Mr. RAKER. They bought out the original homestead and preemption claims?

Mr. HENDERSON. Yes; and they came off and the others came in. That is done frequently.

Mr. RAKER. That is all.

Mr. SINNOTT. What was the result of the appeal in this land case of yours to the Secretary?

Mr. HENDERSON. I will just leave that to my attorney.

Mr. HUNTER. I understand it was affirmed.

Mr. SINNOTT. The land that is held up?

Mr. BUTLER. Yes, sir; and it was put in his favor and put in No. 16. Mr. KENT. Mr. Henderson, are we to understand your claim is now definitely outlined, so we will know exactly what forties you claim? Mr. HENDERSON. Yes, sir. He has the record that will show it. I can not mark it off on the book here; I can not sectionize it. The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, Mr. Henderson; that will be all.

STATEMENT OF MR. P. M. FUQUA, OF BENTON, LA.

The CHAIRMAN. For whom do you appear, if for anyone, or for yourself?

Mr. FUQUA. For myself and the people of La Salle Parish.
The CHAIRMAN. Are you a settler yourself?

Mr. FUQUA. No, sir; I am a teacher. I am the teacher that the gentleman referred to yesterday evening, charging me to be a school teacher. But, gentlemen, I do not consider that a serious charge, nor do I consider it a discredit or dishonest to be a country-school teacher. Perhaps you men have been country-school teachers in your life (I know President Wilson has been) and while of course you are fortunate in getting a high promotion, while Mr. Hudson and I have not gotten that promotion, yet I trust the possibility is very great for our promotion also.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be a question whether it is a promotion or not.

Mr. KENT. It may be considered a demotion.

Mr. FUQUA. Of course, members of this committee, another charge was made against me for making entry within the past six months. If you deem it advisable for me to clear up that atmosphere, why I will do so at your request.

The CHAIRMAN. You can make any statement you care to, Mr. Fuqua, in the 12 minutes you have.

Mr. FUQUA. I was charged, of course, with being an assignee. I bought this in good faith; I went to the man and paid him his price, $100. I did not buy it for a bushel of potatoes, either. I wanted to be sure, as I am always in making deals, and to be fair-I wanted to be sure that this was a safe property; and, after investigating and studying the act of February 8, 1887, and seeing the clause in the patent, I was satisfied in my mind that that was public land. I construed that act and the clause meaning that it was still public land and subject to entry under the public-land laws of the United States. So, in view of that fact, I was satisfied that I was making application or that I was buying safe property.

I made application, and they turned my application down because it conflicted with the selection or the patent issued to the New Orleans Pacific Railway Co. in 1885. That is the situation in regard to that point with which I was charged.

Of course another point, as to my getting a free trip up to Washington, I do not want to discuss.

Now, gentlemen, I am here representing the old settlers, the settlers on this land, and I am acquainted with the situation as it exists among these people whom I represent. I am a country-school teacher, and in my experience of teaching in different schools in the district in which this land grant is situated there naturally and unavoidably comes within my personal observation the conditions that give rise to the situation that is before you now. These pupils attending my school, who come from homes where this anxiety and where this trouble exists-I have visited their home; I have listened to the pathetic lamentations of the inmates of the home; I have studied their case, and I am constrained to believe that a great injustice has been committed against these people-I am honest in thisby reason of the fact that the sawmill companies are encroaching upon the rights of these settlers and taking their lands away from them. And, notwithstanding the fact that these settlers have sacrifived money, they have sacrificed time, and they have sacrificed their labor to improve their homes, yet they have not title to them.

Now, here are some of the conditions that I want to tell you about, and I have affidavits here from people that will back me up in thisaffidavits [exhibiting papers to the committee]. In some cases the sawmill companies have cut the timber clean from some of these lands, leaving them bare. In other cases they have prohibited the old settler from using the little timber for his own use, and in other cases they have served notice upon them to vacate their homes, which I consider virtually an act of putting innocent men, women, and children out of doors, and the people of that neighborhood look upon this as an outrage that society and civilization should and must condemn. It is high time this state of affairs must cease, and that is why we need legislation for this purpose. If you will permit me, I will read one affidavit. It is very short.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.

Mr. FUQUA. I have others in here.

Mr. HUNTER. Read that one, and file the others.

Mr. FUQUA. I will file the others. There is a letter in here that is not an affidavit from an old man

The CHAIRMAN. You want it to go in the record, too, do you? Mr. FUQUA. No; I guess not. It is written in a language that you could hardly understand. This is the affidavit [reading]: STATE OF LOUISIANA, Parish of La Salle:

Personally appeared before me John A. Kennon, who affirms that the land numbered SE. 1, sec. 1, T. 7. R. 2 E., which I now occupy, and in possession of, was occupied October 27, 1881, the time of the definite location of the N. O. P. R. R., and was kept up until present.

I further affirm that application for this land was made in 1911, which was rejected, and an appeal was made within thirty days.

I affirm that I inclosed my claim with a two-wire fence; that the Good Pine Lumber Co. cut the wire, ran their right of way through my land, and cut my timber, regardless of my pleadings; that they discharged me from their works and refused me employment.

J. A. KENNON.

Done and signed before me this the 9th day of December, 1913. [SEAL.]

J. R. WHATLEY, Notary Public.

Personally appeared before me J. K. Duke, who says that to his certain knowledge the above and foregoing statement is true and correct. [SEAL.]

Signed before me this the 9th day of December, 1913.

J. K. DUKE.

J. P. WHATLEY, Notary Public.

Mr. FUQUA (continuing). That is the way they do some of them. When they do not do like they want them to do, they discharge them from their works and won't give them any employment.

Mr. WHITE. May I ask a question there, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. WHITE. Did Mr. Kennon state he had an agreement with the Good Pine Lumber Co. whereby this timber was to be cut, a scaling be made, and then the timber be held until after the trial; and, after this agreement was made, he went and put this wire around that and tried to prohibit the company from coming in, although they were entitled to it?

Mr. FUQUA. I do not know that.

Mr. WHITE. I happen to know that, because I was making a trip out in the pine woods on a steam engine--a logging engine-and had this agreement with Mr. Kennon to go ahead and cut it.

Mr. FUQUA. Now, these, gentlemen, are some of the conditions that exist that I know of from my personal observation there as a country school-teacher. Now, we have come here--1.200 miles. These old settlers have made a financial strain, as Mr. Aswell said, paying from 50 cents up, or something like that, to get a contribution to send delegates up here to represent them in this matter. They have sent us 1,200 miles for their rights. They only want what is theirs. And, by the way, my claim-the one that I claim-if it does not come under the Aswell bill I do not want it, and I am satisfied that is the position the others take. If these settlements were not initiated under the limited time that the bill provides for, we do not want them. I want just what is right-just what is mine-for I believe that is Government land. And that is all they want-their rights. Congress, they claim, has said what is their land, but it has not been enforced. Congress has declared these lands excepted, and has designated what was the railroad land and the settlers' land.

Now, within your power, honorable committee, I claim lies the future destiny of these unprotected settlers. I say "future destiny," because a man's peace, happiness, liberty, and patriotism is vested in his home. You take his home from him and you have his peace, his liberty, his happiness, and his possibilities. Then, what is life to him? Furthermore, if Congress takes no action in regard to this matter by right of preemption and constitutional authority, public sentiment through the State of Louisiana will sustain them in this belief. If you wish to know to what extent public sentiment reaches I will tell you, it is throughout the length and breadth of the State of Louisiana. In proof of this assertion our legislature passed a bill with the governor and lieutenant governor's signature to it and the vote of every member of the legislature, memorializing and calling the attention of every Congressman to this state of

affairs. Now, I am glad that the settlers have at once had an opportunity to get a hearing before this committee and before the Land Office, and I attribute this opportunity to our Congressman, Mr. Aswell. None of his predecessors has taken so much interest in this as Mr. Aswell has taken, and I attribute this to his honor and to the strenuous efforts he has been making here for months in the interest of the settlers-not from a selfish motive, not from a political motive, but from the motive of right. He is conscientious in this; it is from a right of conscience. I feel again that the truth is coming to light. Some facts that were presented here yesterday a great many of us of Louisiana have not heard of. They have come to light, and these old settlers praying now for their homes, I feel now their prayers are going to be answered; their visions will be made. true; their dreams will be realized, and I think that there will be a time when peace and happiness will come back to them because of the fact that they have had an opportunity to get their homes, and that they will get their homes. I feel that we will have that under this administration.

Now, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, why these settlers' rights have not been recognized. They are human beings, and they have a feeling, and under the Constitution of the United States these feelings and their liberty and their rights must be protected, else our Constitution is of no effect. I appeal to you to legislate in their favor, in favor of these old unprotected citizens, to give them an opportunity to prove their rights. And that is all this bill is to give them an opportunity to prove their rights, to prove that the land is theirs; and if they can not prove that, they do not want it. Let it go to the railroad company and the sawmill companies. We want only what is ours, and only what is right. I may state, as another condition, that the mill agents have gone to some of these people and offered them a vile price of $200 or $300 for $5,000 worth of timber. They would not take it. They will take the chance of losing it first before they will take that, and that is a prevalent condition there, too.

Now, before I close, I wish to express my appreciation of the opportunity of appearing before this intelligent body and working for such an honorable cause to bring relief to the settlers whom I represent.

Mr. GRAHAM. What is the value of the land when it is cleared and ready for the plow?

Mr. FUQUA. Why, it is land that varies. There is some of it that is worth about $3, $4, or $5 an acre, or something like that. There is some of the land that is worth more.

Mr. GRAHAM. The timber is worth more than the land?

Mr. FUQUA. Oh, yes; the timber is worth more than the land. They do not want the land, the mill people; they want the timber. Mr. KENT. I would like to know what you bought for the money you paid. What did you think you bought when you paid the money-what sort of a title?

Mr. FUQUA. All I could buy was the improvement and to take a chance to try to homestead what the law allows me-160 acres.

Mr. KENT. In other words, with that $100 you bought a right to homestead. Then did you go there and try to homestead?

Mr. FUQUA. Why, I made application for the homestead. Of course, I am not on the land, but I have a man in possession of it and, of course, my application may be turned down. But if they ever accept it, I expect to go on it and make a home.

Mr. KENT. You could not perfect a homestead by simplying buying somebody out; you have got to go on there.

Mr. FUQUA. No, sir; I do not intend to do that. I was not buying for speculation.

Mr. KENT. No; I did not mean to imply that you were buying for a speculation.

Mr. LENROOT. You just said those people did not want the land, but they wanted the timber.

Mr. FUQUA. Which people?

Mr. LENROOT. The settlers. Mr. FUQUA. Oh, no. You did not understand me. I meant the sawmill people, because they made that assertion, some of them, that they only wanted the timber. They said, "We will not disturb you or molest you; you just stay in your home. We want the timber."

Mr. RAKER. Is this land, the greater part of it, after it is cleared of the stocks and brush, good agricultural land for the various products that you raise in that country-in Louisiana?

Mr. FUQUA. Some of it; yes, sir. It is very alluvial above, and the people are improving the hills.

Mr. RAKER. Do you raise cotton?

Mr. FUQUA. Some cotton.

Mr. RAKER. And some cane?

Mr. FUQUA. A little cane and corn. Of course, just as it was remarked here, it is one-horse farming.

Mr. RAKER. What I was getting at is whether, when it is cleared, as it appeared to me from looking at that land as you go through it, it is real good agricultural land. I want to know if this kind of land is the same?

Mr. FUQUA. I would term it ordinary land; yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. Is it land that, after it is cleared, a man could make a good farm on it?

Mr. FUQUA. The most of it; yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. When you bought your claim from the man who was in possession did you make inquiry enough to ascertain and to lead. you to believe that you would be able to connect your title back with the original preemptor or homesteader that occupied this claim during the years from 1882 to 1887?

Mr. FUQUA. Yes, sir; I was very particular about that.

Mr. RAKER. You made that inquiry?

Mr. FUQUA. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. And do you feel now that you would be able to go into the court or before the Department of the Interior and establish a chain of title from the original homesteader or preemptor down to yourself?

Mr. FUQUA. Yes, sir. But, of course, I did not make any attempt. to go into the court

Mr. RAKER. Oh, no. If you have the opportunity now, with your deed or contract for this purchase, you believe you can go back and arraign your title and connect yourself with the original homesteader or claimant?