An Analysis of the Legality Ofstate Mineral Leases Granted to WT
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
LSU Journal of Energy Law and Resources Volume 5 Issue 1 Journal of Energy Law & Resources -- Spring 2017 11-20-2017 The Kingfish’s Mineral Legacy: An Analysis of the Legality ofState Mineral Leases Granted to W.T. Burton and JamesA. Noe During the Years 1934–1936 and Their Relevanceto Former United States Senator and Louisiana GovernorHuey P. Long Ryan M. Seidemann Ethel S. Graham Steven B. "Beaux" Jones William T. Hawkins Frederic Augonnet Repository Citation Ryan M. Seidemann, Ethel S. Graham, Steven B. "Beaux" Jones, William T. Hawkins, and Frederic Augonnet, The Kingfish’s Mineral Legacy: An Analysis of the Legality ofState Mineral Leases Granted to W.T. Burton and JamesA. Noe During the Years 1934–1936 and Their Relevanceto Former United States Senator and Louisiana GovernorHuey P. Long, 5 LSU J. of Energy L. & Resources (2017) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/jelr/vol5/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Journal of Energy Law and Resources by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Kingfish’s Mineral Legacy: An Analysis of the Legality of State Mineral Leases Granted to W.T. Burton and James A. Noe During the Years 1934– 1936 and Their Relevance to Former United States Senator and Louisiana Governor, Huey P. Long1 Ryan M. Seidemann, Ethel S. Graham, Steven B. “Beaux”Jones, William T. Hawkins, Frederic Augonnet Copyright 2017, by RYAN M. SEIDEMANN, ETHEL S. GRAHAM, STEVEN B. “BEAUX” JONES, WILLIAM T. HAWKINS, AND FREDERICK AUGONNET. * Author Ryan M. Seidemann holds a B.A. (Florida State Univ.) and M.A. (Louisiana State Univ.) in anthropology as well as a B.C.L. and a J.D. in law (Louisiana State Univ.). He is the Section Chief of the Lands & Natural Resources Section, Civil Division, Louisiana Department of Justice, as well as being an adjunct professor of law at Southern University Law Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He is also a Registered Professional Archaeologist. Co-author Ethel S. Graham holds a J.D. in law (National Autonomous Univ. of Mexico). She is a former Assistant Attorney General in the Environmental Section, Civil Division, Louisiana Department of Justice. Co-author Steven B. “Beaux” Jones holds a B.A. (Davidson College) in Political Science as well as a D.C.L. and a J.D. in law (Louisiana State University). He is an Assistant Attorney General in the Environmental Section, Civil Division, Louisiana Department of Justice. Co- author William T. Hawkins holds a B.A. (Louisiana State University) and an M.A. (Univ. of Central Florida) in anthropology and worked for three years as the staff anthropologist at the Louisiana Department of Justice. Mr. Hawkins is currently pursuing an M.F.A. at the Univ. of California, Irvine. Co-author Frederic Augonnet is the Junior Corporate Counsel at Granicus, Inc., and contributed to this report while working as a summer intern at the Louisiana Department of Justice. He holds a J.D. from Tulane University Law School in New Orleans, Louisiana. 1. Additional research, advising, and consultation that did not amount to written components of this report was provided by Andrew J.S. “Jack” Jumonville, Megan K. Terrell, Jackson D. Logan, III, Daniel D. Henry, Jr., Richard L. McGimsey, Tracy Poissot, Daniel S. Major, Jr., Michael Ellington, Frederick Heck, April P. Duhe, James J. Devitt, Victor Vaughn, Stacey Talley, Louis Temento, Vadal Bolds, Cynthia L. Miller, Erik Miller, A.J. Gray, III, and Jack B. McGuire. In addition to the above-named individuals, the staffs of the following collections are recognized for their assistance in researching and obtaining many of the historic and supporting documents necessary for this research: Louisiana State Archives; Tulane University’s Howard-Tilton Memorial Library; the University of Louisiana at Monroe’s University Library; Louisiana State University’s Hill Memorial Library, Troy H. Middleton Library, and Paul M. Hebert Law Library; the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill’s Louis Round Wilson Special Collections Library; the University of New Orleans’ Earl K. Long Library; McNeese State University’s Frazar Memorial Library; the Northwestern Louisiana University’s Eugene P. Watson Memorial Library; the Louisiana State Library; the National Archives and Records Administration, Ft. 72 LSU JOURNAL OF ENERGY LAW AND RESOURCES [Vol. V TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................. 73 I. What is Win or Lose Corporation? ................................................. 75 A. Huey P. Long ........................................................................... 78 B. Oscar K. Allen .......................................................................... 80 C. James A. Noe ........................................................................... 81 D. William T. Burton .................................................................... 82 E. Earle Christenberry .................................................................. 83 F. Seymour Weiss......................................................................... 83 II. Historic Controversies .................................................................... 84 A. Review of All Known Legal Cases Filed, Their Outcomes, and Their Impact on any Current or Future Action......................... 84 1. State v. Noe (La. 19th J.D.C. 1936) (No. 11,112) ............. 84 2. State v. Noe (La. 19th J.D.C. 1936) (No. 11,126) ............. 86 3. United States v. Noe (E.D. La. 1942) (No. 20,070) ........... 87 4. State v. Burton (La. 14th J.D.C. 1944) (No. 22,664) ......... 88 5. State v. Grace (La. 19th J.D.C. 1945) (No. 21,076) .......... 91 6. Roussel v. Noe (La. 16th J.D.C. 1980) (No. 42,338); 274 So.2d 205 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1973) ...................................... 93 7. Summary of the Win or Lose Cases .................................. 98 B. Historic Attorney General Reviews of the Win or Lose Leases .................................................................................... 99 1. The 1936 Gardiner Letter .................................................. 99 2. The 1941 Gensler Memorandum ..................................... 100 3. The 1941 Perrault Memorandum and Analysis ............... 101 4. The 1937 Wood Memorandum ........................................ 105 Worth facility; the Historic New Orleans Collection; the New Orleans Notarial Archives; and the clerks of court for the Eighth (Winn), Fourteenth (Calcasieu), Sixteenth (St. Mary), and Nineteenth (East Baton Rouge) Judicial Districts, the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, the First Circuit Court of Appeal, and the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Middle Districts of Louisiana. Finally, this article is dedicated to the memory of Andrew J.S. “Jack” Jumonville. Jack assisted in shaping much of the theoretical underpinnings of this project and provided advice and edits during the original draft writing process. This insight was drawn from Jack’s more than forty years as a mineral attorney in Louisiana—often described by his colleagues as one of the best in the business. Jack’s last project for the State of Louisiana before his death in 2013 was a review of this work and his insights and efforts in his final days were instrumental in ensuring the correctness of the analyses herein. The views and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the Louisiana Department of Justice or the Attorney General. 2017] THE KINGFISH’S MINERAL LEGACY 73 5. The 1941 Gay Memorandum ........................................... 107 6. The 1941 Gensler Letter .................................................. 108 7. The 1943 Gladney Letter ................................................. 110 III. Implicated Leases ......................................................................... 113 A. State Leases Involved in the Win or Lose Matter .................. 113 B Leases That Need No Examination ........................................ 114 IV. Current Legal Theories ................................................................. 115 A. Malfeasance in Office ............................................................ 116 B. Ethical Violations–Ethics Laws in 1936 ................................ 117 C. Bid Collusion ......................................................................... 117 D. Fraud……. ............................................................................. 122 E. Were there Violations of the Bid Process in the 1930s with the Win or Lose Leases? .............................................................. 124 1. What Were the Steps and Were They Followed? ............ 125 2. Were These Leases the Most Advantageous Leases to the State? ............................................................................... 127 F. Public Bribery and Corrupt Influencing ................................. 130 G. Conspiracy ............................................................................. 132 H. Lease Nullification for Immoral Object ................................. 133 I. The Perez Cases ..................................................................... 137 V. Mitigating Factors ......................................................................... 140 A. Evidentiary Problems ............................................................