it?

“A dust storm,” my companion cried.

Quickly and expertly he prepared to take it.

He loosened the checkreins of the horses, and the spirited animals evidently knowing what they were in for dropped their heads as low as they could hold them and leaned up against each other.

We wrapped ourselves as closely as we could and, like the horses, clung to each other.

The storm did not last long, but it was pretty awful while it did.

The air was thick, you could not breathe.

But it passed, and I was ordered to shake myself out.

I found that I was almost engulfed with a fine black dust, that it was packed close to the hubs of the wheels of our buckboard.

It was ten days before I got rid of that dust, for it was ten days before I had a real bath.

The dust had turned the primitive water supplies into a muddy liquid quite impossible to drink and hopeless for cleansing.

The wonder of it was that the real discomforts counted not at all at the time.

I had joined an eager, determined, exultant procession of wildcatters and promoters, of youths looking for their chance or seeking adventure for the first time, tasting it to the full.

Nothing so great as this Kansas and Indian Territory field had ever been known.

Every well was to be a gusher, every settlement a city.

On every side they were selling town lots and stock in oil companies.

One of the most irresponsible stock-selling schemes I have ever known, I happened on in one of these trips.

Two anxious-faced boys were going about among experienced oilmen begging them for oil leases, preferably oil leases on which there was a proved well.

The lads had come as sightseers and had been caught in the wild excitement of the region.

Everybody had a scheme to make himself and his friends rich.