Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes, sir; we have got a lot tied up in overflow now. We are trying to have 10 or 15 arrested for it now. Mr. Gray over there knows something about that. It is almost impossible to get convictions and proof. Mr. HUNTER. Your company, then, is not disposed to resort to the processes of law which the Louisiana courts and legislature have provided for your protection in such cases as that? Mr. BUCHANAN. It is a very unpopular and very unsuccessful method for holding your timber and your land. Mr. HUNTER. Do you think when you have full protection under the law of the State of Louisiana it is right for you to come here and oppose legislation by Congress in the interest of actual bona fide settlers upon those lands who are shut off from making their claims in the land office because the land office has held that patents having been issued to the lands to the railroad company the land office was divested of any further jurisdiction? Mr. BUCHANAN. Under the law, I consider these men have no rights. They have slept on their rights and have neglected them for many years, and innocent purchasers have bought those lands depending on the sanctity of the Government patent, which is the strongest thing I know of, and, as a matter of law, they have not any rights at all. As a matter of equity, that happens to be a different question. Mr. HUNTER. Do you know that in the patent itself which was issued to the railroad company there was an exception of all the lands occupied by actual settlers at the date of the definite location of the road? Mr. BUCHANAN. The settlers had a right and are now barred by the statute of limitations. Mr. HUNTER. Do you know that that exception of these lands occupied by actual settlers was made in the patent itself issued to the railroad company? Mr. BUCHANAN. I am not so sure about that. I think so; but I think in the original grant there is no exception made whatever, or no allowance made whatever to settlers, in the first old original grant. Mr. HUNTER. In the patents that were issued in 1885 and recorded in the courthouse at Alexandria, La., there is that exception. The gentlemen say that there is not, and I say that there is. Mr. BUCHANAN. I do not say that there is not. I do not know. Mr. HUNTER. I have cited and filed some of them before the committee. Mr. MCRAE. Permit me to ask you if you do not know that the Supreme Court held them void? Mr. HUNTER. No. I know they held them good, and I will cite two cases in which they do hold them good. Mr. BUCHANAN. I am not going to argue law questions with the colonel. Mr. MCRAE. Have you read the case of Burke v. Southern Pacific? Mr. HUNTER. Yes, sir. I am willing to talk law with you. Mr. MCRAE. You talk about exceptions. He told you he does not know, and I say I do know. Mr. HUNTER. I will show you that I do know when we come to argue the law. The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, I think that we will proceed with the questions of fact now. Mr. HUNTER. Yes, sir: I would rather do it-much rather. Mr. BUCHANAN. I am through, so far as I am concerned, if the gentlemen have no other questions to ask me. Mr. HUNTER. I want to ask you this question, Mr. Buchanan: When you bought those lands did you take into consideration the fact that the recorded patents issued to the railroad company did contain an exception of lands occupied by actual settlers? Mr. BLACK. You say you have a copy of that here? Mr. HUNTER. I had it in the House record. I offered it there, and I offered one here at the last hearing. Mr. BUCHANAN. Our general attorney, Mr. Moore, when we purchased these lands, put in a great deal of time looking up the papers and titles. He went to New Orleans and got copies of all documents, and his report to us was that the parties from whom we bought this land had a good, clear title, and that the records so showed, and we purchased it depending on his report as being correct. That is all I know about that. I did not delve into the titles. We had attorneys for that. Mr. HUNTER. That is all I want to ask Mr. Buchanan. The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further from the gentlemen on this side of the table? Mr. MCRAE. If the committee will indulge me just a moment, the colonel asked a question predicated upon a statement that a bona fide settler was on the land in 1871 and asked if he should not have some protection. I want to say to the committee, and I believe for the interests that I represent, that if there were any such settlers on the land who have not been protected, and they were entitled to enter and had not entered, had not abandoned their entry, and are still living, so that they can comply with the homestead law, the Congress of the United States ought to give them a right to enter or give them floatable scrip or money compensation or whatever it sees fit; but it ought not to take property that has already been conveyed to another concern. That is what is intended by this act, to protect settlers of that kind; and if they lost this land by any act of theirs, and you want to give them something, give them something that the Government owns. Our position is, however honest they may be, you can not take our property to make good your wrong. Senator STERLING. Mr. McRae, do you think there can be any holders of title under these original settlers who would have equitable rights? Mr. MCRAE. Taking the whole act together, I do not think the act intended to protect anybody except the settlers or people who are heirs or widows who might enter. Of course we have discussed that already. The question of the assigns only occurs in one section. It does not occur anywhere else in the act. It does not occur anywhere else in the public land laws. It is inconsistent with the theory of public land laws. The proviso to section 2, in which it does appear, does nothing in the world except puts the land back in the public domain for Congress to dispose of as it sees fit. So I do not think that this Congress ought to give any assigns any standing whatever, but if in good faith a bona fide settler, 21 years old, an American citizen, or some one who had taken the oath of allegiance to become an American citizen, who had never had the benefit of the homestead law, who was on that land, had lost his rights, if I was in Congress I would give him another right, or give him a piece of scrip that would let him go anywhere in the country and get it. The CHAIRMAN. Now, from the very nature of things that could apply to only a very few individuals. Mr. MCRAE. If you wanted to make it apply to assigns you could make it apply. But in answer to the question the Senator asked, the proposition we have here, gentlemen, is that these people, these lumber companies, a dozen or more of them, invested their money in high-priced land, buying after you had issued a patent, and if we are not good-faith purchasers in the sense that the Supreme Court has defined that term, you can not find one. The CHAIRMAN. Of course, it is well settled that Congress can not legislate away vested rights. You can not do that, of course. Mr. MCRAE. Of course, the question of whether Congress has authority to do that we take up as a legal question; but, outside of that, these people bought these lands; they own them in good faith; they own them now; and I just want to clear up my position, because I have been in the position of you gentlemen; and whenever I found that the United States had crossed its rights by trying to give the same piece of property to two people, the one that it had wronged I always sought to give something else, and not take away what you had given the other man; and if you want to compensate these people you can do it in another way. Mr. ASWELL. What would the settlers do with scrip? Mr. MCRAE. Locate it on public land. Give them a right to take another homestead. Mr. ASWELL. If he could find public land elsewhere, would he need any scrip? Mr. MCRAE. Suppose he did not want to go there, but wanted to live in Louisiana; he could sell his right to locate in Arkansas or Louisiana or anywhere. These scrip rights are quite valuable. Mr. ASWELL. Why not give scrip to the lumber people? Mr. MCRAE. That is where we differ with you. Mr. NORRIS. That character of scrip is worth $40 or $50 an acre. Mr. ASWELL. Where is there public land for that scrip? Mr. MCRAE. Wherever you make it. Mr. ASWELL. Where is there any such land? Mr. NORRIS. Give me your scrip and I will tell you. Mr. HUDSON. The report of the surveyor general in 1914 shows that there is over 100,000 acres in Louisiana. Mr. MCRAE. Col. Proudfit can tell you how much public_land there is. Take the last report of the General Land Office and you will find that there is a great deal of public land all over this country. It is not all gone. You asked the question, What would you do with these people you have wronged? If these people have been wronged, the Congress of the United States has wronged them and we have not; that is the proposition. Senator STERLING. Take this proposition, Mr. McRae: Suppose the land has been settled upon prior to 1871, at the time of the grant to the railroad company, and valuable improvements have been made; the entry has never been perfected at the Land Office, but the settler sells whatever rights he has and his improvements to another man. Now, will he have equities by virtue of his possession as against the claims of the railroad company? Mr. McRAE. I do not think, under the law, that he is recognized at all; but you could deal with that. It is a public question that the legislators could deal with. I do not think that there is any protection for him in this act or in this grant, and if under the proviso of the first section he has been misled and you think that he ought to be protected, in your generosity and power you can give him whatever right you want and recognize him just as you do the original settler; that is, recognize his right to sell that. But my interpretation of this law is that he does not get that right by reason of it; but if that has been the understanding in Louisiana and of those who have interpreted this law-that the assignee should be entitled to what the original settler had-why, then, you can so provide. The CHAIRMAN. All right, Col. Hunter; we are ready for you now. STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT P. HUNTER. Mr. HUNTER. I want to offer first, Mr. Chairman, what I offered at the House hearings, but do not find published in the House hearings, a memorial of the State legislature of the State of Indiana asking Congress to pass legislation in favor of these settlers. The CHAIRMAN. Have you that memorial? Mr. HUNTER. I haven't it. We offered the official copy at the House hearings. The CHAIRMAN. Of course you understand we can not get the record unless it is furnished? Senator RANSDELL. You offer it and reserve the right to furnish it to the stenographer to be published in the record? Mr. HUNTER. We will have to do that, sir. We will furnish it. Senator RANSDELL. That is the only way we could get it. Mr. HUNTER. We offered the original in the House hearings, and I do not see it published in the House hearings. Senator RANSDELL. There would be no objection, I suppose, to that being furnished for the official record? The CHAIRMAN. No. I was merely calling his attention to the fact that he would have to supply it. Mr. HUNTER. Yes, sir. Mr. ASWELL. It is published in the Senate hearings. The CHAIRMAN. It is already in the hearings? Mr. ASWELL. Yes, sir; it is. Mr. HUNTER. Then I will not offer it now. It is on page 118 of the Senate hearings. The CHAIRMAN. I thought, when you mentioned it, I remembered your having inserted it, but you did not say so. Mr. HUNTER. Well, at this time I would like to call the attention of the committee to that in connection with other papers that I am going to file. I offer a petition to this committee from the citizens of Grant Parish, signed by 29 citizens of the Parish of Grant. I do not think any of those citizens are settlers. I would like to have that published. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. HUNTER. I will adopt the plan of numbering my papers from 1 on. (The paper referred to was marked "Proponents' Exhibit No. 1," was filed with the committee.) Mr. HUNTER. I offer now another petition from the parish of Rapides, signed by 50 citizens of the parish of Rapides, asking this committee to pass this bill. That is marked No. 2. (The papers referred to, marked "Proponents' Exhibit No. 2," was filed with the committee.) Mr. HUNTER. No. 3 is a petition signed by 33 citizens of the parish of Rapides asking the committee to pass this bill. (The paper referred to, marked "Proponents' Exhibit No. 3," was filed with the committee.) Mr. HUNTER. Petition No. 4, signed by about 60 citizens of the parish of Rapides, asking the committee to pass this bill. (The paper referred to, marked "Proponents' Exhibit No. 4," was filed with the committee.) Mr. HUNTER. There are other petitions which I do not find just now which I will ask leave to have published in the record, and I will furnish them to the stenographer later. (The papers referred to, marked "Proponents' Exhibit No. 5," were filed with the committee.) Mr. HUNTER. In connection with the documents filed by opponents of the bill, taken from the land office, and showing that about 2,500 applications have been made for homesteads on this railroad land, I file a compilation made by myself this morning. (The paper referred to, marked "Proponents' Exhibit No. 6," was filed with the committee.) Mr. HUNTER. I only had this before breakfast this morning, to look over. This shows that there were 313 homestead claims allowed, either wholly or in part, by this statement, and on page 13 of that document, I offer this extract of names of those who have made homestead application that these gentlemen call fraudulent: No. 500. Thomas W. Perrin, Jena, La., homestead application, No. 4798, for the southeast quarter section 31. Senator RANSDELL. Who is Mr. Perrin? Mr. HUNTER. I was going to state to this committee that Thomas W. Perrin was the opponent of Mr. Aswell in the last Democratic primaries, supported and sustained by the influences and money of these land companies, who made a tremendous effort to defeat Mr. Aswell and elect Mr. Perrin. I speak for myself here, now, Mr. Chairman, when I make this statement, that I am beginning to believe that I am a prophet, or a son of a prophet, because I told you when I was here in June that that was the purpose in asking you for a continuance of the hearings; that they did intend to go down into Louisiana and use their money and influence to try to defeat Mr. Aswell. Now, I want to state to you that the result was that the canvass was made in that whole district of eight parishes on this land bill of Mr. Aswell. It was the principal point in the whole canvass. Mr. Perrin had promised he |