Mr. MCKNIGHT. No, sir.

Mr. BERNSTEIN. Or anybody by that name?

Mr. MCKNIGHT. I know-I did see a man that was pointed out to me as Ben Shipp, but I never met him, and I do not know that I have seen him since.

Senator STERLING. What was the date of your visit there and the time when this was pointed out to you?

Mr. MCKNIGHT. I say it was about 1895, 1896, or 1897, because it was during those years that Mr. Stewart was logging at this point around there.

Senator STERLING. What was the appearance of that house as to its age or the length of time which it had been built?

Mr. MCKNIGHT. New.

Senator STERLING. It was a new house?

Mr. MCKNIGHT. Yes, sir; new lumber.

The CHAIRMAN. Does Stewart claim to have put those improvements there himself?

Mr. MCKNIGHT. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Who put them there?

Mr. MCKNIGHT. Well, I do not know that he said.

Senator STERLING. You consider the house and the clearing there as the improvement rather than the barking or deadening of the trees?

Mr. MCKNIGHT. Yes; but those improvements you speak of were new; had just been made.

Mr. ASWELL. They might have been made on the site of an old house?

Mr. MCKNIGHT. Well, I was going by what Mr. Stewart told me, and he was very familiar with those lands, and lived not very far

away.

The CHAIRMAN. All we care about is who put the actual improvements there. When anyone pointed them out to you is not material. Now, you saw some improvements there. How did it come you did not inquire and find out who did that?

Mr. MCKNIGHT. Well, I did not think anything about it.

Senator STERLING. Was there a well on the place? Was there a well there?

Mr. MCKNIGHT. I did not go up to the house. It was on the road. I passed along the road a few days ago.

Senator STERLING. You do not know now who lives there?

Mr. MCKNIGHT. No, sir.

Mr. BERNSTEIN. Is it occupied by anybody now?

Mr. MCKNIGHT. It seems to be; yes.

Mr. BERNSTEIN. Do you know who knows?

Mr. MCKNIGHT. No.

Senator STERLING. Was there a stable on the premises?

Mr. MCKNIGHT. I presume so.

Mr. BERNSTEIN. You had no interest at that time in fixing it in your memory?

Mr. MCKNIGHT. Not then.

The CHAIRMAN. You were not there then for the purpose of finding out about the property?

Mr. MCKNIGHT. No, sir; merely riding by, going to another property.

The CHAIRMAN. And felt no interest in it?

Mr. MCKNIGHT. No, sir.

Mr. ASWELL. Mr. Bernstein, what is your object in having him make that statement? He does not seem to know anything about it. Mr. BERNSTEIN. The object of having him make that statement is that he does know there were a new improvement on it in 1897, and if this man Shipp ever was there he came there at that late date.

The CHAIRMAN. And any other improvements were made previously to his coming there?

Mr. MCKNIGHT. If there were any there at all they belonged to somebody else and Shipp had no connection with them.

(The papers in connection with the Ben Shipp claim, marked "Opponents Exhibit BB," will be filed with the committee.)

Mr. BERNSTEIN. I next offer an affidavit marked "DD," the J. E. Whatley claim.

Senator STERLING. Were these affidavits introduced on behalf of the proponents?

Mr. BERNSTEIN. Yes, sir.

Senator STERLING. I mean before the House committee, for the purpose of showing the general nature of these claims?

Mr. BERNSTEIN. Yes, sir.

Senator STERLING. Of course the affidavits relate to a comparatively few claims involved?

Mr. BERNSTEIN. They were introduced for the purpose of showing the general nature of the claims of some of these particular affiants as the so-called old settlers in whose behalf legislation was asked, or their assignees; and the purpose now is to refute that.

This is the affidavit of Herbert N. Tannehill. He deposes and says: He has read a copy of the affidavit of J. E. Whatley of December 16, 1913, regarding possession and ownership of the E. of NW. 1, SW. 1 of NW., and NE. of SW. of section 23, township 7 north, range 2 east, of La Salle Parish, State of Louisiana, which affidavit he is informed was filed with the Public Lands Committee of the House of Congress at Washington, D. C., at a hearing on January 26th and 27th, 1914, before said committee, of the so-called Aswell bill." Deponent says he is a civil engineer and land surveyor by occupation, is of the age of 34 years and resides in La Salle Parish, La., and further says he is familiar with said described lands and the title thereto, that the public records of title show that said NE. of SW. of section 23 was entered and certificate issued therefor by the United States to Thomas F. Gibson, February 8, 1859, and by sundry deeds of transfer the title passed to said J. E. Whatley, January 16, 1892, and from said Whatley by various transfers to the Trout Creek Lumber Company, which company owns same at this date.

Deponent further declares that the other lands above described and being in the NW. of said secton 23, are virgin pine forest and that he has run the lines around these lands and examined same, and by the appearance thereof there has never been any clearing, residence, or improvements of any kind thereon, or any occupancy thereof, and the same is owned and possessed by the Trout Creek Lumber Company by a deed of June 1, 1910, and a clear, regular chain of title of record thereto, and deponent further affirms that the James J. O'Shee named in the affidavit of said Whatley as being his vendor of said land in 1897, has never lived in the Parish of La Salle, is a lumber manufacturer, and is, and has been for many years, a resident of the city of Alexandria, Louisiana.

The fact of the matter is he lives in Rapides County, in Louisiana, and was formerly the Gould agent.

And the official record books of La Salle Parish do not show that any title to said lands ever vested in said O'Shee, and deponent further affirms that the Germain & Boyd Lumber Company were the vendors of the said NW. of

section 23 to the Trout Creek Lumber Company, and that before they sold said land to the Trout Creek Lumber Company, said J. E. Whatley was the local land agent of the said Germain & Boyd Lumber Company, caring for their lands, reporting trespasses, etc., and deponent further affirms said J. E. Whatley has lived on section 9, township 7 north, range 2 east, at White Sulphur Springs, about 2 miles from said section 23 for the past 11 years, before which period said deponent was not acquainted with said Whatley, and during this 11 years deponent affirms said Whatley has been a merchant and engaged in logging.

And yet he has this homestead case here.

Here is another one, an affidavit by Mr. Grey, the gentleman here, in which he says that—

He is a timber estimater and land looker by occupation. He further affirms there never has been any clearing, fields, houses, or occupancy of any kind on said described land, and that it is exclusively forest land. He affirms he has run the lines around said land and has been over the land many times, and further affirms he knows James J. O'Shee, mentioned in the affidavit of J. E. Whatley, filed with the Public Lands Committee of the House of Representatives, and that said O'Shee never resided on said land, but is a lumber manufacturer, and resides in Alexandria, Louisiana, and that said J. E. Whatley has resided at White Sulphur Springs on section 9 in said township for about 20 years, and has been a merchant and engaged in logging during that period. Then follows the chain of title.

(The document above referred to, marked "DD," will be filed with the committee.)

The next document is EE. Col. Nicholson, will you please tell the committee, in detail, about the chain of title, and about the claim of Mr. Francis to this?

Mr. NICHOLSON. Yes, sir.

STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE R. NICHOLSON.

Mr. NICHOLSON. In about 1902 I purchased of the railroad lands about 4,000 acres, and among those 4,000 acres was 40 acres of the land that this B. Francis swears he is entitled to take up and homestead, and he includes with that 40 acres 120 acres surrounding it.

The facts of the matter are these: This yellow fellow here is the 40 I own. I found a man by the name of Mr. C. W. Whatley living there. I asked him if he claimed the lands. He said he did not, that he wanted to buy the 40 acres. I made a bargain with him and sold the 40 acres, taking down a small payment and taking his mortgage back.

Mr. Whatley did not claim any of this other 160 acres that he is now claiming in his affidavit before the House committee. Mr. Whatley, by the way, sold this land to the affiant in this affidavit, one F. B. Francis. Mr. Francis said they went on and cut his timber on this land in the face of his purchase and discharged him from their employment because of his action here. Now, I have the affidavit of Mr. Whatley, to whom I first sold the land, in which Mr. Whatley says he never claimed any land in that country but the land he bought of me and transferred to the men who now claims he is entitled to enter 160 acres under this proposed act.

And there is also an affidavit filed here refuting the affidavit of Francis. If you desire me to read them I will read those affidavits. The CHAIRMAN. I think you might just submit them unless there is something special in them.

Mr. NICHOLSON. That is all there is in that. From the land they bought of me and received of me they are laying claim to be the assignee of an actual settler on this land.

The CHAIRMAN. And they claim under Whatley?

Mr. NICHOLSON. They claim under Whatley.

The CHAIRMAN. And Whatley claims he never claimed any land except that you deeded him?

Mr. NICHOLSON. Absolutely, and he swears to that in his affidavit. And I have here a certified copy of the abstract of title to the land, certified by the clerk and recorder of the parish in which it is located the parish of La Salle.

Senator STERLING. You have Mr. Whatley's affidavit?

Mr. NICHOLSON. Yes, sir; my vendee; and I also have here the deed signed by Mr. Whatley-the mortgage.

The CHAIRMAN. Showing only the 40 acres?

Mr. NICHOLSON. Showing only the 40 acres; yes, sir. I desire to have these back, if the committee wants to look at them.

The CHAIRMAN. You might file copies if you want to file them.

Mr. NICHOLSON. The original is on file in the clerk's office. This is a certified copy of the notarial act. We can not keep the original. If I could withdraw those afterwards-or I will have a copy made here.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, your statement of the facts does not seem to be controverted. The deed itself is here now and you state it showed only a conveyance of 40 acres?

Mr. NICHOLSON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think it will be necessary to leave that unless somebody asks for it.

Mr. NORRIS. The fact of this is the homestead entry this man claims is 160 acres, 40 of which he already owns, and he is claiming the other on the basis of the 40 he already owns.

Mr. NICHOLSON. And Mr. Whatley swears there is nothing to that except the 40 he bought of me.

(The papers in connection with the Francis claim, marked "Opponent's Exhibit EE," will be filed with the committee.)

Here is a parallel case, the southeast quarter of section 11, township 7, range 2 east.

I sold the southeast quarter of that land to a man named John McVey, a squatter there. He did not claim it. He transferred some kind of a right to a man named J. G. Duke and J. G. Duke swears the land known as the southeast quarter of section 11, township 7 north, range 2 east, which he now occupies and is in possession of, was occupied October 27, 1881, during the time of the definite location of the New Orleans Pacific Railway and was occupied continuously up until the present.

Now, there never was any possession of this land except the possession that was derived through my deed to John McVey.

Here is the affidavit of John R. McVey to whom I sold that 40

acres.

Senator STERLING. When was that sold to Mr. McVey?

Mr. NICHOLSON. It was in 1903. There is a deed here for that. Here it is [indicating].

The CHAIRMAN. Was he on that 40 acres when you sold it to him? Mr. NICHOLSON. Yes, sir; he was.

The CHAIRMAN. Was he claiming it?

Mr. NICHOLSON. No, sir; he did not claim it.

Senator STERLING. Do you know how long he had been there?

Mr. NICHOLSON. He said, in his affidavit, the land was not occupied until he went onto it, some time in 1881, I think it was, and that nobody was on the land. His affidavit shows that.

He further says that there were no improvements on or occupation of said land on October 27, 1881, or before that date, and that he went on the northwest quarter of the said southeast quarter in 1889 and lived there continuously until about April, 1911, and that on March 11, 1903, he purchased the said northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of section 11 from George R. Nicholson and received deed therefor and gave back a mortgage for the unpaid part of the purchase money and never held any other title to this land.

That is the affidavit of the man to whom I sold this land.

The CHAIRMAN. What did he convey? Did he convey just 40 acres there?

Mr. NICHOLSON. I can not find any conveyance from him.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the present claimant claim under him?
Mr. NICHOLSON. Yes.

Senator STERLING. He claims your quarter section?

Mr. NICHOLSON. Yes, sir. I brought these affidavits-I first put on here a copy of the affidavit filed in the House and then these contrary affidavits, and then offer a certified copy of the abstract of title, which shows what I say is correct.

(The papers in connection with the Duke claim, marked "Opponent's Exhibit FF," were filed with the committee.)

Senator STERLING. How are the corners marked of the surveys in that section of the country?

Mr. NICHOLSON. They are marked with trees.

Mr. BLACK. They were marked originally with posts, and in most cases those posts have burned away or have rotted away.

Mr. BUCHANAN. In many cases where trees have been barked, you could not go there now and find the old blaze in the trees; you could not go there now and find it?

Mr. NICHOLSON. This town was resurveyed and it is fresh.

Senator STERLING. They never undertook to mark the boundary line; just the corners?

Mr. NICHOLSON. No; the section lines are run around every section, and well blazed.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Usually a pine is notched and the trees blazed.

STATEMENT OF MR. FLORIEN GUIAQUE.

Mr. GUIAQUE. Speaking of our section corner marks and lines, I began to see long ago that after awhile these forests would be cut down, and there would be no way of finding the section corners, as they were put down with pine notches, and they would rot away and would burn away, and that there would be great confusion down there some day.

And in many cases I insisted with the people down there," You get a stone, rock, or something of that kind and put it down, and then you will have a corner site for any people who look for the line."

Lately I said, "When you survey that quarter section, you put down a concrete corner at each corner of each 40 on that 160 acres