Mr. HUNTER. The proponents will be represented by Robert P. Hunter and Charles F. Consaul, of this city. Mr. Consaul will close for the proponents.

The CHAIRMAN. I have no doubt the members of the committee will want to make some inquiries, and that may modify the length of time required somewhat.. As this committee has before it some 400 or 500 bills, we want to be as economical of our time as possible. We appreciate the fact that you gentlemen have gotten together and tried to economize the time as much as possible.

Mr. LENROOT. May I inquire whether the proponents will take their entire time in opening, or whether they desire time in which to reply?

Mr. HUNTER. We desire one hour in opening and one hour in reply.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed now, Mr. Aswell.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES B. ASWELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.

Mr. ASWELL. Mr. Chairman, I shall state briefly that this bill was presented by the chairman of this committee to the Commissioner of the General Land Office last June, and the General Land Office has devoted its earnest study to the bill. You have heard the report upon it read.

In reference to one matter which is mentioned in the report, I wish, in the beginning, to ask the committee to amend the bill on page 3, line8, after the word "approvals," in the middle of the line, to insert a period and strike out the remainder of the paragraph. That is in harmony with the suggestion made in the report on this bill which you have just heard read.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean strike out the remainder of the paragraph to the end of the section?

Mr. ASWELL. To the end of the section.

Mr. RAKER. That covers the suggestion made by the Secretary of the Interior?

Mr. ASWELL. Yes; that covers the suggestion made by the Secretary of the Interior.

I live in Louisiana among the citizens and settlers who are interested in this land question and I have heard, personally, their complaints and know their restlessness and dissatisfaction. My interest in the bill and the reason of its introduction are very simply stated. It is in the interest of common justice. There are in my State approximately 450 settlers who were on this land at the time of the definite location of the railroad in 1882. They have been in doubt for 30 years as to whether they own their own homes. and they have been unable to get any definite settlement of their interests.

Mr. FERGUSSON. Have all of them patents?

Mr. ASWELL. They have not. They have been unable to get to Congress or to be heard except in the local courts.

Many of them are old. They are farmers, without money, who have influence in Washington only to the extent of what an honest life represents. Beyond that they have had no chance.

Mr. SINNOTT. Did you understand Mr. Fergusson's question? He asked you if they had patents.

Mr. ASWELL. I understood him.

Mr. FERGUSSON. Patents from the Government.

Mr. ASWELL. They have not. They have gotten together and made ap a small fund of money, contributing, some of them, 50 cents apiece or more, and they have sent here to this committee three of their number, with an attorney, who have made a trip of 1,250 miles each way. The settlers have been unable to come themselves, but they have raised this little contribution and have sent here one of the typical settlers himself, who has been on this land for many

years.

Now, gentlemen, I have the kindliest interest and sympathy and friendship for every man apposing this bill whom I know personally, but I want to call the attention of this committee to a concrete example in this contest.

Here are 450 private citizens whose influence in Washington is their character. They come here to make a fight for their homes. In opposition to this bill this morning here are eminent attorneys from my own State, eminent attorneys from Chicago, and Michigan, and Ohio, and New York City, representing about seven States.

You have a practical, concrete demonstration of the relative strength in a contest between a private citizen when he is in a fight with the great corporate interests of the country.

The contest is unequal. I introduced this bill with the simple purpose of bringing to the attention of this Congress a plan of giving these citizens their homes, upon which their heirs or assigns have lived for 40 years. They have always thought they were their homes. They still believe they are their homes, and the result is a spirit of great unrest exists in some sections of my district. You can not expect anything else.

I will not take up the time of this committee, but I want to make this general statement, as to why I introduced this bill, and why I am bringing it to this committee in the firm faith that these citizens and all concerned will receive justice.

These gentlemen are here to speak for settlers, some of whom represent as many as 50 children and grandchildren. This old gentleman, Mr. Henderson, has been asked to come here to testify. He has been on his land since 1869. He came out of the war crippled and shot to pieces. He represents one of those 450 families, with his own 31 children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.

I merely ask you to give that kind of man a hearing. I hope when you thrash this out you will recognize that there is only one question involved, and that is the question of justice to be dealt out to both sides of this question. That is all I ask, that is all we want. Now, without keeping you longer, I want to ask Col. Robert P. Hunter, who has represented these settlers for many years and who has had most of these cases in his section, to argue the case before Col. Hunter is a man known all over the country as representing that phase of the contest.

you.

Mr. SINNOTT. When was the land in question patented to the railroad company?

Mr. HUNTER. On March 3, 1885.

Mr. SINNOTT. And the setlers have been on the land in the meantime? *i

t

Mr. HUNTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. SINNOTT. Why could they not avail themselves of the statute of limitations?

Mr. HUNTER. It is 30 years in Louisiana.

The best answer to that question is that the department had in reality no authority to issue those patents, and the department has taken the position that they had no authority to reverse this action.

Mr. SINNOTT. Why could they not avail themselves of the remedies in the courts of Louisiana? Has anything been done in that direction?

Mr. HUNTER. Thirty years is the time.

Mr. RAKER. You say there are about 450 qualified homesteaders who have been claiming this land during the time since the final location?

Mr. ASWELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. These are principally in your district?

Mr. ASWELL. Yes, sir; principally. I would like to say in reply to Judge Raker's question that this bill explicitly excludes any unworthy squatters or any persons who did not establish their claim in 1882 and have come here since 1887. The definite location of the road was in 1882.

I would like to say in further reply that the term "squatter," as used by those in opposition to this bill, has no reference to the bill, because we specifically limit our bill to the heirs or assigns of those who were actually living on the land in 1882. Of course, people who have gone in since then have no claim at all under the acts of 1871 and 1887.

Mr. RAKER. It might make a considerable difference in the matter. How long have you been in that country?

Mr. ASWELL. I have been there 44 years; I was born there.

Mr. RAKER. From personal observation are you acquainted with some of the conditions you speak of?

Mr. ASWELL. Yes, sir; I know all about the general conditions. I have traveled over nearly every pig trail in the State.

Mr. RAKER. Take a concrete case.

A is living on this land, think

ing he is entitled to his rights. Has he fenced?

Mr. ASWELL. Yes; he has fenced it and then put a house on it. Mr. RAKER. A house and a barn?

Mr. ASWELL. Yes.

Mr. RAKER. And been living there, making that his home through these years?

Mr. ASWELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. Your contention is he was living there at the time this final map was presented?

Mr. ASWELL. Yes, sir; if he was not there, then we do not want him or his heirs or assigns considered. He is excluded by the acts of 1871 and 1887.

Mr. RAKER. Since that time either he or his heirs have been upon the land, ever since that time?

Mr. ASWELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. And that is similar to all these 450 cases?

Mr. ASWELL. The patent issued to the railroad has, on its face, a provision that it must not be issued to the railroad company if there was a settler living on it from 1882 to 1887.

Mr. RAKER. Has the railroad company commenced any action to eject these men?

Mr. ASWELL. Yes, sir; we have affidavits showing that they have attempted that recently.

Mr. RAKER. Within the last few months?

Mr. ASWELL. Within the last few months.

Mr. RAKER. Going back 25 years, was there any action commenced by the railroad company to eject these men from the land?

Mr. ASWELL. I am not familiar with it quite as far back as that. Mr. BERNSTEIN. Is it permissible, Mr. Chairman, on the part of anyone representing the opponents to ask Mr. Aswell a question? The CHAIRMAN. That would be in the discretion of the committee.

Mr. BERNSTEIN. I would like to ask Mr. Aswell just one question. The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection, you may ask the question. Mr. BERNSTEIN. Mr. Aswell, will you name one citizen who, of your own knowledge, has been residing on these lands prior to 1882? Mr. Aswell has said he had personal knowledge of these matters, and I would like him to name one citizen, who, within his own knowledge, has been residing on these lands since prior to 1882. Mr. ASWELL. The gentlemen just behind you.

Mr. BERNSTEIN. Do you know that?

Mr. ASWELL. We have affidavits and evidence. I was not with him every day.

Mr. BERNSTEIN. Do you know that Mr. Henderson, the gentleman to whom you refer, sold his claim many years ago, and that there is a deed on record showing such sale, and that he was paid in cash for it?

Mr. ASWELL. Judge Hunter will answer that for you.

STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT P. HUNTER.

The CHAIRMAN. Col. Hunter, you may proceed.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, I will say that, as far as I am concerned, this fight is simply a change of forum. I have been fighting those gentlemen in Louisiana for some years in the courts. I have fought them from the Baton Rouge land office up to the Secretary of the Interior without practical result.

When Mr. Aswell introduced his bill and the committee kindly gave this hearing, these old settlers, whose fight I have been making for years, asked me to come up here and help them. My wife said I was too old. I passed my 66 birthday last May. She said the weather is likely to be bad and your throat is bad; I do not want you to go. I said, When I was a boy 15 years of age I went into the Confederate Army because I thought it was my duty, and I am going to Washington in the same spirit and fight the battle of these poor people.

These poor people have, by the hardest kind of saving, raised a few hundred dollars to pay the expenses of these other gentlemen and myself. I am not here as a paid attorney.

My wife said these people, in raising this small amount of money, have probably deprived themselves and their families of their daily

sustenance. Those are some of the conditions under which I am here before this committee.

We have all sorts of trouble in Louisiana-high water, and things of that kind and we are always asking Congress to build levees, and, while it is no part of my duty to speak of that matter, Congress has just struck all southern Louisiana a very serious blow in the enactment of the tariff bill. But that is not a part of this land question. I will say, however, that I have passed through some of the largest sugar plantations of Louisiana, which have heretofore turned out millions of pounds of sugar, which will not be cultivated this year. But that is apart from this land question. That matter concerns southern Louisiana.

We come from central Louisiana, and this land grant affects central Louisiana, a territory probably 50 miles wide and 60 miles long, on which there is considerable fine pine land. Around Alexandria and out in the Red River Valley we have some of the finest pine land in the world, and it is that pine land which is embraced in this railrad grant and caused this trouble. The land involved in these settlers' contests we have estimated would embrace about 50 per cent of the holdings under this grant.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the total area of the grant?

Mr. NORRIS. I suppose, Mr. Chairman, it is about 200,000 acres. It is considerably less than a million acres.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know the exact acreage?

Mr. NORRIS. The grant of 1871 was assumed to convey to the New Orleans, Baton Rouge & Vicksburg Railroad Co. 3,250,000 acres, but the railroad actually acquired less than 1,000,000 acres.

The CHAIRMAN. That would depend upon the limitation. I want to know what was sought to be done in the act of 1871, which was the original grant.

Mr. NORRIS. Three and a quarter million acres.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that correct?

Mr. NORRIS. The records at the Land Office will bear that out. The CHAIRMAN. What was absolutely granted independent of the restraints and restrictions? I understand you did not get all of the land.

Mr. NORRIS. The proposition is this: Every alternate section was granted, and it was estimated by the Interior Department that that would amount to about three and a quarter million acres, but that happened to be through a section that was covered by old grants, and, due to the fact that there was so much land that was not indemnity land, the company only got less than one-third of the amount which was intended.

Mr. FRENCH. Did they build a railroad sufficient to entitle them to the 1,000,000 acres?

Mr. NORRIS. Yes; they did.

Mr. HUNTER. I had made a statement that the claims embraced some 6 per cent of the total grant. I am sure it can not go beyond 10 per cent.

Mr. FRENCH. In gross, how much?

Mr. HUNTER. Four hundred and fifty claims, at 160 acres each. Mr. Chairman, I had expected to read decisions of the Supreme Court, but with the time limit which is imposed on me I will not